Ethical Considerations in Disease Management
- Dr Robert A. Baldor
- … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Managed care, with its restrictions on patient and provider autonomy, has dominated the delivery of healthcare in the US over the last decade. The latest model of managed care has focused on disease management programs, which outline optimal cost-effective processes for care, built on evidence-based guidelines. Patients and providers seem to be more accepting of these programs than of the restrictive managed care practices, but ethical dilemmas remain for both patients and providers when participating in such programs. The basic ethical tenets of beneficence (to do good), autonomy (to make one’s own decisions) and non-maleficence (to do no harm), have been well accepted by the medical community. Under managed care these basic tenets have been challenged, with a notable impact on the principle of autonomy; patients lose their choices in selecting care providers, while healthcare providers face restrictions on what pharmaceutical agents they can prescribe and how to care for patients.
Additionally, the changing nature of managing care has highlighted conflicts of interest between: patients and the providers of healthcare; patients and the implementers of health plans; and providers and health plans. Conflicts of interest between various parties involved in healthcare challenge the fundamentals of ethical principles, particularly autonomy and beneficence.
Recently, there has been greater recognition of the ethical notion of social justice (including the competing concepts of distributive and contributive justice), in terms of the provision of healthcare, partly due to the development of concerns over the expense of, and access to, healthcare. Distributive justice reflects the broader societal concerns over the provision of scarce resources for all citizens, and argues for universal coverage schemes. The concept of contributive justice recognizes that principles of equity demand that we allocate commonly collective funds fairly to those who have contributed to the pool of funds; in the realm of healthcare in the US this is particularly relevant for those who have insurance coverage.
Disease management programs offer great potential to improve healthcare. Programs that are developed with attention paid to the principles of beneficence and social justice as well as to concerns regarding patient and provider autonomy can limit conflicts of self-interest.
- Stoddard J, Reschovsky JD, Hargraves JL. Managed care in the doctor’s office: has the revolution stalled? Am J Manage Care 2001; 7(11): 1061–7.
- Baldor RA. Managed care made simple. 2nd ed. Cambridge (MA): Blackwell Science, 1998.
- Presidents Advisory Commission on Consumer Protection and Quality in the Health Care Industry. Quality first: better health care for all Americans; final report to the President of the United States, 1997. Available from URL: http://www.hcqualitycommission.gov/final/ [Accessed 2003 Jan 3].
- Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, Institute of Medicine. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000.
- Wennberg JE, Gittleson A. Small area variations in healthcare delivery. Science 1973; 182: 110–8. CrossRef
- Schuster MA, McGlynn EA, Brook RH. How good is the quality of healthcare in the United States? Milbank Q 1998; 76: 509, 517–63. CrossRef
- Sackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson WS, et al. Evidenced-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM. 2nd ed. London: Churchill Livingstone, 2000.
- Emanuel EJ, Emanuel LL. Four models of the physician-patient relationship. JAMA 1992; 269: 2221–6. CrossRef
- Institute of Medicine. Ethics of health care: conference on health care and changing values. Washington, DC: National Academy of Science, 1973.
- Beauchamp TL. Principles of biomedical ethics. 4th ed. New York (NY): Oxford University Press, 1994.
- Lewin F. BioEthics for health professions. Melbourne: MacMillan Australia Ltd, 1996.
- Morreim H. Immoral justice and legal justice in managed care: the assent of contributive justice. J Law Med Ethics 1995; 23: 247–65. CrossRef
- Edlin M. Healthcare providers empower their patients to help monitor their congestive heart failure. Managed Healthcare Executive, 2001; 12: 30–2.
- Kuttner R. Must good HMO’s go bad? Second of two parts. The search for checks and balances. N Engl J Med 1998; 338(22): 1635–9. CrossRef
- Kaiser Family Foundation. Employer health benefits: 2000 annual survey. Menlo Park (CA). Kaiser Family Foundation, 2000.
- Gawande AA, Blendon R, Brodie M, et al. Does dissatisfaction with health plans stem from having no choices? Health Aff (Milwood) 1998; 17(5): 184–94. CrossRef
- Kerr EA, Krein SL, Vijan S, et al. Avoiding pitfalls in chronic disease quality measurement: a case of the next generation of technical quality measures. Am J Manage Care 2001; 7(11): 1033–43.
- Clancy CM, Brody H. Managed care: Jekyll or Hyde? JAMA 1995; 273(4): 338–9. CrossRef
- Picker Institute. Eye on patients: report of the American public. Chicago (IL): American Hospital Association, 1996.
- Institute of Medicine. Cross in the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001.
- National Committee on Quality Assurance (NCQA). Disease management: accreditation and certification draft requirements for public comment. Washington, DC: NCQA, 2001.
- Ethical Considerations in Disease Management
Disease Management & Health Outcomes
Volume 11, Issue 2 , pp 71-75
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Springer International Publishing
- Additional Links
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Massachusetts, 55 Lake Avenure North, Worcester, Massachusetts, 01655, USA