Now that you have a foundation in the nature of ethics and law, as well as contemporary ethical dilemmas that present to healthcare administrators, it is time to broaden your outlook. In Week 3, you will examine some of the ways that the government, organizations, and healthcare professionals contend with ethics and law.

Your Learning Objectives for the Week:

  • Apply legal and ethical principles, procedures, and cases to practical management problems frequently found in healthcare settings.
  • Examine the healthcare plans and discuss the legislation that affects these plans.
  • Evaluate how local, state, and federal laws affect a healthcare organization.

MHA 6060 WEEK 3 LECTURE, DISCUSSION AND PROJECT INSTRUCTIONS

1

Ethics and Law: Government

A successful healthcare administrator must have a working knowledge of both the government and the organizational policies that impact healthcare practice. The government is primarily responsible for enacting legislation to protect the rights of citizens—the right to privacy and the right to self-determination. Such legislation is subject to examination by various ethics committees in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, which is, in turn, supervised by the Office of Congressional Ethics. This demonstrates how ethics and law are interdependent and intertwined with one another. Federal laws that the healthcare administrators should be aware of include:

· Title VI: The Civil Rights Act
prohibits racial discrimination in any agency supported by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

· The Sherman Antitrust Act—prevents efforts to monopolize an industry through price fixing or exclusive contracts designed to reduce market competition in the healthcare industry

· The Privacy Act—promotes access to medical records concerning an individual, while simultaneously protecting against the misuse of the information contained within these records

· The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)—promotes privacy, confidentiality, and security of patient information in all formats

· The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)—forbids Medicare-participating hospitals from “dumping” patients, that is, turning away any individual seeking emergency care

· The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPAC)—mandates health reforms designed to expand medical insurance coverage and create a health insurance marketplace

While the number of federal laws pertaining to healthcare is large, those that impact day-to-day healthcare organization operations are commonly expressed through organizational rules and regulations. By mandating specific behaviors and care practices, healthcare organizations can help to ensure their compliance with federal regulations, while promoting organizational success.

Healthcare Related Laws

Review each year to learn more about the healthcare laws.

1965 Social Security was amended with Titles XVIII and XIX, which established Medicare Part A and Part B for individuals sixty-five years and over.

1972 Social Security was amended with Title XVIII expansion to include disabled persons and those with end-stage renal disease.

1973 The Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) Act that moved healthcare away from fee-for-service toward prepaid group practice plans.

1985 The Consolidated Omnibus Reconciliation Act (COBRA), which amended Title X of the IRS code to deny tax deductions for plans that prevented

MHA6060: Health Law and Ethics




Week
3
Assignment




DEONTOLOGICAL
ETHICAL THEORY





Please review the following case:


At thirty-three years of age, I was the youngest administrator in New York State and was about to learn that adhering to company policies sometimes conflicts with the needs of patients. In this case, it was a thirty-eight-year-old employee who had been diagnosed with cancer. I remember the day well, even though it was more than thirty years ago. My secretary alerted me that Carol, a practical nurse and employee, had been admitted to the 3-North medical-surgical week, where she worked. Without delay, I left my office and went to the nursing week and inquired as to what room Carol was in.

Beth, the week’s nurse manager, overheard my question. She walked up to me and asked, “Daniel, could I please talk to you for a moment before you visit Carol?” I looked at her and nodded my head yes, and without thought, we both walked into her office. She closed the door and said, “As you know, we are self-insured and the health insurance program that we have does not cover Carol’s chemotherapy treatments. She cannot bear the cost. Is there anything you can do to help her?” I replied that I would make an inquiry with our human resources director to see what could be done.

Beth asked, “Would you mind if I went with you to Carol’s room for a few minutes.” Daniel compassionately replied, “Of course, you can.” They walked to Carol’s room. Her husband and children had just left. Beth stayed for a few minutes while Daniel remained behind chatting with Carol for a few moments and said he would be back to talk with her more.

Daniel went to speak with Christine, the human resources director for his hospital. There were two other hospitals in the multihospital system. He explained Carol’s financial situation and her lack of funds for her chemotherapy treatment. Christine replied, “Daniel, this is a corporate policy that is applicable to all three hospitals with which we must comply.” Following much discussion, Daniel said, “Christine, Carol is an employee, and I realize there are conflicting duties here.

One is to follow corporate policy or choose to do, as I see it, what is right for Carol. If you prefer, I can request an exception to the rule. To me, right trumps duty.” Christine looked at Daniel and said, “Daniel, I will see what I can do. I have a good relationship with the corporate vice president for human resources. If anyone can make an exception, he can make it happen. I know you would do the same for me or any other employee.”



8/30/2021 Rubric Assessment – MHA6060-Health Law and Ethics SU01 – South University

https://myclasses.southuniversity.edu/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assessment_results.d2l?ou=80786&evalObjectId=402680&evalObjectType=5&userId=4901&groupId=0&rubricId=6574&d2l_b… 1/4

Close

Print RubricSUO Discussion Rubric (80 Points) – Version 1.2
Course: MHA6060-Health Law and Ethics SU01

Response
No Submission
0 points

Emerging (F-D: 1-27)
27 points

Satisfactory (C: 28-
31)
31 points

Proficient (B: 32-35)
35 points

Exemplary (A: 36-40)
40 points

Criterion Score

Quality of Initial

Posting

/ 40No initial posting exists to
evaluate.

The information provided is

inaccurate, not focused on

the assignment’s topic,

and/or does not answer

the question(s) fully.

Response demonstrates

incomplete understanding

of the topic and/or

inadequate preparation.

The information provided is

accurate, giving a basic

understanding of the

topic(s) covered. A basic

understanding is when you

are able to describe the

terms and concepts

covered. Despite this basic

understanding, initial

posting may not include

complete development of

all aspects of the

assignment.

The information provided is

accurate, displaying a good

understanding of the

topic(s) covered. A good

understanding is when you

are able to explain the

terms and topics covered.

Initial posting

demonstrates sincere

reflection and addresses

most aspects of the

assignment, although all

concepts may not be fully

developed.

The information provided is

accurate, providing an in-

depth, well thought-out

understanding of the

topic(s) covered. An in-

depth understanding

provides an analysis of the

information, synthesizing

what is learned from the

course/assigned readings.

Participation
No Submission
0 points

Emerging (F-D: 1-13)
13 points

Satisfactory (C: 14-
16)
16 points

Proficient (B: 17-18)
18 points

Exemplary (A: 19-20)
20 points

Criterion Score

8/30/2021 Rubric Assessment – MHA6060-Health Law and Ethics SU01 – South University

https://myclasses.southuniversity.edu/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assessment_results.d2l?ou=80786&evalObjectId=402680&evalObjectType=5&userId=4901&groupId=0&rubricId=6574&d2l_b… 2/4

Participation
No Submission
0 points

Emerging (F-D: 1-13)
13 points

Satisfactory (C: 14-
16)
16 points

Proficient (B: 17-18)
18 points

Exem

8/30/2021 Rubric Assessment – MHA6060-Health Law and Ethics SU01 – South University

https://myclasses.southuniversity.edu/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assessment_results.d2l?ou=80786&evalObjectId=411451&evalObjectType=1&userId=4901&viewTypeId=3&rubricId=248270&… 1/3

Close

Print RubricSU MHA6060 Week 3 Project Rubric
Course: MHA6060-Health Law and Ethics SU01

Criteria
No Submission
0 points

Emerging (F through
D Range) (1–41)
41 points

Satisfactory (C
Range) (42–47)
47 points

Proficient (B Range)
(48–53)
53 points

Exemplary (A Range)
(54–60)
60 points

Criterion Score

Includes all

assignment

components and

meets graduate

level critical

thinking. A

purpose statement

is identified for

the response.

/ 60Student did not
submit assignment.

Work minimally

meets assignment

expectations. No

purpose statement is

provided.

Assignment meets

some expectations

with minimal depth

and breath. Purpose

statement is vague.

Assignment meets

most of expectations

with all components

being addressed in

good depth and

breadth. Purpose

statement is present

and appropriate for

the assignment.

Assignment meets all

expectations with

exceptional depth

and breath. A

comprehensive

purpose statement

delineates all

requirements of the

assignment.

Criteria
No Submission
0 points

Emerging (F through
D Range) (1–37)
37 points

Satisfactory (C
Range) (38–43)
43 points

Proficient (B Range)
(44–48)
48 points

Exemplary (A Range)
(49–55)
55 points

Criterion Score

Integrates and

understands

assignments

concepts and

topics.

/ 55Student did not
submit assignment.

Shows some degree

of understanding of

assignment concepts.

Demonstrates a clear

understanding of

assignment concepts.

Demonstrates the

ability to evaluate

and apply key

assignment concepts.

Demonstrates the

ability to evaluate,

apply and integrate

key assignment

concepts.

Criteria
No Submission
0 points

Emerging (F through
D Range) (1–34)
34 points

Satisfactory (C
Range) (35–39)
39 points

Proficient (B Range)
(40–44)
44 points

Exemplary (A Range)
(45–50)
50 points

Criterion Score

8/30/2021 Rubric Assessment – MHA6060-Health Law and Ethics SU01 – South University

https://myclasses.southuniversity.edu/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assessment_results.d2l?ou=80786&evalObjectId=411451