In the early days of being a physician, the patient and the cost of the therapy were no object as long as the
patient got better. The care was more about the individual patient and the consideration of cost or whether
the patient was covered under insurance, was not an issue. However, now the physician has to consider
whether or not the patient will benefit enough from a specific therapy and if it is cost-effective. More than 40
million Americans lack any kind of health insurance coverage because it is too expensive for them to buy
themselves or go through employers (Hummel & Ubel, 2004). On the other hand, hospitals are experiencing
nursing shortages and some patients are unable to comply with prescribed medication because they can no
longer afford the high prices. The guidelines would encourage more medical interventions that are cost-
effective for patients. According to the Institute of Medicine, these guidelines are also decision aids that
"assist practitioner and patient in discussions about appropriate health care for specific clinical
circumstances." (Hummel & Ubel, 2004). Because of this, they can then provide cost-effective information to
physicians without threatening the physicians' independence to decide what is best for the patient. To help
increase the trust between physicians, legislation, and patient; all guidelines should include explicit
information about cost-effectiveness to help physicians better assess the fairness of the recommendations. It
enhances the reliability and usefulness of guidelines by showing how they are reasonable treatment
options..So, yes, as much as guidelines would impair the better judgement of the physician, they will also
allow for the patient to afford treatment and get healthy.
Hummel, E., & Ubel, P. (2004, December 01). Cost and clinical practice guidelines: Can Two wrongs make it
right? Retrieved May 5, 2022, from https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/cost-and-clinical-
practice-guidelines-can-two-wrongs-make-it-right/2004-12
