This paper examines three federal healthcare initiatives — the Family and Medical Leave Act (FLA), the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA), and proposed legislation HR 2457 — and argues for their integration into a unified policy framework. The paper contends that establishing a legal right to a second medical opinion would address systemic failures in the market-based U.S. healthcare system, reduce misdiagnoses, and generate significant cost savings. Drawing on data from medical service providers and scholarly sources, the paper makes the case that proactive, coordinated legislative action is more effective than piecemeal reforms.
The federal government has tried to address the nation's need for better healthcare by focusing on improving what is already in place. Two of the ongoing efforts toward this goal are the Family and Medical Leave Act (FLA) and the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA) (DOL, b). The purpose of the FLA is to provide structured and economically efficient ways for people to take leave from their positions — without risking their jobs — when dealing with either the birth of a child or the serious illness of an immediate family member. It is also viewed as an effort to protect men and women against gender injustice, particularly where women face challenges in maintaining healthcare coverage as a result of choosing to have children. FECA, on the other hand, seeks to ensure fair levels of compensation when workers in federal jobs are injured, disabled, or killed in connection with their work responsibilities.
The third initiative is HR 2457, a proposed legislative fix that would allow patients with health insurance to have fair access to a second medical opinion (GovTrack.us). The evidence is overwhelming that second opinions can play a vital role in ensuring that medical conditions are properly detected and treated. Unfortunately, many healthcare providers that rely on prepaid or similar group approaches treat second opinions with resistance, particularly when serious or unclear conditions arise. According to recent data collected by three major second-opinion medical service providers, "misdiagnoses are discovered in up to 20% of medical cases and treatment changes are recommended in more than half of them" (Wojcik). HR 2457 takes this understanding further and would establish obtaining a second opinion as a right for those with private health coverage. The bill details the conditions of that right, including specifics on how it would need to be implemented and under what conditions second opinions could be approved or denied.
Combining these three initiatives into a single unified effort could well be the most effective course of action. It may be one of the few options that could actually force meaningful operational change across the healthcare system. Each of the acts is highly targeted, seeking to fix particular issues. If brought together, they might widen their reach and convey a broader recognition that getting care — especially when challenging problems arise — is something that more professionals and more coordinated systems need to support.
Getting a second opinion is something that many patients are now being encouraged to pursue, partly because difficult illnesses like cancer respond better when treated appropriately and early (New Wave). By pulling these acts together, they might be more effective at achieving the proactive goals that are visible in parts of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Wikipedia). The Affordable Care Act prohibits denial of insurance for pre-existing conditions and mandates preventive care. In both instances, the logic is to ensure that people get and keep the care they need. It is no great leap for other comprehensive approaches to follow the same logic — that working in a coordinated way is smarter than fighting battles separately.
"Critique of market-based healthcare and patient rights"
"Cost-benefit analysis supporting second opinion coverage"
You’re 35% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.