Introduction
The article under analysis called Countries Agree to Sue over State Medicaid Repayment Law discusses the legal case, when the counties of Florida file a lawsuit against the state law which require to pay $ 323.5 million for the backlogged bills for Medicaid (Davis, 2012). The legal issues have a great number of regulatory challenges and ethical undercurrents and, therefore, it should be considered in more detail to define the actual problems.
Main body
While analyzing the article, both sides of the debate face a variety of legal and ethical dilemmas. On the part of the counties involved into the Florida Association of Counties, specific attention should be paid to the analysis of such ethical and moral concerns as absence of support from the governmental bodies because their debts were largely due to the errors in the software system leading to duplicated invoice. The counties also blamed the state for being ignorant of the problem of adequate financing of the Medicaid program on supporting the poor and disables. Finally, full reliance on taxpayers prevented the counties form delivering high quality of care to their population.
As per the state government, the authoritative representatives held an opinion that the money invested into the program should be reimbursed so as to balance the budget. Their policies seem to be solid because it is supported by the agreement between the disputing parties. The concluded agreement stipulates that there should be a clear distinction between “long-term hospital care and nursing home bills for patient on Medicaid” (Davis, 2012, n. p.). One the one hand, the actions of the state are legally justified because they are eligible to ask counties to pay back 85 % for what they have lent to the counties. On the other hand, the possibility of emerging errors and supporting facts of duplicated invoice puts doubts on the transparency and ethicality of the state strategies. As a result, a clear ethical dilemma is highlighted, which requires strong evidence and supportive arguments to figure out which strategies and outlooks on health care are both legally and ethically justified.
The problem of tax paying and health care program funding has recently come to the forth because of the lack of efficient health care reforms in the United States. The problem of financing is headily discussed because of the problem of taxpaying and inadequate budget balancing. The controversial situation is also connected with the billing system which leaves much space for discussing legal and ethical issues. Looking from these perspectives, the case under analysis creates arguments in favor of the counties and their intent to promote the policy of transparent taxpaying, as well as encouraging the government to donate money for the development of high quality health care. What is more important is that the article places a strong emphasis on difficulty of the state government in coping with the budgeting process in general and, as a result, healthcare presents the major gap in terms of financing. Therefore, the plaintiff of the case had a justified rationale for filing the lawsuit because they could take an advantage and change the policy of the government. Even if they failed to win the lawsuit, the counties would have other grounds for criticizing the policy of the state.
Though the article is premised on the exposition of mere facts, some ethical and legal undercurrents still appear in the form of direct quotes from the governmental representative of Rick Scott withdrawing the suit, as well as from the opponent of the case. Specifically, the legislative liaison for the Tea Party Network expressed his discontent with the governmental policy: “The state get to have a nice press conference that says, yeah, we balanced our budget…but from the taxpayer perspective, you just shifted the cost around” (as cited in Davis, 2012, n. p.). The state authorities were less argumentative in these matters and clamored for repaying money what was due.
Another strong assumptions stemming from the case is connected with the problem of self-interest and established priorities. At this point, the government is more concerned with balancing budget and regulating finances, which is a rational strategy because it enables the state to take control of the costs and revenues. In their turn, the counties are more focused on regulating the issues at the local level and, therefore, much of the funding they receive spends on the welfare of hospitals and health care programs. The disparity in goals generates more disputes on the purpose of resources allocations, which is another serious ethical dilemma.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the article explores various ethical and legal dimensions of health care funding, as well as the problem of adequate resources allocation among the counties within the state. Because of poor technological support, as well as presence of agreements, the lawsuit against the state generated a number of controversial ideas concerning the justice and transparency of allocating financial resources. At the same time, counties were more concerned with the problem of taxpaying whereas government with the problem of budget balancing, which became the major cornerstone of the case.
Reference
Davis, B. A. (2012). Countries Agree to Sue over State Medicaid Repayment Law. Campa Bay Times. Web.