science conquers new barriers every day H u m a n i t i e s

Please reply to the following posts, 70 words minimum for each reply.

Post # 1 DF

You could say that HMOs originated to provide affordable quality health care, and that is what prompted the rapid expansion of Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs).

According to the textbook, the National Law on Health Planning and Resource Development tried to combine health programs to improve cost, quality, and access to health, but to no avail.

On the other hand, the legislation established new local organizations, health systems agencies (HSA), requiring many representations, providers, boards, committees, etc., were largely ineffective for the same reasons as their predecessor organizations, then they failed to establish important strategies to address the cost, quality and access issues that existed in health care, so federal support for those agencies was withdrawn.

According to the textbook, that’s when, in 1973, HMOs were developed that were supported by the Health Maintenance Organization Act through grants for federal demonstration projects.

The HMO is responsible for the financing and delivery of comprehensive health services to a population registered by fixed prepaid rate. The concept offered by HMOs was widely accepted, these organizations represent the majority of people with private insurance, there was phenomenal growth in these managed care organizations, it was between 1992 and 1999, according to the textbook.

Later, as everything changes over time, due to costs and consumer complaints, managed care organizations began to struggle.

Initially, they were seen as a way to control spiraling costs and still provide quality care, but in early 2001, a spinoff of managed care organizations, preferred provider organizations (PPO), gained more popularity.

I consider these agencies to be very important to consumers, HMOs still work well for some people, and PPOs may be better but they don’t work for other people because their employers don’t have it.

Post # 2 LA

Almost every medical or technological advance seems to be accompanied by new and vexing ethical dilemmas. Yet, the United States has no structure in place to resolve such issues. Should the federal or state governments take responsibility for ethical decision-making and for protecting the public? If neither, what might be other options for providing ethical guidelines and oversight?

Science conquers new barriers every day that expand our possibilities of benefiting from it, but as it progresses, new moral dilemmas arise that should be clarified. It is evident that the ethical boundary of the therapeutic purpose has been widening as the technical possibilities have made it possible to respond to social needs. However, it is also evident that in all these assumptions, nobody acts with selfish ends. In any case, the therapeutic purpose must remain firmly anchored as an ethical border. And the best way to ensure it is the requirement of prior authorization in each case. Right now, due to the pandemic, the health care system is facing dilemmas in making technical decisions, especially with regard to who should be assigned to intensive care beds? In order of arrival? Should they take a ventilator from a patient with a limited chance of survival and given to another with a better chance? If two patients have the same medical need and probability of recovery, do they choose the youngest, or the one with the greatest number of dependents? Do doctors and respiratory therapists, or even police and firefighters, take priority? In routine times, emergency room physicians operate on egalitarian principles, offering critical care on a first-come, first-served basis on the basis that everyone’s life is the same, but the approach becomes more utilitarian in times of catastrophe. Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) outlines general principles, it is up to each hospital, health system, and state to decide the policy. The result is a mixed system. States like New York and Minnesota have detailed guidelines for resource allocation; others have no guideline. Setting clear guidelines is important to the population in general. The shift from routine to extreme emergency care during a crisis can be disconcerting for those who are denied care, and families who are suddenly no longer allowed to visit or help making health decisions.

Post # 1 JF

It is true that medical and technological advances can be accompanied by numerous complex ethical dilemmas, such as raising questions regarding the quality of life of a patient whose life is extended because of a medical or technological advance. As well as the ethical dilemmas regarding the patient’s right to die. Another ethical concern was that new advances may work well and improve the quality of life for some patients and not others. As well as what cost are most appropriate due to the use of new technology contributing to higher health care cost for patients.

The American Medical Association or AMA, as well as the federal government both have programs developed to address these issues and provide essential information needed to make such decisions. The American Medical Association has three programs dedicated to assess the consequences of medical advancements. In 1972, Congress passed the Technology Assessment Act and the Office of Technology Assessment was created. This was an agency that works directly with congressional committees by assessing and providing them analyses of new technical issues. Furthermore, in 1989 Congress also created The Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. This agency conducted research to understand the best outcomes of healthcare at clinical and systems levels.

In my opinion, I believe both federal and state governments should take responsibility for ethical decision making in order to protect the public and should have certain policies in place to do so. As elected government officials they have a responsibility to look out for the safety of the public by overseeing what happens within their communities and keeping the public informed of new advances and outcomes.