Introduction
Medical treatment is an inalienable human right, yet many people cannot afford the medicines they need to stay healthy. Both sides have compelling arguments regarding whether the impoverished should get medication at no cost (World Health Organization, 2019, 12). In contrast, it is the moral duty of governments and healthcare providers to give free medication to people experiencing poverty, since doing so may improve health outcomes and lower healthcare costs in the long term. However, free medication programs may result in inefficiency, resource abuse, unforeseen effects, and high maintenance costs (Peoples, 2022, p.13).
Several public health programs and charitable groups have made free medication for low-income people possible, but with mixed results (Bai et al., 2021, p. 633). Although eliminating health inequalities and advancing social justice depend on expanding access to healthcare, the best strategy remains up for dispute. This paper will examine the pros and cons of giving free medication to people experiencing poverty, using particular programs and efforts to back up the arguments on both sides.
Merits of Free Medicine Access to the Poor
Healthcare is a human right that should not be contingent on a person’s ability to pay. Many individuals, particularly those with lower incomes, cannot access adequate medical care easily (Steigenberger et al., 2022, p. 1460). To reduce health inequalities that might negatively affect health outcomes and quality of life, providing free healthcare to people experiencing poverty is crucial.
It is the right thing to do from a moral standpoint and makes financial sense. Those who might otherwise need costly medical procedures in the future may be spared those expenditures if they have access to free preventative care and early intervention via universal healthcare (Peoples, 2022). If everyone gets access to preventative care services that are provided for free, then everyone’s health and well-being will improve.
Healthcare for low-income populations, including pregnant women, children, and persons with disabilities, is provided via public health programs like Medicaid. It has been pivotal in easing the financial strain of medical treatment, expanding access to preventative programs, and bettering health outcomes for low-income families (Gordon et al., 2022, p. 74). Medicaid has been crucial in ensuring that millions of people who would not have been able to afford health insurance can do so (Petryna et al., 2006, p. 4). Hence, due to the initiative, people from all socioeconomic backgrounds now have equal access to quality health care. Medicaid’s emphasis on preventative care and early intervention has also contributed to healthcare cost savings by averting the need for more extensive and costly treatments down the road.
Another government initiative to improve the health of low-income families is the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Kids not qualifying for Medicaid may still get health coverage via this program. Preventative care, dental treatment, and eye care are just a few medical services (Bigby et al., 2020, p.20). The Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) has been crucial in ensuring that children from low-income families have access to high-quality medical treatment, which has improved their health outcomes. The program has helped save healthcare costs because it emphasizes preventative care and early intervention, both of which may stave off the need for more costly medical interventions down the road (Peoples, 2022, p. 14). TheChildren’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is essential because it gives kids from low-income households a chance to grow up healthy and prosperous.
Specific volunteer organizations provide free medical treatment to the economically disadvantaged. Organizations like Doctors Without Borders exist to provide healthcare to those affected by war, natural disasters, and other forms of international humanitarian crises (Petryna et al., 2006, p. 73). The non-profit group treats those who otherwise could not afford it for free.
Doctors Without Borders has played a crucial role in boosting the health of underserved populations by providing access to healthcare, immunizations, and disease prevention initiatives (Ekezie et al., 2022, p. 1038). The group has also been instrumental in campaigning for better healthcare legislation and addressing health problems in low-income neighborhoods. Volunteer initiatives like Doctors Without Borders effectively reduce healthcare inequalities and expand access to high-quality medical treatment for all people, regardless of their ability to pay.
Remote Area Medicine (RAM) is another charity offering free healthcare to the underprivileged. People in rural and underserved parts of the United States and abroad may turn to RAM, a non-profit organization, for medical and dental treatment access (Ricks, 2021, p. 1). The group runs mobile clinics where people may get free general medical, dental, and eye treatment.
By bringing doctors, medicines, and health education to people in outlying regions, RAM has been crucial in improving the health of low-income communities (Ikenberry, 2018, p. 8). The group has also done significant work lobbying for more equitable healthcare legislation and bringing attention to the problem of healthcare inequality in neglected areas. The RAM initiative exemplifies the effectiveness of non-profits in eliminating healthcare inequalities and guaranteeing universal access to treatment.
Together with governmental health and volunteer activities, private clinics and hospitals also offer the poor free medical care. An illustration of this is the Community Health Care Association of New York State, a network of community health centers that provides services to low-income people and families throughout the state (Artiga & Hinton, 2019, p. 2). These clinics include general healthcare, dental treatments, mental health care, and addiction recovery. The healthcare gap between the wealthy and the poor is intended to be addressed by expanding access to high-quality treatment for those who lack it (Biehl, 2008, p. 100). The health of low-income families has improved as a result of such interventions.
To achieve universal healthcare access and advance health fairness, providing free medical treatment to people experiencing poverty is essential.It can potentially reduce health inequalities and improve health outcomes for impoverished people. In addition, by offering preventative care and early intervention, which may save costly medical procedures in the future, free medical care can help cut healthcare costs in the long term (Artiga & Hinton, 2019, p. 8).
It is a moral obligation to guarantee that all people have access to adequate medical care regardless of their means. By making quality healthcare accessible to everyone without cost, we can build a fairer and equitable society where everyone can thrive. The world would be healthier and more egalitarian if people experiencing poverty had access to free medical care.
The advantages of offering free medical care to low-income people exceed the disadvantages by a wide margin, notwithstanding issues with financing and possible system abuse. Secondly, guaranteeing everyone access to high-quality medical treatment may enhance overall health outcomes and lessen healthcare inequities, benefitting the whole population (World Health Organization, 2019, 73).
In addition, by averting the need for more costly treatments in the future, free medical care may eventually help reduce healthcare costs. Enhancing the population’s health and productivity may also aid social and economic progress. Furthermore, it is crucial to prioritize the health needs of disadvantaged people by providing free medical care to establish a more equal and just society (Ikenberry, 2018, p.20). Good planning and administration may overcome the difficulties of providing free medical care.
Giving the poor free medical care is a critical first step in addressing health disparities and advancing social justice. For instance, the Ayushman Bharat program of the Indian government aims to offer over 100 million low-income families free medical care by defraying the costs of hospitalization, surgery, and other medical procedures (Rouyard et al., 2022, p. 870). The plan has effectively raised health standards and lowered healthcare disparities among disadvantaged groups. Similarly, Brazil’s Unified Health System offers free healthcare to all citizens, regardless of their financial situation, which has led to notable improvements in health outcomes and decreased healthcare disparities (Rouyard et al., 2022, p. 867). Overall, promoting health equity and creating a fairer and more just society depends on providing free medical care to people experiencing poverty.
Voluntary groups, in addition to governmental health initiatives, are essential to the provision of free healthcare to the underprivileged. For instance, regardless of their financial status, Doctors Without Borders offers medical treatment to anyone impacted by armed conflicts, natural disasters, and epidemics (World Health Organization, 2019, 28). The group has helped millions of individuals worldwide, including thefeeble, get free medical treatment.
Similarly, the International Medical Corps offers medical assistance to those afflicted by natural disasters, armed conflict, and extreme poverty while concentrating on developing local healthcare systems to ensure ongoing access to healthcare (World Health Organization, 2019, 32). These organizations play a crucial role in enhancing health outcomes and lowering healthcare inequalities since they persistently fight to guarantee that everyone has access to essential healthcare services, regardless of their financial condition. Thus, promoting health equality and creating a more fair and equitable society is crucial to offering free medical treatment to low-income people via public health programs and non-profit organizations.
Furthermore, free medical care for people experiencing poverty may considerably influence economic growth by enhancing population health and productivity. For instance, the government’s community-based health insurance program in Rwanda has significantly contributed to lowering poverty and enhancing health outcomes, which has boosted economic development (Rouyard et al., 2022, p. 860).
The program offers low-income people free medical treatment and has dramatically decreased out-of-pocket medical costs, improving financial stability among vulnerable groups. Similarly, Thailand’s Universal Coverage Program, which offers free medical care to all people and has helped significantly improve health outcomes, has enhanced economic development and labor productivity (Yuda & Pholpark, 2022, p. 112). These illustrations show how expanding access to free healthcare may boost economic growth by enhancing people’s health and quality of life. As a result, providing people experiencing poverty with free medical care is morally required and a vital step in fostering economic growth and eradicating poverty.
Therefore, creating a more equitable and fair society requires prioritizing free medical care for low-income people. It is the right thing to do and will also pay off monetarily. It has been proven via research that providing healthcare to those with low incomes at no cost may boost both their health and the economy as a whole. Countries like India, Brazil, Rwanda, and Thailand stand out because of their effective public health systems and non-profit organizations that provide free medical care to underserved communities (Ikenberry, 2018, p. 15). Governments and non-profits must maintain funding for these initiatives until all citizens see healthcare as a fundamental human right.
Demerits of Free Medicine Access to the Poor
Free healthcare for people experiencing poverty has been a point of contention for quite some time, with advocates maintaining that everyone should have access to medical treatment. Free medication has the potential to help the impoverished in the short term, but it may have adverse side effects in the long run (World Health Organization, 2019, 22). The potential for a new culture of reliance on free medicine is a significant cause for worry.
A vicious cycle of poverty and poor health may result if people stop taking personal responsibility for their well-being (Ikenberry, 2018, p. 9). However, if everyone had access to free medication, there would be more of it used, leading to a scarcity for those who need it. Given the potential for unexpected repercussions from a broad program, it may be preferable to concentrate on focused actions that help just the most desperate cases.
Although the prospect of getting free medication seems excellent, there is a real danger that it will be abused. In India, for instance, the introduction of free treatment for TB in 1997 led to a shortage of anti-tuberculosis medications and a rise in the sale of counterfeit pharmaceuticals (Biehl, 2008, p. 104). The public’s faith in the healthcare system was damaged, and the spread of TB strains resistant to many drugs ensued.
Similarly, when a Peruvian hospital started giving out free hypertension medication, more patients stopped taking it without seeing their doctor, increasing the likelihood of severe side effects (Bhargava et al., 2021, p. 875). Hence, the same issues that such programs intend to solve may be exacerbated by the abuse of pharmaceuticals and the development of public health concerns if free medication is provided without sufficient oversight and education.
Free medical care for low-income people is appealing, but it cannot be sustained without ultimately hitting taxpayers with the bill. In the United States, for instance, billions of dollars are allocated to public health initiatives like Medicaid, which offers financial assistance in the form of reduced or waived healthcare costs to those with low incomes (Thompson et al., 2021, p. 650). Despite these efforts, many people still lack access to healthcare, and the price tag for these initiatives is climbing.
Additionally, moral hazard may emerge if everyone had access to free medicine in the form of excessive pharmaceutical usage. This may add unnecessary expenses to the healthcare system, which is already struggling financially. Thus, engaging in tailored programs that address disadvantaged groups’ unique needs may be more practical than giving everyone free medicine while guaranteeing that healthcare costs are sustainable.
Providing free medicine to people experiencing poverty may have unintended consequences, including financial instability and health care disparities. Public health initiatives in many countries pay for the care of widespread diseases like HIV/AIDS (Biehl, 2008, p. 102). Although this seems like a good idea, it risks creating a healthcare system where certain illnesses get more attention than others.
However, people may be more likely to participate in risky activities since they will know they have a safety net if they need it. Assefa and Gilks (2020, 275) found that in free medical initiatives, some of the drugs were transferred to the black market and utilized to enrich corrupt authorities. A more universal and equitable healthcare system that places a premium on prevention and education may be a better use of resources than a system that gives preferential treatment to particular illnesses or groups.
The pharmaceutical business and innovation might suffer due to providing free medicine to the poor. Companies in the pharmaceutical industry spend millions on R&D to produce new medicines that treat illnesses and enhance people’s health (Syed et al., 2021, p. 57). Nevertheless, pharmaceutical corporations stand to lose money if they provide patients with free medications.
The pharmaceutical industry’s rate of innovation may drop if this trend continues since fewer funds are available for R&D (Deudney & Ikenberry, 2018, p. 22). The private sector may be discouraged from developing treatments for illnesses that disproportionately impact low-income people if this happens. Hence, these illnesses may receive less funding and care, exacerbating health inequalities.
Adverse effects on the healthcare system might arise if the impoverished were given free drugs. Patient’s quality of medical treatment may decrease when governments, for example, provide free medication (Pool & Geissler, 2005, p. 14). When healthcare providers know the government will pay for their patients’ medications, they may be encouraged to give less-than-ideal treatment.
This might lead to complacency in which patients are not given the treatment they need to recover from their conditions fully (Syed et al., 2021, p. 54). Free medicine distribution can potentially cause drug shortages, particularly for medications used to treat uncommon disorders. Patient harm and healthcare system pressure are both possible outcomes if people cannot get their hands on the medicines they need to get well.
Free medicine for low-income people may discourage them from looking for work and gaining independence, which is another unexpected effect. Public health programs provide free or low-cost medicine to the jobless and underemployed in various nations (World Health Organization, 2019, 56). Although this may appear like a safety net at first glance, it has the potential to make people reliant on the state and deter them from actively pursuing work. There is also the risk that the quality of care supplied will decrease since doctors and hospitals will not be compensated as much for treating those who cannot afford to pay for their treatment.
Free medicine for people experiencing poverty may reduce their motivation to take charge of their health. Some countries’ public health programs, for instance, cover the cost of treating people with lifestyle diseases like diabetes and obesity (Pool & Geissler, 2005, p. 56). The government covering medicine’s cost may seem humane, but it might lead to people not taking responsibility for their health (Deudney & Ikenberry, 2018, p.17). The lack of incentive to engage in behaviors that reduce the risk of developing lifestyle-related illnesses also raises the possibility that their prevalence may rise.
Last but not least, there is a risk that public health services may suffer if money is diverted to provide free medicine to people experiencing poverty. Vaccination drives, disease monitoring, and rapid response services are just a few examples of what may be found in public health systems in many nations (Girard et al., 2020, p. 3990). Free medicine might limit the available money for these initiatives, which need substantial cash and resources to be successful. It might also force governments to make a strict trade-off between free medicine for low-income people and supporting other essential public health services.
Conclusion
In summary, free medicine for people experiencing poverty may seem like a caring way to reduce health disparities, but it might have unforeseen effects that undermine the healthcare system and slow innovation. Instead of just giving out medicine, politicians should put money into healthcare systems that are both comprehensive and egalitarian, with an emphasis on prevention and education. Also, it incentivizes private sector investment in the discovery of new treatments. Finding a happy medium between caring for those in need and keeping costs down is essential if we are to provide enough financing for vital public health services.
References
Artiga, S., & Hinton, E. (2019). Beyond health care: The role of social determinants in promoting health and health equity. Health, 20(10), 1-13. Web.
Assefa, Y., & Gilks, C. F. (2020). Ending the epidemic of HIV/AIDS by 2030: Will there be an endgame to HIV, or an endemic HIV requiring an integrated health systems response in many countries? International Journal of Infectious Diseases, 100, 273-277. Web.
Bai, G., Zare, H., Eisenberg, M. D., Polsky, D., & Anderson, G. F. (2021). Analysis suggests government and non-profit hospitals’ charity care is not aligned with their favorable tax treatment: Study examines government and non-profit hospital charity care expenses compared to charity care obligations arising from the organizations’ favorable tax treatment. Health Affairs, 40(4), 629-636. Web.
Bhargava, A., Bhargava, M., & Juneja, A. (2021). Social determinants of tuberculosis: Context, framework, and the way forward to ending TB in India. Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine, 15(7), 867-883. Web.
Biehl, J. 2008. Drugs for all: The future of global aids treatment. Medical Anthropology, 27, 99-105. Web.
Bigby, J., Anthony, J., Hsu, R., Fiorentini, C., & Rosenbach, M. (2020). Recommendations for maternal health and infant health quality improvement in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Cambridge, MA: Mathematica for the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. 1-29. Web.
Deudney, D., & Ikenberry, G. J. (2018). Liberal world: The resilient order. Foreign Aff., 97, 16. 16-18, 20-24. Web.
Ekezie, W., Awwad, S., Krauchenberg, A., Karara, N., Dembiński, Ł., Grossman, Z.,… & ImmuHubs Consortium. (2022). Access to vaccination among disadvantaged, isolated and difficult-to-reach communities in the WHO European region: A systematic review. Vaccines, 10(7), 1038. Web.
Girard, M., Nelson, C. B., Picot, V., & Gubler, D. J. (2020). Arboviruses: A global public health threat. Vaccine, 38(24), 3989-3994. Web.
Gordon, S. H., Hoagland, A., Admon, L. K., & Daw, J. R. (2022). Extended postpartum Medicaid eligibility is associated with improved continuity of coverage in the postpartum year: Study examines stability of health insurance enrollment in Colorado for people who retain Medicaid coverage for the entire postpartum year. Health Affairs, 41(1), 69-78. Web.
Ikenberry, G. J. (2018). The end of liberal international order?International Affairs, 94(1), 7-23. Web.
Peoples, C. (2022). The liberal international ordering of crisis.International Relations, 1-15. Web.
Petryna, A., Lakoff, A., & Kleinman, A. (Eds.). (2006). Global pharmaceuticals: Ethics, markets, practices. Duke University Press. 1-82.
Pool, R., & Geissler, W, 2005. Substances of power (Chapter 8). In their Medical Anthropology: Understanding Public Health. 1-62.
Ricks, J. M. (2021). RAMifications for healthcare: Remote Area Medical (RAM) and healthcare access in rural Virginia. Web.
Rouyard, T., Mano, Y., Daff, B. M., Diouf, S., Fall Dia, K., Duval, L. & Nakamura, R. (2022). Operational and structural factors influencing enrolment in community-based health insurance schemes: An observational study using 12 waves of nationwide panel data from Senegal. Health Policy and Planning, 37(7), 858-871. Web.
Steigenberger, C., Flatscher-Thoeni, M., Siebert, U., & Leiter, A. M. (2022). Determinants of willingness to pay for health services: A systematic review of contingent valuation studies. The European Journal of Health Economics, 23(9), 1455-1482. Web.
Syed, S. A., Dixson, B. A., Constantino, E., & Regan, J. (2021). The law and practice of off-label prescribing and physician promotion. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 49(1), 53-59.
Thompson, F. J., Farnham, J., Tiderington, E., Gusmano, M. K., & Cantor, J. C. (2021). Medicaid waivers and tenancy supports for individuals experiencing homelessness: Implementation challenges in four states. The Milbank Quarterly, 99(3), 648-692. Web.
World Health Organization. (2019). Mental health, disability and human rights: WHO quality-rights core training-for all services and all people: Course guide. 12-134. Web.
Yuda, T. K., & Pholpark, A. (2022). Healthcare expansion in Indonesia and Thailand: A causal mechanism and its implications for welfare regimes. Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy, 38(2), 111-129. Web.