|← The meanings of DNA||Euthanasia →|
Texas surgeons, generally referred to as Respondents, were acting on behalf of the general surgeons and six medical groups. This group created, facilitated and implied or implemented agreements amongst the six medical respondents and shareholders of the general surgeons’ organization. Their goals were diversified in this medical field. They wanted to fix terms and conditions of coping with the disturbing third-party financers as well as fixing their prices. They were all against third-party financers and were not willing to deal with them if the situation remained as it was. They could only agree to deal with them if, and only if working conditions were amended. The expanded Texas surgeons who included the six medical groups selected a board of directors who could air their views. They agreed to work together as a strong team to discuss an increment in fee. They were to negotiate with two third parties that is, United Health Care and Blue Cross. These organizations existed in Austin area.
However, the collective negotiations failed to involve the importance of financial risking and risk sharing modes. They did not create efficiency control measures which could guide them throughout the negotiations. Therefore, it was hard to meet the expected standards of quality in this group which was very necessary. They should have budgeted for the implementation of the policies and shared responsibilities to achieve positive results.
The practices and acts of the Texas surgeons and the six groups had specific effects and purposes. They were directed towards a certain capacity or tendency. This was to pin down the unreasonable competition brought about by private surgeons in Austin. They were also determined to harm consumers. The group would deprive consumers, both employers and individuals. The Retirement System was also going to be affected greatly. Third party financers who benefited from the competition were to get it tough after implementation of their plan. There was a real problem in their ideas. They should have started a program that would solve the conflict between them and the third party financers without punishing them. Additionally, they should involve a neutral third party to help them out of their conflict. This would help them make decisions after analyzing the positive and negative impacts of their actions.
Apart from depriving consumers, the group wanted to increase or fix co-payments or payments made by individual patients, third party financers and their employers for general surgeon services. This could be affected if Blue Cross was in charge of managed care section. This covered all surgeries executed by physicians rather than the general surgeons. They wanted to fix and amend terms through which the general surgeons cope with the thirds party payers and the compensation they get. Consequently, this would raise prices charged to employers and individuals’ for managed care and health plans given by the third party financers. They campaigned for an increment with more than a million dollars to what their employees; United and Blue Cross get per annum. This was to be extended to all individuals working with the six medical groups, Texas Surgeons, share holders of general surgeons as we as other physicians in Austin.
It was unethical for them to plan how to deprive consumers. Instead, they should have planned how to reduce surgery charges to cater for the financially low patients. This would mean they care for life more than financial benefits in their field. Their purposes and actions are prejudiced. They aim at injuring the public. They use iniquitous competition methods which are morally wrong. This is against the law and the principles of the medical field. They should focus on saving life and use fair methods to fight for their rights.