Healthcare Inequality & Fraud Prevention: Paternalism Justified to Enable Choice
AuthorReaves, Michael Leland
MetadataShow full item record
PublisherThe University of Arizona.
RightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
AbstractUnder the newest health policy in the United States, The Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, Medicaid expansions in consenting states enable low-income individuals to obtain health insurance. Part I provides an argument defending a positive duty to facilitate choice in health services. The section discusses the conflict in political theory on health inequity, and why an expansion of Medicaid is the most effective plan to improve the health status of America. Part II provides an argument to increase funding to government agencies responsible for prosecuting fraud, waste, and abuse in the healthcare sector. Every dollar of funding to healthcare fraud prevention yields an eightfold return, yet many argue for budget cuts to sustain other government programs. Well-funded agencies are necessary if the government wishes to recover the billions lost each year to criminal activity. One solution is a redirection of funds from wasteful sectors to more effective programs. Congress should choose to fund programs that produce better health and economic outcomes for the U.S. Paternalism is justified to enable choice in this sector by reducing healthcare inequality, improving health outcomes, and recovering funds typically forfeited to criminals.
Degree ProgramHonors College
Philosophy, Politics, Economics and Law