Unethical Privileges # 8

Competitive drug stores issues $25.00 gift cards for new or tranferred prescriptions. The problem with this is if you have a government funded insurance such as tricare, medicaid,medicaire etc. You are not qaulified for this according to federal law. The reason this is against federal law is because the government wants their patients to get their prescriptions filled for their health and not as an icentive for $25.00. These drug companies have been issuing these gift cards to these patients for their business. The reason this is unethical is because the goal of health care is to improve a patient's health and quality of life and not to gain their business by giving them money in return. This competitor coupon has also placed patient's at a disadvantage because they go from one pharmacy to another this leaves room for missed interactions and poor intervetion. Now pharmacist has to explain to the customers mainly the elderly why the cannot get the coupon any more. The elderly think the pharmacist is being mean to them when the pahrmacist is doing what is told and is going by the law. It is more important for a patient to stay at one pharmacy instead of "coupon shopping". This allows the pharmacist to get to know the patient if they see them on a regular basis, build a relationship with the patient and provide the patient with the best service ( counseling and monitoring). Because of a government funded insurance these people do not get the benefits of regular insurance carriers to receive the gift card. Not only is this unethical this is just wrong because it is bribary and for business and it goes against morals and ethic standards of health care.

More Trouble Ahead In Long Term Care Is This Ethical # 7

On April 10,2007 Sam Freidman wrote a column in the P&C National Underwriter titled Trouble In Ltc Market Deepens. In his column he basically pionted out all the issues of how Barack Obama will expose the wrong doing in the long term care market. Mr. Freidman stated," The long-term care insurance sector made a powerful enemy last week when presidential candidate Barack Obama called for a wide-ranging federal investigation of reported abuses by carriers of elderly claimants. Just what the industry needs--another high-profile Washington probe of alleged insurer wrongdoing." To me the President Elect Barack Obama was right on when he spoke about the mess that our long term care is heading in. It appears that Mr. Freidman do not agree with the speech he think Obama is just another political figure blowing hot air. The President Elect perception on this is that he seems to think more Federal regulations are needed in our health care system to get the system moving in the right direction. Not every one agrees with this, some people tend to think the government interfered enough thats why we are in this mess in the first place. Poeple like Sam Freidman thinks this is not a perception but reality. In his column he go on to write, " The problem, again, is not one of perception, but of reality. The politicians might be capitalizing on the missteps of insurers, but the politicians didn't make the missteps in the first place. Will federal regulation help? Probably not. In fact, meddling by Uncle Sam could cause more harm than good in the long run.
But either way, insurers have no one but themselves to blame for their mishaps. Everyone talks the talk about putting policyholders first, but unless everyone walks the walk, this industry will continue to be hammered by lawmakers of all stripes, and rightfully so." The question arise is this ethical. I do not think this is ethical at all people are being treated unfair the people of the United States Of America is being ripped off by insurance carriers and that is making our long term care head in the wrong direction. In this country we are about the dollar thats what counts and i hate to say it but that is why our country is way behind in health care compared to some other countries. From an ethical stand piont is the insurance industry being fair on the American people or are they looking out for themselves. We all know the answer to this question that is why we are in this mess in the fisrt place. I think Barack Obama has a good plan to clean up the greed in the insurance industry and get our health/longterm care back on tract where it needs to be.

informed consent not needed in some cases # 6

In some cases informed consent is needed before a doctor can work on you as a patient. The signed piece of paper is there to cover the doctors rear end if a mistake is made. In a lot of cases informed consent is not needed. For example, if a person arrives at a hospital on concious and is in bad condition the doctor will automatically work on the patient right of way. The status of the patient will determine if cosent is needed. One would think the doctor because of his oath he swore upon which is the hippocratic oath he would perform the surgery corectly to perserve your life. The oath is to do no harm which is the same as the values in medical ethics. The main two values in medical ethics are benefience wich mean a practitioner should act in the best interest of the patient and non maleficence which is first do no harm. Medical ethics is a field of applied ethics and the study of moral values and judgement as they apply to medicine. With that said if a physician takes an oath which states first do no harm dont you agree that he has moral values not to harm you in any way.

The Plan B Pill # 5

In the year 2003, the Food And Drug Administration approved a pill to help stop women from being pregnant. When this pill first arrived on the scene women had to have a written prescription for it now it has become so popular you can get it behind the counter. I do not agree with getting the pill behind the counter because to me it is sending the wrong message to younger adult and teenage girls. The message is simply saying it is ok to have unprotected sex if you become pregnant you dont have to go to the doctor any more you can just go to your local CVS or Walgreens pharmacies and get a pill to make you menstrail period come on. This message is letting kids have sex with out their parents even noticing because they can get the pill easly if they are over the age eighteen. Todays teens are smart they will get a friend or a close family member to get the pill for them if they are not of age. This pill's message is just as negative as the cigarette messages on television. Today this pill is so popular among college campuses world wide it even has a nick name known as, "college candy" to me this is sad these girls are taking this so much and not seeing the real risks they are putting them selves in. These kids are abusing this drug i think they should go back to when the pill first arrived on the scene and let the doctor prescribe it there for parents can know whats going on with their teen daughters and the girls could be counseled about taking the madication and the risks of it if they take it to much. With doctors writing prescriptions for this medication the girls also can get checked for any diseases form having sex along with being checked for pregnancy. I think they law should change back and let the doctors prescribe this medication because if the young girls can get it behind the counter by a friend or a older family member they will not go get checked for other diseases they will be worried about being pregnant and what would their parents think or say to them. I think changing the law was wrong and unethical this may cause more harm than good. These kids might be thinking they are freeing themselves from being pregnant but who knows what other diseases that might of occured from having unprotected sex. I say put the drugs back into the doctors hands and let them prescribe it there for the teens can get checked for other diseases and parents can know whats going on with their children.

change in insurance blog # 4

when i was a kid my mother worked as a nurse at Shands Hospital in Gainesville Florida. I remember going to the doctor and they would ask her if she had insurance. She would pull out this card that read Blue Cross and Blue Sheild. Because I was born with asthma I had breathing problems as a child. I remember going back and fourth to the hospital. My mother would some times get my medicine from the hospital's pharmacy or she would go to the nearest place by our house. The point is she could go any where to get the medication I needed to make me feel better. Now that I am all grown up and have my own insurance through a company named Aetna things haved changed a lot. Now these insurance companies have this thing where they do not cover pre-exsisting conditions. That mean here I am a college student who is struggling and have a health problem and cannot be covered for it. Because I was born with asthma I cannot be covered for it under Aetna this is their policy. They also have this policy if I were go to a pharmacy and get a perscription filled through my insurance then that is the only place I have to use to get my medication. I ask this question to my self, is this ethical? the answer to this question is no, the insurance companies are not acting ethical at all. I feel if I have a condition they should threat it that is the reason for getting insurance right. How I found out that they do not threat pre-exsisting conditions is when I recently went to the emergency room for shortness of breath they billed my insurance carrier they wrote me back and it stated they cannot pick up the bill because of my pre-exsiting condition. We all know how much going to the doctor for asthma can cost. I think this is wrong and something should be done about this. this is a wayof ripping off the American people who think they are being covered for something when they go to the doctor and they are not. The bills come back to them and then go on their credit because they cannot afford it. Things haved changed so much from childhood to an adult and they will get worse as our children grow up.

Getting the run around blog # 3

Today tuesday October 7, 2008 I was standing in line at the CVS counter to pick up a prescription. I over heard a young woman telling the pharmacist about a problem she was having. She was complaining about how her legs had been giving her problems over the past couple of days. She proceeded to ask the pharmacist if there was something that she could do because she kept falling. Her doctor told her that she had Vertigo and that was the reason for mishappenings. She later explained how she had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes but her doctor did not put her any medication despite the fact that she had low or mid-high blood glucose levels every morning. He basically told her she needed to eat less carbohydrates because she was a little over weight. She also expressed that she had concerns with her vision and had trouble seeing which made the pharmacist think that her blood glucose was getting out of control and could be heading in the wrong direction. The pharmacist recommended her to see a specialist and she stated that she have a future appointment to see her primary care physician to receive a referral for an endocrinologist. She also stated her blood pressure had been elevated and the doctor told her she was just having stress. She also had a concern about her thyroids but the doctor refused to do simple blood work just to assure the patient that nothing was wrong with her. I was shocked to hear this conversation and amazed at how much a doctor could lose compassion and care for this patient. I felt really bad for the girl because she was a college student just like me and she was receiving no medical attention from her doctor. She was also having issues with her vision. The pharmacist thought the complications maybe associated with diabetes and she asked the patient if she had recently had an eye exam. She responded saying that her insurance would not cover her to receive an eye exam because she had her lens repaired in 2007. To me this is a sad case of getting the run around from her doctor and insurance company. one would think living in a rich and powerful country like America health care would be better.

The Scheme blog # 2

on monday spetember the 15th,2008. i was reading a magazine artical about a woman who used the health care system to her advantage for personal financial gain. the woman went to the pharmacy to get a birth control perscription filled. the pharmacist filled the perscription wrong. the lady received allegra instead of birth control pills. the woman took the pills every day and became pregnant. after she became pregnant she backed tracked her steps to the her doctor and come to find out the pharmacist had filled the wrong perscription. the woman wanted to hold some one liable, so she sued due to a dispensing error. the dispensing error resulted in her having her life altered. when she took the pharmacist to court the judge made him responsible for the child, and he had to pay child support for the next eighteen years even though the child was not biologically his. the ethical part about this is:
1. She should of had good moral values and returned the medication( birth control pills come pre packaged and allegra does not).
2. the judge was wrong in this case because the pharmacist has to pay childsupport for a child that is not his. and he will have no parential rights for this child.
3. she deserve punitive damage but not to the extent of eighteen years of child support.
personally, i think the woman and the guy she laid with that is the true father of the child took advantage of the system and thought of a get rich quick scheme.