In this case (Case 2.2) in “Well and Good” the issue concerning social determinants is reviewed. IT specifically looks at a woman named Martha, who has suspicion over a growth in her mouth she suspects is oral cancer. However, Martha and her partner are both unemployed and care for three children. So, when her doctors recommend a series of tests and regimens for her to follow she consciously declined treatment since she was not able to pay. This case brings about issues concerning public policy and healthcare.
One of the questions that arose for me: was the length at which universal healthcare should stretch to? In the case, it mentions how in Canada only 50% of low-income citizens. Many people believe that dental care is a luxury form of healthcare. Even in the US, many plans do not cover many dental procedures, as they are not deemed necessary. Under the Affordable Care Act, there is an extreme lack of dental coverage and to get any kind of dental one must get outside care/coverage. However, at what point to we deem medical care as necessary or superfluous. In the case of Martha, her symptoms were seen as a sign of a possible severe illness or it could have been simply a direct result of prior poor oral hygiene. But, with poor coverage for issues such as dental/oral concerns many people are subject to live in conditions that severely lower their quality of life. At what point do we quantify beneficence and try to establish a way to maximize profit from healthcare. Although most people will agree that things like heart conditions and kidney failure are more important to treat for people, is it fair to subject people to live with tooth decay or serious oral issues.
The interesting thing, that ties into the idea of social determinants, is that poor people are the ones that fail to get coverage. It’s not like the coverage for these issues are not an option, they are just not a viable option. I know that universal healthcare programs cannot cover everything for everyone, but where do we draw the line for what is a ‘health privilege’ . How can we protect the underprivileged from being stripped from basic health needs? Since we are able to determine some health measure to be “extra,” what stops other basic needs to be put into that category. I feel that with determinants like this opens a slippery slope to removing more coverage from the poor while only supporting people that have the means to pay for the luxury of healthcare.
Hi Arianna,
I enjoyed reading your post because it highlights a lot of issues that are present in our society. Health care, to some, is viewed as a necessity, but the extent to which and the type of care received is often time very muddling. I wanted to know whether or not you feel that dental care should be covered in basic health care, and then what are your thoughts about other forms of health care, such as eye care, nutritional care, ect. ?
Hi Arianna,
This was a very insightful post that raised a lot of interesting questions surrounding healthcare policy. I agree with you that there is a big problem in determining who has the right to determine what is a need and what is a luxury in terms of healthcare. Personally, I think that the problem of healthcare policy is a direct result of having a representative-based government system. In this system of government, it really is not possible for the people to have a discussion about healthcare that directly translates into policy. In my view, we would be better off in establishing some kind of system that allows the people to more directly talk through healthcare and come up with a plan that works for everybody. Will that work in America? Probably not. However, it would be a good way around the issue of “who determines what is medical necessity?” Nobody should be the ONE to say what is needed and what is not. I am certainly not, and neither is Jason Chaffetz (link below). WE should say what is needed and what is not, and we should consider as many opinions and include as many people in that discussion as possible.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/jason-chaffetz-new-gop-health-care-plan-235762
Hi Arianna,
Great post! I think that health care should cover dental care because oral health is just as important as other aspects of our health. Bad oral health can lead to outcomes that affect the rest of our bodies. Mouth infections can lead to respiratory infections, heart disease, and diabetes. As a result, people would have to go to the hospital to get treated for these illnesses. Not to say that these illnesses are avoidable, but maybe they could be prevented if people had coverage for dental care. I think if we can look at covering other aspects of health that do not seem as important ( dental, eye,) then we can keep our bodies in better condition.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-depth/dental/art-20047475?pg=2
Hello Arianna,
You posed a very interesting question in your post: What length at which universal healthcare should stretch to? I believe the answer you want to hear has to with how much a value money and human life. There is an interesting relationship between how much money someone has, how much time and effort they put in to acquire this money, how they see others who have not spent time acquiring these things. We (I personally think) that we compare our lives to others, and assume that everyone has had the same opportunity to achieve the same spot in life. It become a question of fairness rather then how much the government should stretch universal healthcare. The root of the problem resides in the mind of the american public – if we viewed healthcare with as much concern as public education (which still needs a lot of work…) we would be taking the right steps forwards.