Matters of Life and Death
I. Identification
Matters of Life and Death: Defunding Organ Transplants for the State of Arizona
II. Management Issues
This case surrounds the controversy brought about by the Arizona state legislature defunding life-saving organ transplant operations. In 1987, the Arizona state legislature voted to eliminate funding for most organ transplants for the indigent through the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS). At the same time of this decision, the legislature voted to extend health coverage to pregnant women and children in a “notch group.” The public controversy began when Dianna Brown died after being denied coverage for a liver transplant that would have saved her life. After her death, there was wide spread coverage of the issue that brought the defunding of certain organ transplants into the national spotlight. The decision to move funds for the poor to mothers and children rather than to life-saving transplant services put the legislature under scrutiny. This case presents that scrutiny and the legislature’s reasoning behind their decision.
III. Required Methods
In order to complete this analysis, I will have to deal with issues dealing with cost/benefit thinking in a context of fairness dealing with medical procedures. I will need to look at whether or not moving funding from transplants to mothers and children did something financially astute for the state of Arizona or if this is a case of mismanagement by the government. I will also have to deal with the issues of limited public resources, growing costs of medical technology, and diminished control of medical services.
IV. Analysis
Question 1: Was the Arizona legislature right in deciding not to fund certain kinds of organ transplants for indigents under the state’s indigent health care program?
I believe that the Arizona legislature was not right in their decision to not fund certain kinds of organ transplants. In this case, there are several issues that arise
Matters of Life and Death: Defunding Organ Transplants for the State of Arizona
II. Management Issues
This case surrounds the controversy brought about by the Arizona state legislature defunding life-saving organ transplant operations. In 1987, the Arizona state legislature voted to eliminate funding for most organ transplants for the indigent through the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS). At the same time of this decision, the legislature voted to extend health coverage to pregnant women and children in a “notch group.” The public controversy began when Dianna Brown died after being denied coverage for a liver transplant that would have saved her life. After her death, there was wide spread coverage of the issue that brought the defunding of certain organ transplants into the national spotlight. The decision to move funds for the poor to mothers and children rather than to life-saving transplant services put the legislature under scrutiny. This case presents that scrutiny and the legislature’s reasoning behind their decision.
III. Required Methods
In order to complete this analysis, I will have to deal with issues dealing with cost/benefit thinking in a context of fairness dealing with medical procedures. I will need to look at whether or not moving funding from transplants to mothers and children did something financially astute for the state of Arizona or if this is a case of mismanagement by the government. I will also have to deal with the issues of limited public resources, growing costs of medical technology, and diminished control of medical services.
IV. Analysis
Question 1: Was the Arizona legislature right in deciding not to fund certain kinds of organ transplants for indigents under the state’s indigent health care program?
I believe that the Arizona legislature was not right in their decision to not fund certain kinds of organ transplants. In this case, there are several issues that arise
References: HHS Gov. "Through the Affordable Care Act, Americans with Medicare will save $5,000 through 2022." United States Department of Health and Human Services. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2012. <http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/09/20120921a.html> "The Health Care Law & You | HealthCare.gov." Home | HealthCare.gov. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2012. < http://www.healthcare.gov/law/index.html> Houseman, Michael . "The Health Care Law & You | HealthCare.gov." Home | HealthCare.gov. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2012. <http://assets.wharton.upenn.edu/~housman/files/UrbanInstitute.pdf> VII. Lessons Learned I enjoyed doing this case report as it dealt with many issues outside of finance as well as important financial issues. In order to complete this analysis, I had to deal with issues dealing with cost/benefit thinking in a context of fairness dealing with medical procedures. I looked at whether or not moving funding from transplants to mothers and children did something financially astute for the state of Arizona or if this is a case of mismanagement by the government. I also dealt with the issues of limited public resources, growing costs of medical technology, and diminished control of medical services. In the end it was a decision that would have to either be based on financial considerations, ethical considerations, or a mix of both. A lot of the issues in this case have also been discussed in my public health ethics class this semester, so this case allowed me to utilize knowledge from other classes along with new financial concepts in order to do my analysis. Whether it is fairness or equality or even cost-effectiveness, there are problems that arise with each approach when used alone. From a financial standpoint, using cost effectiveness analysis is very important in determining social policy matters even with its downfall that it cannot suggest how priorities are set. I would have liked to deal with some numbers associated with cost-benefit analysis just to see how they were done but I was able to understand the basic principles behind the theory through my analysis on this case.