Introduction
Healthcare reasoning happens when people receive reliable treatment preferentially, which is considered an ethics breach. This situation occurs when there are insufficient healthcare resources because of a disaster or epidemic (Singh & Moodley, 2020). The necessity of teamwork to make wise decisions has significant consequences for nursing (Born & Levinson, 2019). Healthcare rationing may hurt society and people if it is not appropriately addressed. Healthcare providers may see and treat fewer people due to limiting access to care. Deciding who should and should not receive treatment becomes more difficult, complicating care delivery.
An Overview of Healthcare Rationing
A situation where healthcare practitioners are required to choose who will get care is presented by healthcare rationing. The distribution of resources is unfair since it depends on age; for example, the old population is seen as a burden on society and the healthcare system (Fink, 2020). As a result, older people are marginalized and isolated as a result of the condition. Health care rationing can be viewed as discrimination on a moral level since it might restrict older people’s access to the same resources and care as younger ones. Older persons may feel neglected or treated unjustly, contributing to sentiments of exclusion and marginalization. Rationing medical care based on age might thus have detrimental effects on one’s health.
Key Causes of Healthcare Rationing
Rationing of medical attention is common during pandemics like the H1N1 flu and COVID-19. For instance, a lack of resources during the COVID-19 epidemic forced China to ration healthcare. Due to the spike in demand for healthcare that pandemics bring, healthcare is rationed. Natural catastrophes are another important factor in the problem. Because of the increased demand for healthcare caused by hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, and other catastrophes, the population can be severely burdened, and healthcare systems can be compromised (Bell et al., 2021). For instance, Dr. Laura Evans was only left with six power outlets for a 50-patient unit following Hurricane Sandy (Fink, 2020). This occasionally prompted practitioners to implement healthcare rationing.
The Implication of Healthcare Rationing
By restricting the number of patients who may get essential services and treatment, healthcare rationing restricts access to care. When it comes to therapies and treatments that can save lives, the situation is complicated. Additionally, it harms people by decreasing their odds of surviving.
Additionally, healthcare rationing creates a difficult ethical conundrum when the physician must decide between two morally righteous options. The decisions taken have reduced the value of human life and restricted access to healthcare. Therefore, healthcare rationing is an issue because it interferes with the moral judgment of the practitioners. Rationing in healthcare hurts the nursing field by raising uncertainty. The providers’ productivity is hampered by providing preferred care (Born & Levinson, 2019). When a caregiver is uncomfortable, stress levels rise, and performance suffers.
Need to Address Healthcare Rationing
A purposeful restriction of healthcare services to specific groups leads to healthcare rationing, highlighting the need to address the issue (Singh & Moodley, 2020). The critical care unit managers occasionally have to decide whether patients’ lives would benefit from specialized equipment (Fink, 2020). Negative patients are more likely to be neglected by caregivers (Bell et al., 2021). For instance, age-based rationing in Italy caused older people to suffer since they were thought to have a low chance of surviving the COVID-19 epidemic (Fink, 2020).
Possible Solutions
Providers, the government, patients, and insurance companies must all work together to reduce healthcare rationing. Government measures to support and fund relevant groups are among potential remedies. Other options include launching low-cost health education programs, streamlining clinical medicine workflow, and creating customized services through insurance companies. Subsequently, the government must work closely with the public to address healthcare rationing.
A primal policy lever adopted consists of prevention and wellness. For example, in Australia, healthcare systems emphasize preventive approaches to slowing the growing demand for healthcare (Brownson et al., 2020). When people are taught the importance of healthy lifestyle choices, they are empowered to make informed decisions (Bell et al., 2021). Individuals should be encouraged to undertake regular check-ups and screening to help them catch any issues early. When a person exceeds the stipulated limit, health insurers may refuse coverage or service reimbursement.
Additionally, the most prevalent type of rationing is likely the denial of care to those who lack insurance. Alternative therapies are rarely covered by insurance, which causes unhappiness (Torrey, 2020). It is conceivable that insurance firms play a significant role in healthcare rationing and that they prioritize profit over solving the problem. According to Born and Levinson (2019), such insurance decisions go against the Choose Wisely campaign’s aims. To prevent insurance firms from promoting rationing, the government must regulate them.
Conclusions
As a result of its effects on the healthcare system’s environment, access restrictions, and ethical conundrums that physicians must resolve, healthcare rationing is a troublesome occurrence. A segment of the population suffers from rationing complicated care delivery, which also lowers the efficiency of healthcare workers. The government must give sufficient funding and incentives to ensure that healthcare professionals deliver high-quality treatment. By creating and executing fair and equitable policies, the government should reduce the rationing imposed by insurance firms. To ensure they make wise decisions, patients should also be instructed on healthy habits and urged to take charge of their health.
References
Bell, S. A., Singer, D., Solway, E., Kirch, M., Kullgren, J., & Malani, P. (2021). Predictors of emergency preparedness among older adults in the United States. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 15(5), 624-630. Web.
Born, K. B., & Levinson, W. (2019). Choosing Wisely campaigns globally: A shared approach to tackling the problem of overuse in healthcare. Journal of General and Family Medicine, 20(1), 9-12. Web.
Brownson, R. C., Burke, T. A., Colditz, G. A., & Samet, J. M. (2020). Reimagining public health in the aftermath of a pandemic. American Journal of Public Health, 110(11), 1605-1610. Web.
Butler, S. M. (2022). Achieving an equitable national health system for America. Brookings. Web.
Fink, S. (2020). The hardest questions doctors may face: Who will be saved? Who won’t? New York Times. Web.
IUCN. (2020). IUCN statement on the COVID-19 pandemic. Web.
Leu, C. (2015). The best natural disaster experts to follow on the web. Wired. Web.
Singh, J. A., & Moodley, K. (2020). Critical care triaging in the shadow of COVID-19: Ethics considerations. South African Medical Journal, 110(5), 355-359. Web.
Smith, S.H. (2020). Rationing of healthcare before, during, and after COVID-19. Baylor College of Medicine. Web.
Torrey, T. (2020). How healthcare rationing works. Verywell Health. Web.
