Here are two different discussions to reply to. 2 scholary reference required and 150 WC for each discussion. 

GF discussion 

It is clear that this particular client is going through a hard time. They are experiencing waves of depression but not enough to be considered “major depression”. Her insurance won’t cover her counseling and she cannot afford to pay. To determine a client’s eligibility for mental health services the DSM-5 will be used. Unfortunately, the DSM-5 does not cover “normal” problems such as martial or parent-child conflict (Frankel et al., 2019). Being advised by my colleagues to diagnose this potential client with major depression would be an act of fraudulent billing. Partaking in this so the client’s insurance will approve the services and reimburse our company is not only unethical but also illegal (Zur, 2020). As a case manager working in the human services field, it is my job to accurately diagnose clients to the best of my ability. I have an ethical responsibility to the client, but I also need to legally protect myself. Three assessment tools that may help the client to receive the services she needs that are legal and ethical are; by conducting a Mini Mental Status Examination (MMSE), providing staff notes and doing an intake summary. The MMSE will assess a number of factors that relate to the client’s mental functioning (Woodside & McClam, 2018). Staff notes are written with every interaction the provider has with the client (Woodside & McClam, 2018). Staff notes are good for documentation and will help to confirm a specific service the client may need. Lastly, the intake summary will take into account any inconsistencies or missing information the client left out while taking into account any strengths the client has (Woodside & McClam, 2018).

KC discussion 

In this scenario, there is a clear ethical dilemma present: the case manager realizes this woman needs help, but cannot afford to do so, even on the lowest end of a sliding scale. Urged by other colleagues to classify her under a diagnosis that she does not suffer from in order to qualify her for coverage through her insurance, you are put in a precarious situation. Ethically, you long to help her but realize that there could be serious legal ramifications for your actions if you do as they suggest. Ethical conflict arises when financial and logistic factors place barriers between our view of the best possible medical care and the reality of the costs of care (Riley, E. C., & Moy, B. 2012). Diagnosing a client with the wrong mental illness in order to obtain services at an affordable rate from their insurance company is fraud, and illegal (Woodside & McClam, 2018). Attempting to reach out to her employer to see if they have any other providers she could potentially see, even virtually, could be an option in this situation. Other options would be various assessments that could be conducted such as an intake assessment along with any case notes conducted which would keep a record of all exchange, both verbal and nonverbal that could help the client receive needed services in the future (Woodside, M. & McClam, T., 2018).