Albany Medical Center
 Search
Home / Caring / Educating / Discovering / Find a Doctor / News / Give Now / Careers / About / Calendar / Directions / Contact
Topic: Health Insurance
January 14, 2013 | Posted By Jane Jankowski, LMSW, MS

In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy and the movie theatre massacre in Colorado, accounts of mentally ill perpetrators are offered as partial explanations as to how these horrific events came to pass. The public outcry for revised gun control measures is understandable and well placed. I don’t disagree. Yet, the predictability of which firearm aficionados may also harbor a latent predisposition toward violence may be an unreasonable task for agencies tasked with licensing weapon worthy citizens, particularly when it comes to assessing someone with a history of mental illness. The paradox of a system which relies on questions about a personal history of psychiatric treatment does not mean an individual has not needed care.  If behavioral health services are not accessible or available, there would not be any record of such intervention. This does not mean that such intervention has not been suggested, desired, or otherwise indicated.  That said, a history of mental health treatment ought to not automatically suggest the applicant should be denied a right offered other citizens.  Focusing funding and effort on firearm marketplace controls may override the much needed attention on community mental health care which are lacking across the nation.  Ensuring our nation also has accessible, high quality behavioral health treatment programs will have benefits which extend far beyond the gun control debates.  Though we may never be able to fully disentangle the issues of gun rights and mental illness, perhaps we can maximize this opportunity to press our leaders into putting some real muscle, in the form of dollars, behind mental health treatment programs.  

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

December 12, 2012 | Posted By Wayne Shelton, PhD

Recently, I attended a debate between two very informed health care professionals about whether or not our country should have a single payer health care system. Each seemed to have their own philosophical or ideological perspective about health care as a basic service in our society and it through their ideological lens that each speaker viewed health care and brought to bear the facts to support their positions. It was striking that these two very informed and thoughtful individuals often disagreed about fundamental facts pertaining to our health care system. 

For example, the opponent of a single payer system supported his claim that turning over health care to the federal government would be a failure at least in part on the assumption government is incompetent to perform this task. He claimed, as other thoughtful conservatives do, that that Medicare and Medicaid are less efficient than private health plans. If the analysis in the first link below, which is part of the Ryan Plan, is true, then perhaps there are some facts to support their case.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit ourwebsite.

September 21, 2012 | Posted By Bruce D. White, DO, JD

In a recent article about medical repatriation in a national bioethics journal, philosopher Mark Kuczewski argues that the practice can be an “ethically accepted option” only if three conditions are met:

  1. Transfer must be able to be seen by a reasonable person as being in the patient’s best interests aside from the issue of reimbursement.
  2. The hospital must exercise due diligence regarding the medical support available at the patient’s destination.
  3. The patient or appropriate surrogate must give fully informed consent to being returned to another country.

Surely Dr. Kuczewski knew – when he wrote the article – how completely absurd these three “conditions” or prerequisites are?

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

September 13, 2012 | Posted By Wayne Shelton, PhD

The Supreme Court ruled this past June that the Affordable Care Act (ACA), otherwise known as Obamacare, was indeed constitutional. But this ruling only occurred when Chief Justice came over to the more liberal side. However, he made it clear that the basis for its constitutionality could not be the commerce clause but rather the right of the federal government to impose new taxes. That is, the government could not require citizens to buy certain services but they could, via elected representatives, impose new taxes to support those services. On the conservative side, there seems to be the notion that health care itself is a normal market service or product like any other. Requiring someone through the imposition of a mandate to purchase health care is therefore the same as requiring them to purchase broccoli. Though most of us on the liberal side are glad that the ACA was deemed constitutional, it causes us considerable pause to leave just a wrongheaded legal understanding embedded in our public policy moving forward.

Broccoli has many health benefits. It is filled with vitamin A and C, folic acid, calcium and fiber. It may help prevent high blood pressure and colon cancer. And it’s really delicious steamed up as an accompaniment with other vegetables and almost any meat or carbohydrate. In fact I would prefer to spend the remaining time in this blog describing all the ways broccoli can be enjoyed and used to promote health. But my point here is only to say, as wonderful as broccoli is, it is dispensable in one’s diet. Former President George H. W. Bush famously claimed his right to refuse to eat broccoli any longer because he was now president and could do as he wished. He just didn’t like it. And as difficult as I find it to empathize with such a sentiment, I must say, it makes virtually no practical difference either to former president Bush, society and to the marketplace in which broccoli is sold. He will hopefully find other vegetables he finds more palatable or take vitamin supplements, or just hope that his genes help him get to a long life. There are countless market products and services just like broccoli, in terms of being really, really good for you, but if you don’t buy them, neither you nor the rest of society will be harmed.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

September 11, 2012 | Posted By Jane Jankowski, LMSW, MS

Plans are underway at some drug store chains and other discount retailers to open in-store clinics which will offer an expanded menu of low cost vaccines and basic clinic services to consumers. Vaccines for flu and pneumonia have been available at retail locations for a number of years, and have become a familiar practice at drugstore chains and other retailers particularly during autumn when the newest flu vaccines are available. A folding table and chairs, consent forms, alcohol swabs and a sharps container typically wait at the end of often long lines of people seeking these prophylactic shots. More recently, several retailers began opening in-store clinics and current estimates of existing in-store clinics hover around 1,300. The pending expansion of these clinics may bring the numbers up to over 3,000 within the next 3 years. 

The self-proclaimed low price leader, Wal-Mart, plans to open independently owned and operated in-store clinics which will treat walk-in patients seven days a week. The list of services ranges from acne care and common vaccines to flu treatment (for those who missed the Wal-Mart flu shots) and upper respiratory infections. It seems reasonable to presume that other in-store clinics are or will be similarly equipped. For the millions of Americans who have difficulty accessing primary care, this may be a tolerable solution which falls somewhere in between going to the ER for these routine healthcare issues and having a primary care physician who can provide comprehensive on-going care. As noted in a piece printed in The Detroit News, the Affordable Care Act will thrust millions of newly insured patients into the waiting rooms of medical offices clogging an already strained primary care system. Perhaps the locating clinics in popular stores is a kind of outreach for clinic owners who  have been unsuccessful in efforts to provide care to underserved populations. I am not convinced these clinics represent such altruistic intentions. This expansion of medical services raises questions about whether or not this venue truly supports the best interests of patients.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit ourwebsite.

August 7, 2012 | Posted By Bruce White, DO, JD

With the Supreme Court upholding the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) constitutional but rejecting the notion that the states had to expand their Medicaid program to cover a significant percentage of the populations, some inequities in health care delivery will only grow.

One might use any number of examples to illustrate identified expected unfairness. For the relatively poor Southern states – Alabama (AL), Louisiana (LA), and Mississippi (MS) – patients covered by Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is significantly higher than the national average now. With the proposed ACA expansion in these three states effected by 2019, the percentage of Medicaid & CHIP-eligible populations would swell from 20% to 27% (AL), 26% to 34% (LA), and 26% to 37% (MS). In Louisiana and Mississippi, these percentages are approaching the number of persons in the state who have traditional private health insurance. [The projected numbers used here are from the Kaiser Family Foundation Website.]

Moreover with the increased numbers of patients who will have Medicaid and CHIP coverage, proportionately more practitioners will be critical in providing the care in these states. Is it realistic to think that Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi, will be able to grow their provider availability by 37%, 32%, and 41% in four years to meet the demand? The national average is 25.7 active physicians per 10,000 persons. Louisiana is very close to the US mean with 24.2 physicians per 10,000, but Alabama and Mississippi are will below the national average with 20.6 and 17.3 physicians per 10,000 respectfully. Is it reasonable to assume that these states will be able to multiply their physician populations to meet any increased demand?

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

July 2, 2012 | Posted By Wayne Shelton, PhD

The decision by the Supreme Court affirming the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) caused many who follow health care closely to breathe a sigh of relief. About 32 million more Americans will now have access to health care insurance. One sticking point that worried many of us was the mandate in the bill requiring everyone to purchase health care. It was frustrating this past March to hear in the oral arguments comparing a requirement for citizens to buy broccoli to a requirement to buy health care, as though both are the same type of market commodities. Many on the right, such as Judges Scalia, Thomas and Alito, expressed concerns that the mandate to require everyone to buy health care was a unconstitutional, a violation of the commerce clause; whereas, many others see health care as a basic public good, which unlike broccoli, everyone requires or will require sooner or later. Fortunately, a legal consensus was reached in the ruling, with Chief Justice John Roberts moving over into the majority in the 5-4 vote. In their ruling, the mandate was not viewed as an expansion of the commerce clause, but rather as a tax, which congress has a right to impose. Regardless of the final legal justification of the ruling, many of us are pleased that the most important piece of health care legislation since Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 is now the law of the land.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers graduate online masters in bioethics programs. For more information on the AMBI master of bioethics online program, please visit the AMBI site.

June 29, 2012 | Posted By Posted By David Lemberg, M.S., D.C.

There appears to be hope for America, as a society, a democracy, and a nation. On Thursday, 6/28/2012, as everyone knows, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by a 5–4 vote. Much was at stake, not the least of which was the possibility of affordable health care for all Americans. But beyond this extremely important outcome, the very nature of our democracy was in play, as well as the potential success or failure of the American political enterprise.

For example, lack of affordable health care for every American diminishes our national enterprise in all sectors.

There are other important considerations involved in how the attack on the ACA played out, including the continuing degradation of our use of language. For example, the Supreme Court justices are consistently characterized as “conservative” or “liberal”. This is an immediate problem, as their individual identities are subsumed in the right vs. left dichotomy. But the meanings of the epithets are also lost. To be conservative means to uphold tradition. To be liberal means to uphold progress. However when justices hold their ideologies closely, neither tradition nor progress receive a fair evaluation. As Hannah Arendt states in Between Past and Future, “the very quality of an opinion, as of a judgment, depends upon the degree of its impartiality”. Ideology is not impartial, and Supreme Court opinions have long appeared to be based on politics rather than justice. Obviously, such a state of affairs is a major problem for a democratic society.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers graduate online masters in bioethics programs. For more information on the AMBI master of bioethics online program, please visit the AMBI site.

April 19, 2012 | Posted By Posted By David Lemberg, M.S., D.C.

Something remarkable is happening in the world of medicine (the field is often considered a monolithic special interest group). On April 4, 2012, nine medical specialty societies released lists of the "Top Five" services that are the most expensive and "have been shown not to provide any meaningful benefit to at least some major categories of patients". These nine lists are the first results of the "Choosing Wisely" campaign, launched by the American Board of Internal Medicine in response to a 2010 article in the New England Journal of Medicine.

That article challenged physicians to take the lead in health care reform. Rather than waiting for the government to impose new standards and regulations, the article encouraged physicians and professional medical societies to identify wasteful services and procedures that could be readily eliminated.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers graduate online masters in bioethics programs. For more information on the AMBI master of bioethics online program, please visit the AMBI site.

April 5, 2012 | Posted By Posted By David Lemberg, M.S., D.C.

Last week's historic three days of arguments before the Supreme Court on the merits of the Affordable Care Act provided many head-scratching moments. Those naive enough to believe that the case was actually going to be considered on constitutional grounds (this being the Supreme Court, after all) were rudely awakened to an apparent actual agenda of partisan politics and corporate interests.

Broccoli was a key theme, startling the 50 million Americans who may be able to purchase green vegetables at the local market but are unable to purchase badly needed health insurance. The welfare of health insurers was a second prominent theme, providing concrete evidence to those who posit that our nation is no longer a government of the people, but rather a "government of the corporation".

The outrage has been profound, including Op-Ed pieces in The New York Times, featured articles in The New Yorker, and commentary in the New England Journal of Medicine.

First, the produce. During the second day of arguments, Justice Scalia attempted to define the market for health care. He said ". . . you define the market as food, therefore everybody is in the market; therefore, you can make people buy broccoli." Chief Justice Roberts picked up the theme as easily as if he were choosing a ripe cantaloupe at his local farm stand. Roberts informed us that "a car or broccoli aren't purchased for their own sake, either." Broccoli is purchased to cover the need for food, we were sagely advised.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers graduate online masters in bioethics programs. For more information on the AMBI master of bioethics online program, please visit the AMBI site.

SEARCH BIOETHICS TODAY
SUBSCRIBE TO BIOETHICS TODAY
ABOUT BIOETHICS TODAY
BIOETHICS TODAY is the blog of the Alden March Bioethics Institute, presenting topical and timely commentary on issues, trends, and breaking news in the broad arena of bioethics. BIOETHICS TODAY presents interviews, opinion pieces, and ongoing articles on health care policy, end-of-life decision making, emerging issues in genetics and genomics, procreative liberty and reproductive health, ethics in clinical trials, medicine and the media, distributive justice and health care delivery in developing nations, and the intersection of environmental conservation and bioethics.
TOPICS