Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23494290›Full record

ArticleHealth care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy2015

Health care: a brave new world.

Shelley Morrisette, William D Oberman, Allison D Watts, Joseph B Beck

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Shelley MorrisetteDepartment of Management and Marketing, Shippensburg University, 1871 Old Main Drive, Grove Hall, Shippensburg, PA, 17257-2299, USA, shmorr@ship.edu.
William D Oberman
Allison D Watts
Joseph B Beck

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current U.S. health care system, with both rising costs and demands, is unsustainable. The combination of a sense of individual entitlement to health care and limited acceptance of individual responsibility with respect to personal health has contributed to a system which overspends and underperforms. This sense of entitlement has its roots in a perceived right to health care. Beginning with the so-called moral right to health care (all life is sacred), the issue of who provides health care has evolved as individual rights have trumped societal rights. The concept of government providing some level of health care ranges from limited government intervention, a 'negative right to health care' (e.g., prevention of a socially-caused, preventable health hazard), to various forms of a 'positive right to health care'. The latter ranges from a decent minimum level of care to the best possible health care with access for all. We clarify the concept of legal rights as an entitlement to health care and present distributive and social justice counter arguments to present health care as a privilege that can be provided/earned/altered/revoked by governments. We propose that unlike a 'right', which is unconditional, a 'privilege' has limitations. Going forward, expectations about what will be made available should be lowered while taking personal responsibility for one's health must for elevated. To have access to health care in the future will mean some loss of personal rights (e.g., unhealthy behaviors) and an increase in personal responsibility for gaining or maintaining one's health.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHuman RightsMoralsSocial ResponsibilityCivil RightsHumansSocial JusticeUnited States

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.