There is a wide range of problems at the confluence of healthcare and law-making that deserve attention, and lobbying is one of them. As is clear from the article by Blumenthal and Grim (2015), the Alliance for Quality Home Nursing Care with its partner group agreed to give almost $3 million to undo certain changes related to the implementation of ACA. Such partnerships may have both positive and negative consequences for healthcare users.
The example of lobbying efforts presented in the article under analysis demonstrates that there is a variety of ways to impact decision-making in healthcare. First of all, they include direct collaboration with well-known and powerful lobbyists, which usually involves significant financial contributions (Blumenthal & Grim, 2015). On the one hand, the sort of lobbying described in the article helps to ensure that different opinions on the reasonability of changes related to financing are expressed.
As for the impact of lobbying on healthcare with regard to the case, the use of large sums of money is sometimes the only way to be heard when healthcare is on the threshold of catastrophe. In similar cases, lobbying can help voice the opinions of the masses, which supports the principle of democracy in healthcare.
On the other hand, the readiness to use large sums of money to change legislative outcomes can sometimes be in perfect step with inequality and initiate the destruction of democracy. In an ideal scenario, important decisions on healthcare should align with the interests of vulnerable social groups, but this rule seems to be neglected in many cases. When serious money comes into play, inequality between various groups and organizations in healthcare becomes obvious. Consequently, certain limitations may need to be imposed when it comes to the amount of money that can be spent on lobbying.
References
Blumenthal, P., & Grim, R. (2015). The inside story of how Citizens United has changed Washington lawmaking. The Huffington Post. Web.