Should publicly funded health programs pay for alternative services and treatments that have not been tested in controlled clinical settings? Why or why not?
Due July 15, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Posts
11 comments:
I do not think it is a good idea for publicly funded insurances to perform alternative services that have not been tested in controlled settings because the tax payers will be paying for the services and if they go wrong or someone is injured or dies, then it would be like we were paying for it. I think that all services should be in a controlled setting so that things do not get out of hand. So that too much money is not used and the funds and medical procedures can be regulated by professionals. I wouldn't trust myself to get a procedure done that was not clinically tested. I hope i am answering this correctly, I was a little confused by the question at first.
I do not think it is ethical for publically funded health programs to pay for alternative services and treatments. They have not been proven to work and could potentially be a complete waste of taxpayer money. There is no guarantee that they would save even one life if they have not been tested in a controlled environment. There could be a number of variables for any outcome they provide. If and when the treatments fail to show results we are back to paying for traditional methods. Americans do not have an option when it comes to paying for Medicaid or Medicare out of their paychecks. The least the government can do is make sure those hard earned dollars are going to treatments that have been proven to show results.
Yes, I believe that publicly funded programs should pay for alternative services that have not been tested in controlled clinical settings. I believe this because something that is publically funded as a health program, like my workplace, for example, is given money from the government. This funding in some way or another comes from society, taxes. It is crucial that tax money be spent in proven helpful ways. Let’s take, for example, public health programs for HIV prevention. If a publicly funded program is funded for HIV prevention through testing, education, and referrals for positives, it would be silly if that program was feeding the homeless with pieces of the funding, or substance abuse help and education. Now, in some ways this could be justified, but if this is not a clinically proven way to prevent the spread of HIV, the funding is being abused. SO even though acupuncture may help stress and wellness for people HIV positive, it can't be paid for with HIV prevention funding, it is unethical.
Alternative medicine and treatments are not approved by the U.S. Public Health and Human Services or the Department of Health and Human Services. I do not think that public health funded programs should pay for alternative medicines or treatments. Because it can be unsafe and when it is not tested properly in a controlled setting. Patients should also consider the risks involved when seeking alternative medicine or treatments from a non license person. At first, the treatments might sound as if the therapy might work, or it might have already work, but I do not think it should be funded. There are too many therapies and treatments out there that have not been tested and it would be very hard to fund every treatments out there, when they are practiced by people without proper license.
No I do not believe that publicly funded health programs should pay for alternative services or treatments that have not been tested in clinical settings, the risk is too high. Treatments go through numerous amounts of testing to be approved by the Department of Health and Human services to decrease the rate of anything that can go wrong. For example if they were to go with other alternatives and/or treatments and something went wrong it can be an even bigger expense to bring the person back to good health, but it's not only about cost, it's about safety. When things are not properly tested things can go very wrong.
Personally I dont think that publicly funded health programs should pay for and services or treatments that have not been tested in clinical settings. These treatments are experimental and are not approved treatments so I think that it is a waste of money and we should stick to what we know will work for treatment. By all means I believe you cant find a cure or what type of treatment will work best if you dont try but i think that tax money should be used for that gamble . If someone wants to try an alternative they should have to take the risk not the tax payers
I strongly believe that publicly funded health programs should not pay for alternative services and treatments that have not been tested in controlled clinical settings. These treatments and services have not been formally tested and may or may not work for someone. I feel selfish for saying it, but I don’t believe that we should have to pay for something for someone to gamble with alternative treatments. Publicly funded programs should pay for services and treatments that have already gone through FDA testing and has been proven as a safe and effective treatment.
I see people every day that cannot get treatments covered that have good insurance that cannot get treatments covered by their insurance because they are deemed “an alternative” method of treatment by those who run their insurance. How is it right if someone with publicly funded insurance can receive that same “alternative” treatment and we can foot the bill for it?
I do believe that publicly funded programs should pay for alternative services that have not been tested in controlled clinical settings because that is how we get the product, service, or process to go main stream. If we are able to get the innovations by new technologies or by new fresh people in the mindset of finding what may have been overlooked- we can possibly find cures. Certain drugs that were developed will then be part of the focus and even if these particular drugs were to have no huge gains, maybe it will be proven to cure another ailment. When it boils right down to it, we need to have a better understanding of what trails have never been travelled and really focus the efforts of the people. If we can simply be accountable and trustworthy with good communication- we will always have people that are trailblazing.
I believe that publically funded health programs should not pay for alternative services and treatments. Drugs and treatments that undergo scrutiny by the FDA have been tested over long period of time. And even with all that testing and scrutiny we often hear about drugs and treatments, which are recalled. Therefore I think it’s not just an issue of using tax money to pay for alternative treatments but it’s also an issue about providing the safest and most tested medicines and treatments. I believe that it would be unethical for the taxpayer to be paying for a form of treatment for another individual and not knowing whether that treatment would be beneficial or harmful. I believe now days certain drug therapies are rushed through FDA testing so that they can be provided to the public as quickly and as safely as possible. An example is there have been many HIV drug therapies used in Europe where there is no FDA regulation. And almost all those therapies have not been effective. But here in the U.S. there has been extensive study before these drugs have been released and we are beginning to see great results from that treatment. I think it is important that the tax player not pay for experimental therapies but rather that are tax dollars are used to provide proven therapies.
Post a Comment