What care should be covered?

The answer to the question of what health care services should be covered by a managed care plan is straightforward; the plan should cover whatever the consumer is willing to pay for. From the plan's perspective, the consumer is the payer, that is, the employer who negotiates the plan; not the individual patient whose personal preferences and interests may be quite different. Since managed care organizations contract with payers to arrange for health care services within a defined set of benefits, there is a broader question as well: Within the benefits chosen by the payer, what actually is covered? Criteria for determining "medical necessity," which managed care plans frequently use as the basis for coverage, are discussed.     

Priority setting in health care: on the relation between reasonable choices on the micro-level and the macro-level

There has been much discussion about how to obtain legitimacy at macro-level priority setting in health care by use of fair procedures, but how should we consider priority setting by individual clinicians or health workers at the micro-level? Despite the fact that just health care totally hinges upon their decisions, surprisingly little attention seems being paid to the legitimacy of these decisions. This paper addresses the following question: what are the conditions that have to be met in order to ensure that individual claims on health care are well aligned with an overall concept of just health care? Drawing upon a distinction between individual and aggregated needs, I argue that even though we assume the legitimacy of macro-level guidelines, this legitimacy is not directly transferable to decisions at micro-level simply by adherence to the guidelines’ recommendation. Further, I argue that individual claims are subject to the formal principle of equality and the demands of vertical and horizontal equity in a way that gives context- and patient-related equity concerns precedence over equity concerns captured at the macro-level. I conclude that if we aim to achieve just health care, we need to develop a complementary framework for legitimising individual judgment of patients’ claims on health care resources. Moreover, I suggest the basic structure of such a framework.     

Individuality and community: The contrasting role of the state in family life in the United States and Sweden1

Underlying moral values of individuality versus community and assumptions about what is a “just society” make public policies toward children vastly different in Sweden and the United States. This article explores the origins, cost, and benefits of welfare policies that permit child poverty in the U. S. as a cost of the high value of autonomy/individuality, and policies that prevent child poverty in Sweden, at the cost of economic competitiveness and individual initiative. I conclude that both extremes of moral values have more social costs than benefits but that children should be protected in any nation as the future of the society.     

Selves and Moral Units

Derek Parfit claims that, at certain times and places, the metaphysical units he labels "selves" may be thought of as the morally significant units (i.e., the objects of moral concern) for such things as resource distribution, moral responsibility, commitments, etc. But his concept of the self is problematic in important respects, and it remains unclear just why and how this entity should count as a moral unit in the first place. In developing a view I call "Moderate Reductionism," I attempt to resolve these worries, first by offering a clearer, more consistent account of what the concept of "self" should involve, and second by arguing for why selves should indeed be viewed as moral (and prudential) units. I then defend this view in detail from both "conservative" and "extreme" objections.     

Jewish and Roman Catholic approaches to access to health care and rationing

In addressing issues of access to health care and rationing, Jewish and Roman Catholic writers identify similar guiding values and specific concerns. Moral thinkers in each tradition tend to support the guarantee of universal access to at least a basic level of health care for all members of society, based on such values as human dignity, justice, and healing. Catholic writers are more likely to frame their arguments in terms of the common good and to be more accepting of rationing that denies beneficial and needed health care to some persons. Jewish writers are more likely to consider individual responsibility for illness in allocation decisions and to accept differences in health care that different members of society receive. The article considers the relevance of both shared and complementary perspectives for deliberations in nations such as the United States.     

Why the United States should adopt a single-payer system of health care finance

Although nothing could be less fashionable today than talk of comprehensive health care reform, the major problems of American health care have not gone away. Only a radical change in the way the U.S. finances health care--specifically, a single-payer system--will permit the achievement of universal coverage while keeping costs reasonably under control. Evidence from other countries, especially Canada, suggests the promise of this approach. In defending the single-payer approach, the author identifies several political and cultural factors that make it difficult for Americans to obtain a clear view of this option. Finally, the author argues that much discussion of rationing is vitiated by bracketing more systemic questions to which the issue of rationing is inextricably linked.     

Measured fairness, situated justice: feminist reflections on health care rationing

Bioethical discussion of justice in health care has been much enlivened in recent years by new developments in the theory of rationing and by the emergence of a strong communitarian voice. Unfortunately, these developments have not enjoyed much in the way of close engagement with feminist-inspired reflections on power, privilege, and justice. I hope here to promote interchange between "mainstream" treatments of justice in health care and feminist thought.     

How Should What Economists Call “Social Values” Be Measured?

Most economists and some philosophers distinguish individual utilities from interpersonal social values. Even if challenges to that conceptual distinction can be met, further philosophically interesting questions arise. I pursue three in this paper, using, as context for the discussion, health economics and its attempt to discern empirically a social welfare function to help guide rationing decisions. (1) To discern these utilities and values in a manner that is morally appropriate if they are to influence rationing decisions, who should be queried? To discern individual health state utilities, persons in precisely those states should be asked (generically, “patients”), but for social values, representatives of the general public should be. (2) To discern social values, what should representatives of the public be asked? They should be asked “person trade-off” (PTO) questions that encompass their own self-interest, not PTO questions that focus only on others. (3) What must public representatives understand before they respond to such questions? Despite the philosophically complex problem of patient adaptation, they should understand (among other things) the health state utilities elicited from actual patients with the conditions at issue.     

Health care as an essential building block for a free society: the convergence of the Catholic and secular American imperative

As the twentieth century closes, marked by triumphal strides in medical advances, the American society has yet to ensure that each person has access to affordable health care. To correct this injustice, this article calls on the nation's political and corporate leaders, providers, and faith-based groups to join all Americans in a new national conversation on systemic health care reform. The Catholic faith tradition is one that compels both a proclamation to ministry values and a commitment to speak out against the challenges or threats to what are essential to the well-being of individuals and society. The Catholic health ministry must therefore be both a voice for the voiceless and an agent of transformation. The nation's goal should be to "reposition" health care from its status as an important, but ultimately optional building block to one that is essential.     

Affirming the Existential within Medicine: Medical Humanities, Governance, and Imaginative Understanding

This paper first distinguishes governance (collective, autonomous self-regulatory processes) from government (externally-imposed mandatory regulation); it proposes that the second of these is essentially incompatible with a conception of the medical humanities that involves imagination and vision on the part of medical practitioners. It next develops that conception of the medical humanities, as having three distinguishable aspects (all of them distinct from the separate phenomena popularly known as "arts-in-health"): first, an intellectual enquiry into the nature of clinical medicine; second, an important dimension of medical education; third, a resource for moral and aesthetic influences upon clinical practice, supporting "humane health care" as the moral inspirations behind organised medicine. Medical humanities sustains these three aspects through paying proper attention to the existential and subjective aspects of medicine. By encouraging authentic imagination among health care practitioners, medical humanities aligns well with both humane health care and governance in the sense of self-regulation. However, it can neither be achieved mechanistically nor well-measured through proxies such as patient satisfaction. Above all, it should not be allowed to supply, through inappropriate qualitative "targets," new forms of management tyranny.     

The Significance of the Concept of Disease for Justice in Health Care

In this paper, I want to scrutinise the value of utilising the concept of disease for a theory of distributive justice in health care. Although many people believe that the presence of a disease-related condition is a prerequisite of a justified claim on health care resources, the impact of the philosophical debate on the concept of disease is still relatively minor. This is surprising, because how we conceive of disease determines the amount of justified claims on health care resources. Therefore, the severity of scarcity depends on our interpretation of the concept of disease. I want to defend a specific combination of a theory of disease with a theory of distributive justice. A naturalist account of disease, together with sufficientarianism, is able to perform a gate-keeping function regarding entitlements to medical treatment. Although this combination cannot solve all problems of justice in health care, it may inform rationing decisions as well.     

The turn to the local: the possibility of returning health care to the community

It is not too early to suggest that the attempts to place medical cae in private hands (through group insurance arrangements) has not fulfilled its promise--or better, the promises that were made for it. Yet history has not been kind to plans to make government the single payer, and the laudable progress in medical technology has placed high-technology medical care beyond the reach of most private budgets. In this paper I suggest that the major problem of the U.S. health care system as presently conceived is a failure of legitimacy, and I put forward a proposal that purports to solve that problem. The proposal is to localize health care, on the model of a public school system, on the argument that such localization will answer most of the questions of legitimacy at the core of the private insurance imbroglio, provide a brake for medical costs, while preserving our ability to take advantage of the most advanced medical interventions. I present some initial arguments for the proposal, but await its proof in the dialogue emerging as the present insurance system collapses.     

Just health care (I): Is beneficence enough?

Few in our society believe that access to health care should be determined primarily by ability to pay. We believe instead that society has an obligation to assure access to adequate health care for all. This is the view explicitly endorsed in the President's Commission Report Securing Access to Health Care. But there is an important moral ambiguity here, for this obligation may be construed as being either beneficence-based or justice-based. A beneficience-based construal would yield a much weaker obligation with respect to the distribution of health care. In the first section of this paper I argue that the President's Commission is committed only to this weaker construal of this obligation. In the second section I argue that such a beneficence-based obligation is really rooted in a libertarian conception of justice, similar to that recently articulated by Engelhardt, and that this conception is seriously flawed when it comes to effecting a just distribution of health care.     

Institutional integrity in Roman Catholic health care institutions.

Issues of institutional identity and integrity in Roman Catholic health care institutions have been addressed at the level of individual institutions as well as by organizations of Catholic health care providers and at various levels in the Church hierarchy. The papers by Carol Taylor, C.S.F.N., Thomas Shannon, Kevin O'Rourke, O.P., Gerard Magill in this volume provide a significant contribution to concerns of Roman Catholic health care institutions as they face the challenges of providing health care in a secular, pluralistic, market-driven economy. One way to understand institutional integrity is as a measure of the coherence between what an institution identifies as its commitments (its stated moral character), what an institution does (its manifest moral character) and an institution's fundamental moral commitments (its deep moral character). The essays in this volume support this model of integrity. Although it is not their explicit focus, the four essays together provide a vision of institutional integrity for Catholic health care institutions. Each author focuses on one of the three central aspects of integrity: what one identifies as one's commitments (Taylor), how one's actions reflect one's values (Shannon and Magill), and what one is or what one values at a deep level (O'Rourke). I will offer a brief overview of the ways in which the integrity of Catholic health care institutions has been addressed. Then I will consider the four essays and show how each offers an analysis of one of the three critical elements of integrity.     

Pulling the plug on clinical equipoise: a critique of Miller and Weijer

As clinicians, researchers, bioethicists, and members of society, we face a number of moral dilemmas concerning randomized clinical trials. How we manage the starting and stopping of such trials--how we conceptualize what evidence is sufficient for these decisions--has implications for both our obligations to trial participants and for the nature and security of the resultant medical knowledge. One view of how this is to be done, "clinical equipoise," recently has been given an extended defense by Paul Miller and Charles Weijer in their article "Rehabilitating Equipoise." The present paper critiques this position and Miller and Weijer's defense of it. I argue that their attempted rehabilitation fails. Their analysis suffers from a number of confusions, as well as a failure to make crucial distinctions, adequately to clarify key concepts, or to think through exactly what needs to be established to justify their claim. We are left with little reason to uphold the clinical equipoise criterion.     

Caring about patients and caring about money: the American Psychiatric Association code of ethics meets managed care

Although the medical profession's codes of ethics have rightly been criticized for having claimed authority to decide questions of medical ethics for society, codes continue to provide crucial guidance to the individual clinician in matters of ethics. Examination of the code of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) shows that while it emphasizes the psychiatrist's fiduciary responsibility to individual patients, it ignores the crucial dimension of stewardship responsibilities to society. As a result, the ethical pronouncements of the APA have thus far been of little use to clinicians with regard to the major issues posed by managed care. In contrast, the code of the National Association of Social Workers considers the ethics of social institutions as well as those of individual practitioners, and advises clinicians on how to manage the inevitable and legitimate tensions between fiduciary and stewardship commitments. Until the APA extends the scope of its ethical vision, it will not be able to help clinicians struggle constructively with the question of how it is possible to "care about patients" and "care about money."     

Justice,Health, and Healthcare

Healthcare (including public health) is special because it protects normal functioning, which in turn protects the range of opportunities open to individuals. I extend this account in two ways. First, since the distribution of goods other than healthcare affect population health and its distribution, I claim that Rawls's principles of justice describe a fair distribution of the social determinants of health, giving a partial account of when health inequalities are unjust. Second, I supplement a principled account of justice for health and healthcare with an account of fair process for setting limits or rationing care. This account is provided by three conditions that comprise "accountability for reasonableness."     

Justice, health, and healthcare

Healthcare (including public health) is special because it protects normal functioning, which in turn protects the range of opportunities open to individuals. I extend this account in two ways. First, since the distribution of goods other than healthcare affect population health and its distribution, I claim that Rawls's principles of justice describe a fair distribution of the social determinants of health, giving a partial account of when health inequalities are unjust. Second, I supplement a principled account of justice for health and healthcare with an account of fair process for setting limits of rationing care. This account is provided by three conditions that comprise "accountability for reasonableness."     

The Prescribing Clinical Health Psychologist: A Hybrid Skill Set in the New Era of Integrated Healthcare

The prescribing clinical health psychologist brings together in one individual a combination of skills to create a hybrid profession that can add value to any healthcare organization. This article addresses the high demand for mental health services and the inequitable distribution of mental health practitioners across the nation. The close link between physical and mental health and evidence that individuals in psychological distress often enter the mental health system via primary care medical clinics is offered as background to a discussion of the author??s work as a commissioned officer of the U.S. Public Health Service assigned to the Chaparral Medical Center of La Clinica de Familia, Inc. near the U.S.?CMexico border. The prescribing clinical health psychologist in primary care medical settings is described as a valuable asset to the future of professional psychology.