Canterbury v. Spence – Case Brief, Assessment Example

An entitlement program is designed to provide funding for a set of needs that are based upon a change in economic conditions, such as a recession or other type of economic downturn, and under these conditions, eligibility may be increased as a result of economic turmoil and struggles among individuals from different population groups (Dilger & Boyd 8). On the other hand, block grants are designated to provide a specific amount of funding to local and state governmental bodies with broader objectives in mind, such as community development and law enforcement, among other uses (Dilger & Boyd 1). Block grants fill a need to achieve broader goals for states and local communities, given the challenges of improving populations in different ways, including those from different age groups (Dilger & Boyd 1).

Currently, Medicaid is an entitlement program and is not considered to be a form of a block grant, but there have been discussions regarding the conversion of Medicaid funding into a block grant format for states to dispense to clients as needed (Dilger & Boyd 1). Some opponents of this change argue that this type of conversion would be detrimental to the program and would minimize its ability to provide support and assistance for those most in need, such as senior citizens and those from disadvantaged groups who do not have any other type of affordable access to healthcare services (Dilger & Boyd 1 ). A program such as SCHIP is considered to be a block grant, while Medicare is also considered to be an entitlement program which has a much broader reach and focus throughout the healthcare community in order to target large groups of older adults who qualify based upon age (Dilger & Boyd 1).

In order to qualify for Medicaid, eligibility includes the following criteria: 1) Those persons over the age of 65; 2) Those who have a permanent disability; 3) Those who are blind; 4) Those who are pregnant; and 5) Those who are children (LongTermCare.gov). Furthermore, eligible residents must be citizens of the United States and meet specific income requirements that often fall near the poverty level (LongTermCare.gov). These considerations require an examination of Medicaid eligibility requirements in order to ensure that all qualified applicants are able to receive the support and assistance that is required to meet their needs effectively. This program also supports the ability to improve healthcare outcomes for those who are eligible by providing them with healthcare services on a consistent basis.

Medicare funding is provided to older adults over the age of 65, and one of the primary differences with this program is its ability to coexist with other types of health insurance coverage. For many older adults who already have health insurance through a specific retirement plan, Medicare acts as a supplemental form of insurance that coincides with existing coverage to manage healthcare needs on a more consistent basis. On the other hand, Medicaid and SCHIP funding are specific for those who are considered to be disadvantaged or who do not possess other forms of income or insurance to qualify for Medicare, and who may not fall under the age requirement for Medicare coverage. This is an important distinction because it demonstrates the differences between these programs based upon income, along with other factors that impact eligibility, such as age.

Uninsured individuals lack the security and support of an organized health insurance plan that provides coverage for those who qualify. Therefore, these individuals are likely to be highly vulnerable to health concerns for which they are unable to seek care and treatment due to lack of insurance coverage. This is an important reminder of the need to further examine the different areas where being uninsured is a detriment to health, such as the inability to obtain routine testing and screenings that could prevent chronic disease and other serious complications. In addition, it is likely that the uninsured will lack the education and wherewithal to address noticeable health concerns because they are unable to obtain assistance from a healthcare provider due to lack of insurance coverage. This is a difficult set of circumstances to endure and requires an examination of the different tools and resources that may impact health status, purely from an insurance coverage perspective.

In the United States, national health reform has been a significant challenge to address from a political perspective because there are a number of differing opinions regarding this practice that have created a significant political divide among leaders. This has been a raging issue among political parties and has created a divide that continues throughout the U.S., in spite of the implementation of the Affordable Care Act several years ago. In addition, the costs associated with expansive healthcare reform are extensive and require either an overhaul of federal financing programs or an increase in the federal budget to accommodate such a program. These have been significant challenges for the healthcare system and have led to continuous battles over whether or not widespread healthcare reform is a desirable option and if it will have the desired benefits.

The no-duty-to-treat principle requires physicians to treat patients under most circumstances, regardless of their severity, as long as there are benefits for the patients who will receive these treatments (Deyton 2). This is an important reminder of the need to further examine the principles of care and treatment from a patient perspective and to recognize that it is a physician’s duty to treat patients with the utmost professionalism and support, regardless of the condition (Deyton 2). For example, it is possible that some physicians may not elect to treat patients with health issues that may compromise their personal beliefs; however, this conflicts with the responsibility of physicians to treat all patients under most circumstances without consideration of personal beliefs (Deyton 2).

EMTALA ,also known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, represents a means of understanding when a patient may not receive treatment in an emergency setting and when it is possible that a transfer will occur to another facility if a patient has an unstable case (EMTALA.com). This law only applies to specific instances and may not reflect the opinions and perspectives of all hospitals; therefore, additional requirements must be considered when addressing this law under specific conditions (EMTALA.com). In other words, healthcare providers must examine patients to determine if there is an emergency medical condition which requires treatment, and to provide said treatment until a transfer to another hospital is required, given that the patient’s condition has stabilized (EMTALA.com).

In the case of Canterbury v. Spence, information was withheld by a physician that led to a patient’s paralysis, thereby requiring that all patients must be notified of the risk of a surgical procedure before consenting to the procedure (Lawnix). This case reflects the importance of providing patients with the information that is required to make informed decisions regarding care and treatment, along with other factors that contribute to the overall direction and focus of a client’s plan of care and treatment, given that the physician has provide all of the information that is required to make an informed decision (Lawnix). There are exceptions to this rule, but when patients are conscious, they must be provide with adequate information to make an informed decision and consent to a procedure that will have a positive and lasting impact on their health and wellbeing (Lawnix).

The case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey demonstrates the importance of understanding regulations regarding abortions and whether or not “undue burden” has an impact on the decision to have an abortion after the husband has been notified of the decision (Oyez). This is an important step in upholding the provisions of Roe v. Wade, but to also acknowledge the need to inform the husband of the desire to have an abortion before the procedure actually takes place, thereby enabling states to have more of a say in how abortion procedures are conducted (Oyez).

The professional standard of care has evolved over time and provides support for maintaining high quality care and treatment for patients. This process requires an examination of the key principles of clinical care and treatment, thereby creating an environment in which there are sufficient opportunities to achieve growth in order to improve patient care quality. This process is important because it supports an acceptable standard of care that also reflects a need to examine other challenges to promote continuous improvement in how standards of care are met according to patient needs. It is the responsibility of individuals to be proactive in working with patients to expand upon standards of care and improve as necessary to improve quality of life across all population groups.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 has been largely instrumental in supporting an expansion of healthcare access for millions of Americans who otherwise have been unable to receive the proper care and treatment. This has been an important step in the discovery of new methods to improve access to a variety of healthcare services for patients, particularly those in disadvantaged populations. In addition, the ability to obtain insurance coverage with pre-existing conditions has been critical to the success of the Act and in meeting its primary objectives thus far.

Works Cited

Deyton, Lawrence. “A duty to treat.” 11 July 2015: http://www.ethics.va.gov/docs/bkissues/Newsletter_2003Fall_Best_Practices_A_Duty_to_Treat.pdf

Dilger, Robert Jay, & Eugene Boyd. “Block grants: perspectives and controversies.” Congressional Research Service, 11 July 2015: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40486.pdf

Lawnix. “Canterbury v. Spence – Case Brief. 11 July 2015: http://www.lawnix.com/cases/canterbury-spence.html

LongTermCare.gov. “General Medicaid requirements.” 11 July 2015: http://longtermcare.gov/medicare-medicaid-more/medicaid/medicaid-eligibility/general-medicaid-requirements/

Oyez. “Planned Parenthood v. Casey.” 11 July 2015: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_744