Curing disease without causing harm to a patient is something every doctor vows to undertake as part of the Hippocratic Oath. However, have you ever wondered what the financial impact of a cure is? What will happen is a 'cure' is discovered for COVID-19?
I shall explore the above by analyzing the arguments for and against the statement given below:
"There is money to be made from not curing disease."
The statement above suggests that it is monetarily more beneficial to provide long-term symptomatic treatments for a disease rather than to invest in and procure a one-time cure for it. An economist would argue that from the point of view of pharmaceutical companies, they are more likely to recuperate the costs of Research and Development (R&D) of a drug if patients must repeatedly buy it for the rest of their lives than if patients must just buy it once. Moreover, oftentimes drugs come with side effects that necessitate the need for other drugs: the sale of these other drugs will rise as well. A case in point is the medicine “Metformin” used by Type 2 diabetic patients. Patients use the medicine for their duration of their lifetime- Side effects of the medicine like nausea are then dealt with by drugs like “Zofran” and “Reglan”. Furthermore, if patients continue to suffer from the disease, they will try to manage their symptoms by buying specialist equipment like sugar testing equipment and blood pressure machines. This expenditure by consumers raises the financial rewards for medical institutions and pharmaceutical companies even further.
On the other hand, providers of universal healthcare like the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom (UK) incur financial losses on diseases that require long-term symptomatic care. The £176.2 billion budget of the NHS would have to be allocated to treating for these long-term patients introducing an opportunity cost of not being able to enhance existing health care services or expand their reach. Furthermore, the theory of utilitarianism argues that money by the NHS should be spent in a way that benefits the greatest number of people: this would not be possible if some of the money must be allocated to long-term treatment patients. If the greatest number of people are not benefited and continue to suffer illnesses because of the ‘substandard’ treatment, their income potential will be hampered leading to them incurring a financial loss in their workplaces due to their productivity being hampered by their illness. Finally, withholding cures from patients with the intention of exploiting their monetary resources is in violation of the medical ethics of beneficence and non-maleficence as well as a blatant disregard of the Hippocratic Oath. Compromising on medical ethics will lift the public’s trust in doctors, which will in turn make them more reluctant to approach healthcare providers for ‘minor’ discomforts. If illnesses are not detected early, it will have a profoundly negative financial impact on the NHS as advanced stage conditions often require more expensive equipment to manage.
In conclusion, the statement above only applies to select groups and organizations. Yes, pharmaceutical companies and private healthcare providers as well as doctors who get paid on a patient-by patient basis are likely to make more money from not curing disease. However, not only is the above act immoral, but it also disrupts the public’s trust in the healthcare system, which as shown above, can have disastrous impacts on medical institutions financially.
What do you think? Let me know by answering the question on the side!
Comments