Introduction
The first moral problem is that the insurance company, HMO, does not consider their client’s health preference. Instead, it considers how much they will save by using cheaper alternatives. The second issue is that the HMO is not concerned at all if the transfer will inconvenience the client’s family. In this case, the HMO could offer alternative hospitals, or means of transport. Ethical dilemmas include picking of a choice hospital. Both University and Fair Oak have good facilities and quality healthcare. The dilemma is, if they choose to go to Fair Oak, the company will pay the hospital bills, but if they decide to remain at the University hospital, they risk losing out on their health cover.
Factual information available to decision-makers
Information available to the client is that the company had a contract with Fair Oak that included a discounted rate of service. It is also a fact that both Fair Oak and University have quality service, almost equal. Alan’s treatment at Fair Oak will save HMO money. Another fact being presented is that, the University hospital has a better reputation in dealing with cancer patients.
Stakeholders
The stakeholders in this situation are Alan Sr., the patient in need of the bone marrow transplant. The other stakeholder is his wife Monica, who has been with Alan throughout the illness and provided him with emotional and financial support. Other stakeholders include Alan’s son, Alan Jr., and their family friends. Alan’s HMO is another stakeholder in this matter. The University where Alan is undergoing treatment, and Fair Oak hospitals, where he is to be transferred to later, have a stake in the matter.
Values at stake
The values at stake in the transfer include that of Alan’s health. If anything goes wrong during relocation, Alan could lose his life or his health could deteriorate further. Another value at stake is that of impartiality. Alan’s HMO is not concerned whether there will be trauma on his part with the transfer. This indifference to the client’s state shows that they are unethical when considering the relocation. The HMO has abused the principle of non-affiliation. Treatment at all hospitals should be equal, but the company is affiliated with Fair Oak by being offered biased discounts.
Possible consequences
They include: Alan’s family covering the hospital bill thereby increasing the chances of Alan’s full recovery to over 95%; Monica will not have to leave her job; the hospital is at a convenient location so family and friends will visit hence encourage a quick recovery. The choice of Fair Oak will lead to fewer costs for both the family and HMO. However, recovery is not guaranteed but hopeful. Alan’s treatment program could be interfered with in the transition hence delaying his recovery. This delay in recuperating would create even more costs to the company.
Public health ethical principles
The first principle is autonomy that refers to the patient’s right in choosing an option for whatever is being done to their bodies. The HMO should consider Alan’s choice and give befitting alternatives. The other principle is beneficence that refers to a health insurer trying their best to ensure the patient’s health. The HMO should consider what is best for Alan’s health. The other is justice, which means fairness concerning health.
Action plan for reaching a decision
The systematic plan that would be best for Monica is to first, ask the HMO how much is being saved in the transfer. It may seem significant to the company but insignificant to Monica. In the event that it is beyond Monica’s financial ability, she should request the doctor taking care of Alan in University to accompany her to Fair Oak for a smooth transition. If they all agree, Monica is assured of her husband’s recovery.