This paper proposes that billing gamesmanship occurs when physicians free-ride on the billing practices of other physicians. Gamesmanship is non-universalizable and does not exercise a competitive advantage; consequently, it distorts prices and allocates resources inefficiently. This explains why gamesmanship is wrong. This explanation differs from the recent proposal of Heath (2020. Ethical issues in physician billing under fee-for-service plans. J. Med. Philos. 45(1):86–104) that gamesmanship is wrong because of specific features of health care and of health insurance. These features are (...) aggravating factors but do not explain gamesmanship’s primary wrong-making feature, which is to cause diffuse harm not traceable to any particular patient or insurer. This conclusion has important consequences for how medical schools and professional organizations encourage integrity in billing. To avoid free-riding, physicians should ask themselves, “could all physicians bill this way?” and if not, “does the patient benefit from the distinctive service I am providing under this code?” If both answers are “no,” physicians should refrain from the billing practice in question. (shrink)

The day-to-day work of clinical ethics consultants and healthcare ethics committees can easily become overly routine. Too much routine, however, comes with a risk that morally important practices will be reduced to mere bureaucratic formalities, while practitioners become desensitized to ethically significant distinctions between cases. Clinical ethics consultation and organizational ethics must be set within the broader social and cultural context of the healthcare environment. This practice requires looking beyond mere legal compliance and the routinely false assumption that there are (...) unambiguous ethical norms that easily govern clinical ethics and hospital policy formation. Together the essays in this issue of HEC Forum challenge readers to rethink taken-for-granted assumptions regarding patient care, physician obligation, clinical ethics consultation, and organizational ethics. (shrink)

Conceptual clarity is essential when engaging in dialogue to avoid unnecessary disagreement and to promote mutual understanding. In this issue devoted to clinical bioethics, the authors exemplify the virtue of careful conceptual analysis as they explore complex clinical questions regarding the essential nature of medicine, the boundaries of killing and letting die, the meaning of irreversibility in definitions of death, the argument for a right to try experimental medications, the ethical borders in complex medical billing, and the definition and modeling (...) of complex disease states. (shrink)

BackgroundHealth screening is undertaken to identify individuals who are deemed at higher risk of disease for further diagnostic testing so that they may possibly benefit from interventions to modify the natural course of disease. In Singapore, screening tests are widely available in the form of a package, which bundles multiple tests in one session and commonly includes non-recommended tests. There are various ethical issues associated with such testing as they may not be clinically appropriate and can result in more harm (...) than benefit. This article describes the practice of health screening packages, identifies the ethical issues arising from such packages and discusses the implications of these ethical issues on policy and practice of screening in Singapore.MethodsA content analysis of the websites of providers offering general health screening packages to individuals was conducted. A total of 14 health screening package providers were analysed for how packages were conducted and promoted, how clinically appropriate screening tests were, and the price range and composition of screening packages. A normative ethical analysis based on the four principles approach of beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy and justice in biomedical ethics was used.ResultsTwelve of the 14 providers included non-recommended tests such as tumour markers, treadmill stress tests and MRI scans in their general health screening packages. Package prices ranged from S$26 to S$10,561, with providers charging higher when more tests were included. Health screening packages were broadly conducted in three stages: the offer and selection of a health screening package; medical assessment and performance of screening tests; a post-screening review. While material provided by all providers was factual, there was no information on the potential risks or harms of screening.ConclusionSeveral ethical issues were identified that should be addressed with regard to health screening packages in Singapore. A key issue was the information gap between providers and patients, which may result in patients undergoing inappropriate testing that may be more harmful than beneficial. Health screening packages can stimulate unnecessary demand for healthcare and contribute to an inequitable distribution of healthcare resources. (shrink)