Why employer should not be responsible for healthcare coverage
According to managed care organizations criteria, post-stabilization services that are offered to a patient with a medical condition are covered services (Medicaid, 2015, p. 7). Furthermore, the health care provider is forbidden to discriminate against those individuals with a serious medical condition and require costly treatment. Employers rarely choose to cover the expenses that go towards treating an employee’s medical condition, especially when it comes to serious health conditions that require extensive diagnosis and treatment. Unless clearly stated in the employment contract, I think that the employer should not be responsible for providing coverage for treating a serious medical condition of the worker as it influences the company and other workers as well.
Why employer should be responsible for healthcare coverage
Employers are often unwilling to cover the expenses of their workers when it comes to serious medical conditions because they think that the risks are too high for them to manage. According to the federal Family and Medical Leave Act, a serious health condition is connected with the need for inpatient care, inability to work for more than three days, being treated by a healthcare service provider, pregnancy, etc. (Guerin, n.d., para. 2). In my opinion, an employer that values his or her work should look past the insurance expenses and cover them. The cost will return as soon as the worker gets better and starts bringing value to the company.
Why employer has an option to be or to be not responsible for healthcare coverage
As a nurse, I think that there should be a comprehensive agreement between an employer and an employee concerning the issue of healthcare coverage cost. On one hand, it can be beneficial for the worker to mention his or her medical condition to the employer so that there is a relationship built on trust. On the other hand, as mentioned in Woods (2010), 25 percent of employees are afraid to tell their employers about an illness (para. 7). There is no point in hiding a medical condition from an employer because sooner or later it will become known. When it comes to full coverage, in my opinion, it is for the employer to decide.
Why employer should be responsible for full healthcare coverage
Health care coverage is not the priority for an employer. All he or she can benefit from is the work of an employee; thus, in my opinion, patients with a serious medical condition should be working if it is possible. The conducted research has shown that recovering patients get better faster when they are engaged in a working process (NHS, n.d., p. 1). While I think that full health care coverage should be provided to every individual with a serious medical condition, the most beneficial thing an employer can do is allow the worker to gradually come back to his or her job for the recovery process to be harmonious externally and internally.
Why employer should not be responsible for full healthcare coverage
A medical condition of an individual is a personal thing, which, in my view, should not be discussed with an employer. Even though an employer can obtain medical information on a worker through several sources, this topic should be confidential (Workplace Fairness, n.d., para. 4). The same applies for coverage on the health care cost – a patient should manage this issue alone or get help from the government through subsidies without employer’s involvement. No matter how serious the medical condition is, employee’s health is a personal issue that should not become an obstacle for professional life, let alone force the employer to pay for health coverage.
Guerin, L. (n.d.). What Is a Serious Health Condition Under the FMLA? Web.
Medicaid. (2015). State Guide to CMS Criteria for Managed Care Contract Review and Approval. Web.
NHS. (n.d.). Advice for Line Managers on Supporting Employees with Long-Term Medical Conditions. Web.
Workplace Fairness. (n.d.). Medical Privacy. Web.