My last blog lamented cuts to the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The program is based on family income or “percent of poverty” allowed income. l
In 2017, poverty income for a family of three could not be more than $20,420 per year. States can increase that to no more than 200% of poverty, or $40,820 per year. This language hides the raw facts of incomes for families. How many people with do know who could live on those incomes: For a full report, including charts (scroll down in article), see:
We can turn our backs on many things, but can we turn our back on our children? You can make a difference to stop these cuts by contacting your elected officials at the national and state levels. I urge you to do so.
Over the last 3 years in Seattle, Washington over 12, 000 people received $10 million dollars in free medical and dental services. The services were provided by volunteer doctors, dentists and social workers, among others. There was a modest admission fee. Care was on a first come, first served basis only. Information flyers were available in several different languages. Dental and vision care were included, but could not be provided completely on the same day. We should express sincere gratitude and thanks to hospitals, health insurers and the foundation and corporate donors that made this possible as well as the many physicians, dentists, social workers and other health professionals who donated their time.
BUT, why should we have such events?
We have fought endless fights over health care since Teddy Roosevelt if not earlier. In 1854 when asked for some federal support for the mentally ill, President Franklin Pierce said mental health was not a national problem. States should take care of it. In 1869 the Supreme Court ruled: “insurance is not commerce” and therefore should be regulated by the states not the federal government. When Teddy Roosevelt called for national health insurance in the 1920’s it was labeled ‘Socialist.’ He lost that election as a third party candidate.
Posted in health access, Medicaid, Medicare, policy and politics
Tagged AMA, business, charity care, children insurance coverage, Congress, health insurance, health policy, Medicaid, medical care, Medicare, physicians, politics
I don’t usually do this, but I find this article and innovation fascinating. My mother and Great Aunt had Alzheimer’s Disease so it is always on my radar. Japan is considered one of the leaders in Alzheimer’s care. I hope you find this article of interest:
If you would like me to send links to other articles I find of interest–good or bad–please let me know. I scan stories every day. Best, Kathleen
Years ago I wrote an article about our Rates, Regulations and Body Parts approach to health care. This approach has caused thousands of legislative bills and laws for specific coverage and rates. A few examples include:
- Mental health
- Children’s health
- Medicaid and Medicare coverage
- Medicare and Medicaid physician rates
- State and federal insurance rates and regulations
- Private insurance policies and rates
- Veterans’ health
- Disability coverage
- Insurance networks
- Addiction coverage
- Women’s health and maternity care
- End Stage Renal Disease
- Large employers such as Microsoft or General Motors, are exempt from state insurance regulations and state insurance taxes.
And consider this: Continue reading
Posted in Affordable Care Act, Economics, Health Care Reform, Medicaid, medical bankruptcy, policy and politics, Uncategorized
Tagged Congress, Democrats, economics, health care costs, health insurance, health policy, Medicaid, Medicare, politics, Republicans
I am in the throes of moving, but I found this article of interest, especially since it originates with a hospital north of Spokane, Washington. Not quite in my backyard, but close enough to be of interest. I don’t have time for commentary, except to say this is not restricted to Washington state or Spokane. It is the problem of defined networks. If the doctor is not in the network the patient pays the bill whether they are in control of where they are seen or by whom.
Too often too many patients have no choices or voice. I find the particularly mean spirited–billing people for something beyond their control because where they received care that was not in their network. This at a time when they could have no say in where they were going and who they were going to see.
There is something very, very wrong with this picture. Here’s the story. You may also find the other articles interesting as well.
Posted in Affordable Care Act, emergency rooms, health insurance, hospitals, medical bankruptcy, patient care
Tagged affordable care act, economics, emergency care, health care, health care costs, health insurance, hospitals, insurance rules
Insurance is the law of large numbers. Without a long dissertation—here are some basics: You need many healthy people to offset the costs of sicker people. You need healthy people to offset the costs of older and often sicker people. Having everyone in one plan would lower the costs for everyone by spreading the risk. That’s health care insurance.
Poor people tend to be less healthy, so their costs of care are often more than those who are not poor. Seniors are more expensive simply because they are aging. The poor and the old are on Medicaid. Medicaid is a major issue in current proposals. Nearly 2/3 of Medicaid costs are for seniors and disabled in nursing homes. Over 64% of all people in nursing homes are on Medicaid. They are on Medicaid because Medicare does not cover long-term nursing home care. Most people cannot afford long term care which can be $5-$7,000 a month. Women, children represent and single adults are only 1/3 of Medicaid costs.
In one horrific case in 2003, one state contemplated cutting 13,000 Medicaid nursing home beds to balance the state’s budget. I double checked and called the governor’s office that confirmed this. After back and forth fights with the legislature that did not happen. The fact this was even considered is chilling. Medicaid is funded by both the state and the federal government. When state budgets get tight, Medicaid is often on the chopping block. With a growing aging population more people will be cut from Medicaid or alternatives found.
Posted in Affordable Care Act, aging, Medicaid, Medicare, policy and politics, seniors
Tagged affordable care act, Congress, health care costs, health care reform, health policy, Medicaid, Medicare, politics
Hello, I am in the process of moving so I will have few, if any, blogs until September.
When, it comes to Medicaid, however, nearly 2/3 of all Medicaid spending is for the elderly and disabled in nursing homes.
Nearly 65% of all the people in nursing homes are on Medicaid. Medicare does not cover long-term nursing home care! Therefore cutting Medicaid and requiring people to work affects less than 1/3 of people on Medicaid. Most of them are children, poor women and families.
To help support Obamacare, pharmaceutical and medical device companies were taxed as well as wealthy families. Those taxes will be repealed under the new “Better Health Care Reform Act” Proposed by the Senate. The tax repeal on the wealthy will be retroactive.