英语论文网

g due to the unintelligent methods practiced by the common, everyday HMO.

Legal 'loopholes' have given a safe haven for illicit HMO actions. Law itself has provided a means for HMOs to dodge the many bullets of malpractice suits. One case includes the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Designed to protect the rights of the elderly, ERISA also includes a small print provision for the actions of HMOs in providing health care. This act, misleading in its name, has HMOs escape from due punishment by utilizing federal laws, rather than state laws. The two may not seem that much different, but in dealing with health care, one set of laws could dictate that lifesaving actions needn't be performed! Federal provisions say that if actions are not taken to test or treat an ill person, only the cost of the undone treatment is to be paid. This means, for instance, that if a blood test were not to be performed and the patient died due to a disease that went undetected because the test was not done, only the insignificant $120 would be forced to be given to the mourners. As a result, monies that should be used to compensate for the unfortunate victims are not required, and laws themselves have protected these wrong actions. This particular legal loophole has just happened to leave many victims hopeless.

The patients themselves have strong opinions concerning their care. Some, mostly healthy patients, have been pleased with what HMOs have done. In truth, there are many benefits that Health Management Organizations offer. On the other hand, the HMO institution also has flaws, making it quite unpopular to a larger majority of people. This discontent is prevalent, having the patients own opinions to prove it. For example, 'In a poll taken in 1993, 17,000 Americans in a variety of settings were asked to rate their medical care. These results showed that patients liked HMOs the least, while ranking small-practice doctors highest.' (Sherrow 100). Most people enjoy the friendly and personal care provided by the traditional 'town doctor.' Why is this true, though? It goes back to the companies' impersonal nature and their inability to efficiently provide care for America.

In conclusion, HMOs have gotten away with mistreating patients, and many have suffered, especially in the area of hospitalization. The hospital itself has been the main area of savings for these companies. Money has been saved by keeping the patient out of the hospital, except for extensive treatments which are inevitable. The highly technological nature of some surgeries put some hospitals our of business because of the competition. Patients and physicians agree that bad decisions are made by HMOs, which may lead to heartbreaking cases of death. Unfortunately, provisions such as the ERISA Act give HMOs an advantage. If health care is expected to improve in the United States of America, everyone has to be guaranteed proper care. For some countries, this is solved by the government which provides health to its citizens. Some, like Japan, receive complaints concerning their health care. However, but it has proven to be much more efficient than that of the United States. This was attempted in the United States, but wasn't quite popular with the leaders, because of its 'socialistic' method. In any event, the people themselves of this country would be willing for the government to establish the plan. For example, the ma