The Ethics of Bundled Payments in Total Joint Replacement: “Cherry Picking” and “Lemon Dropping”

Journal of Clinical Ethics 29 (1):62-68 (2018)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has initiated bundled payments for hip and knee total joint replacement in an effort to decrease healthcare costs and increase quality of care. The ethical implications of this program have not been studied. This article considers the ethics of patient selection to improve outcomes; specifically, screening patients by body mass index to determine eligibility for total joint replacement. I argue that this type of screening is not ethically defensible, and that the bundled payment program as structured is likely to lead to unfair restrictions on who receives total joint replacements.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,897

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Cherry-picking, selective reading and the creation of straw arguments?M. De Roubaix - forthcoming - South African Journal of Bioethics and Law:7-8.
Historical Inductions: New Cherries, Same Old Cherry-picking.Moti Mizrahi - 2015 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 29 (2):129-148.
Assessing the outcomes of total knee replacement.Martin Bardsley & Robert Cleary - 1999 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 5 (1):47-55.
Joint Action and Development.Stephen Andrew Butterfill - 2012 - Philosophical Quarterly 62 (246):23-47.

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-06-14

Downloads
9 (#1,254,142)

6 months
7 (#430,360)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references