Introduction
To choose between two equally appealing options, it is essential to determine the principles on which this choice will be based. Managing grant money is a task that requires immense responsibility and a clear understanding of one’s mission – it may even seem that distributing the grant is more of a punishment than an encouragement. Nevertheless, focusing on the York College Medical Center’s mission and spirit makes a solution more evident.
Main body
Financial stimulation is helpful to enhance the quality of an employee’s work, and it is one of the most efficient work motivation strategies. The first option that consists of rewarding every employee financially may seem like a choice devoid of altruism; nevertheless, it is so only at first sight. Recognizing, rewarding, and encouraging excellent performance at work is of enormous significance as it also benefits the York College Medical Center’s patients indirectly. A policy of efficiency recognition that could be implemented by choosing the first option drives employees to work toward new achievements. The grant can eliminate decreasing productivity and continuously low morale if it is distributed among employees. In this way, the first option, even if considered to be self-serving on the surface, can be used as a smart instrument in increasing the treatment quality provided by the medical professionals at the center.
Despite all the benefits that the first option brings, it has one major drawback. The York College Medical Center’s spirit consists of generosity, altruistic behavior, and devotion to others. Sense of service, compassion, and resilience is at the core of medical professionalism and, from its very beginning, have become the vocation’s integral factor. This pitfall of the first option, naturally, reveals the primary advantage of the second one. Treating all patients for free, including all surgeries, visits, and therapy, corresponds to the high standards of humanitarianism set by the medical center.
Another advantage brought by the second option is that it may help dissolve to a degree health insurance issues in the area. Since the actual health care financing system has limited capacities to help those who are in need and cannot afford decent health insurance, a medical center with free admission could act as a safety jacket. Taking into consideration the fact that one-fifth of households in the country hold no insurance plan, the choice to make such an investment crystallizes (Gathergood & Wylie, 2018). The aggravating condition of the healthcare financial system of the United States reaches universal consensus, and an opportunity to provide free healthcare in this situation is one that cannot be wasted.
The group of people that could profit from the free patient treatment in the area is not limited to the poorly insured. For instance, the decongestion and diminishing of the carrying capacity of Elmhurst hospital leave a considerable segment of the local population without a nearby healthcare institution. The York College Medical Center, given its geographical closeness, could serve as a substitute for those affected by the decongestion. Additionally, the help that could potentially be provided to St. Jude Children’s Hospital by the York College Medical Center may lead to additional grant benefits.
Conclusion
Conclusively, despite numerous positive effects that financial recognition of the employees could bring to the general state of the center and its patients, free healthcare services are of higher priority. Given the variety of groups whose wellbeing could be improved by the grant, and the scale of this change, the preference of the second option is clear. The humanitarian spirit of the York College Medical Center should guide when such a decision is to be taken.
References
Gathergood, J., & Wylie, D. (2018). Why are some households so poorly insured? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 156, 1–12.