InWith the continuous dependence on health care resources, U.S. policymakers have seen an increased need for the development of sound, justifiable prioritization methods that strategically allocate critically needed, but scarce health care services and treatments. Policymakers on the Oregon Health Services Commission were tasked with this prioritization dilemma in the late 1980s, when Oregon state legislators approved expansion of its Medicaid program. In the United States, Medicaid acts as a federal/state government health insurance program for low-income individuals and persons with disabilities. At different points in time, the U.S. Federal government dictates the range of coverage that states need to abide by in order to receive federal
…show more content…
One of the justifications behind using cost-effectiveness analysis is that the procedure allows for easier comparison by quantifying the costs of benefits of each treatment (Lecture 1/21/2016). However, in Jonathan Wolff’s article, Making the World Safe for Utilitarianism, he argues that the way in which these costs and benefits are quantified can be problematic and up for contestation due to the way in which the manipulator creates valuations that represent certain costs and benefits (5). Another justification for using cost-effective analysis is that it is useful for identifying interventions most likely to yield greatest net benefit (Lecture 1/21/2015). This is true in the Oregon Medicaid case where treatments were given priority rankings based on how high the expected net benefit from a certain type of treatment was (Hadorn 2219). However, the way in which each treatment was listed based on its priority ranking brought some concerns related to flexibility of moral obligations. Hadorn presents this concern during his explanation of the term, “Rule of Rescue,” (2219). The initial analysis conducted did not take into account human nature where duty-based …show more content…
This method used for the priority list coincides more with the “Priority of the Worse Off” principle. Under the “Priority of the Worse Off” principle, members of society who are worse off are prioritized in the distribution of scare medical resources (Lecture 1/21/2015). The justification behind this principle is that this principle allows for more equality among members of society (Brock 156). The well off contribute to improving the well-being of those who need Medicaid, who through no fault of their own, are not able to live at the same standards as the better off (Brock 156). However, a prominent problem that individuals have with the with the “Priority of the Worse Off” principle is that this would lead to the prioritization in all situations to those in the Medicaid program and the need for equality among all members of society, through the realm of health care, is seen as leveling down those who don 't need
One of the justifications behind using cost-effectiveness analysis is that the procedure allows for easier comparison by quantifying the costs of benefits of each treatment (Lecture 1/21/2016). However, in Jonathan Wolff’s article, Making the World Safe for Utilitarianism, he argues that the way in which these costs and benefits are quantified can be problematic and up for contestation due to the way in which the manipulator creates valuations that represent certain costs and benefits (5). Another justification for using cost-effective analysis is that it is useful for identifying interventions most likely to yield greatest net benefit (Lecture 1/21/2015). This is true in the Oregon Medicaid case where treatments were given priority rankings based on how high the expected net benefit from a certain type of treatment was (Hadorn 2219). However, the way in which each treatment was listed based on its priority ranking brought some concerns related to flexibility of moral obligations. Hadorn presents this concern during his explanation of the term, “Rule of Rescue,” (2219). The initial analysis conducted did not take into account human nature where duty-based …show more content…
This method used for the priority list coincides more with the “Priority of the Worse Off” principle. Under the “Priority of the Worse Off” principle, members of society who are worse off are prioritized in the distribution of scare medical resources (Lecture 1/21/2015). The justification behind this principle is that this principle allows for more equality among members of society (Brock 156). The well off contribute to improving the well-being of those who need Medicaid, who through no fault of their own, are not able to live at the same standards as the better off (Brock 156). However, a prominent problem that individuals have with the with the “Priority of the Worse Off” principle is that this would lead to the prioritization in all situations to those in the Medicaid program and the need for equality among all members of society, through the realm of health care, is seen as leveling down those who don 't need