“Proud Up-Yours Tradition”: Arizona Bill Would Require Immigration Checks In Hospitals
Republicans have long claimed that there’s no such thing as an uninsured patient in America since anyone can just go to the emergency room for their health care. Sure that’s inefficient and expensive, but a proposed Arizona law might reduce some of those costs by making clear to undocumented immigrants that they’re not welcome in the state’s hospitals at all.
The latest in the Arizona’s proud tradition of “up yours” legislation, H.B. 2293 would require that to would require hospitals to check the immigration status of patients and report undocumented patients to the authorities. Republican State Representative Steve Smith, who’s sponsoring the bill, said that it’s a way to gauge how much Arizona is spending on care for non-Americans:
The local ABC affiliate reported:
“That’s it, we don’t deny anybody, they don’t come in and not get treated, everything stays the same, we just want it documented,” said Smith.
Smith said his goal is to find out the amount of money hospitals spend to treat undocumented immigrants.
He later said that he has “no clue” about whether hospitals would enforce the law. It’s currently in the early stages of the legislative process but if it passed it would likely dissuade undocumented immigrants from seeking health care since their presence in the emergency room would trigger a call to the cops or feds.
“When does this begin or end?” asked Pete Wertheim of the Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association to the Arizona Daily Sun. “What other industry should be screening their customers for citizenship verification?”
We cannot detain them,” he said of those suspected of being illegal immigrants. And he said not every one of the 1.2 million uninsured in Arizona — people who would lack the evidence of valid health insurance that triggers what Smith’s bill would require — are here illegally.
Smith has also advocated for citizenship checks in public schools.
By: Alex Halperin, Salon, January 27, 2013
“Whose Body Is It?”: Pharmacists Can’t Be Allowed To Deny Women Emergency Contraception
Women deserve the chance to prevent pregnancy after birth control failure, sexual assault, or unprotected sex. Emergency contraception, also known as the “morning-after pill,” is FDA-approved and prevents pregnancy after sexual intercourse. But it is time-sensitive; it only works if women are able to obtain it without delay or discrimination.
Unfortunately, healthcare providers are refusing to dispense emergency contraception based on their own religious or moral beliefs, thereby overriding women’s decisions about their bodies and lives. Pharmacists in at least 24 states have refused to sell birth control or emergency contraception to women. Some hospital emergency rooms refuse to provide emergency contraception to rape victims.
Some healthcare providers even lie to women—for example, by saying it will cause an abortion. In one case, a woman believed a Wisconsin pharmacist who called her a murderer. Although it will not work once a woman is pregnant, she did not fill her prescription and got pregnant. In a California incident, a couple with a newborn sought emergency contraception after birth control failure. The pharmacist called them irresponsible, refused to fill the prescription, and did not enter it into the system so that it could be transferred elsewhere.
Laws should require all hospitals and pharmacies to establish a system to ensure that women in need of birth control, including in emergency situations, receive it without discrimination and delay. Individual healthcare providers with religious objections may be accommodated—for example, by making sure two pharmacists are on duty—but not at the expense of patient access to critical healthcare. This approach is consistent with long-standing protections for individual religious beliefs in the workplace. Refusing providers must treat patients with respect and ensure that patients receive care from another provider. They cannot—as one Wisconsin pharmacist did—leave customers waiting indefinitely for assistance in the store and on the phone. A patient should not even know her healthcare professional objects.
Refusals often result in women feeling judged, shamed, angry, and vulnerable, and they reduce women’s trust in the healthcare system. Additionally, refusals violate informed consent, restricting women’s information and options. Delays or denials of emergency contraception can lead to pregnancy. For some women, pregnancy can entail severe health risks and even life endangerment. A refusal to provide emergency contraception can further traumatize an already traumatized woman—like a rape survivor. Refusals are most burdensome on people in rural areas, or those with low incomes and no job flexibility. For example, an Ohio woman refused emergency contraception at her local pharmacy had to drive 45 miles to find another pharmacy. And some women may be limited by their insurance plan to a particular pharmacy or provider.
Recognizing the harm of refusals, states, national professional associations, and pharmacy chains have acted to protect women’s access to emergency contraception. Twenty-three states and Washington, D.C., have laws and/or policies that improve women’s access to it, such as requiring hospitals to provide it to rape survivors. Major pharmacy chains have adopted policies ensuring that women leave the pharmacy with contraception in hand. Professional healthcare associations have issued guidance protective of patients’ right to receive care. The religious beliefs of pharmacists, doctors, nurses, or other healthcare providers should not trump a woman’s ability to make decisions about her reproductive health. Those decisions are personal, and they should stay that way.
By: Gretchen Borchett, U. S. News and World Report, October 15, 2012
“Facing The Reality Of Politics”: Will Red State Governors Opt Out Of Medicaid Expansion?
While supporters of Obamacare are cheering the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the constitutionality of the law, the celebration may
be short-lived as focus begins to shift to the one key aspect of the Affordable Care Act that was limited by the decision – the expansion of Medicaid to bring health insurance to approximately 17 million previously uninsured Americans.
As originally drafted and passed into law, states that failed to adopt the expansion and offer Medicaid coverage to anyone earning less than 133 percent of the Federal Poverty Level risked losing 100 percent of the money they receive from the federal government towards their state run Medicaid programs, even as currently offered.
In the ruling handed down on Thursday, the court held that such a penalty was unconstitutional and that the federal government is not permitted to punish the states in such a manner, leaving it to the states to decide if they want to stand pat with the Medicaid programs they currently operate or accept the expansion —and the federal largesse that comes with it.
Under the law, the federal government will pick up 100 percent of the cost of expansion for three years, 95 percent for the two years that follow and 90 percent of the costs thereafter. The expansion will allow the states to provide the benefit to many more low income Americans without taxing their state budgets at all for three years and then only slightly in the years that follow.
Currently, the federal government picks up the tab for about 55 percent of the costs of a state Medicaid program.
Those governors who are strong objectors to Obamacare will, no doubt, feel a strong ideological urge to reject the expansion and leave things as they are. But is that really going to fly? After all, conscientious objection to Obamacare is one thing but the reality of politics is something else entirely.
So far, there have only been angry ‘rumblings’ from Republican governors like Sam Brownback of Kansas and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana who say they will continue their objection to the ACA by refusing to begin organizing a healthcare exchange in their respective states and wait for the outcome of the November election. Other governors, such as Texas’ Rick Perry, who has refused federal money in the past, are staying a bit quiet on the subject, saying only that they will look into the matter and make a decision at a later time.
While it is to be expected that GOP governors—particularly those who refused to implement the requirements of Obamacare until they heard from the Supreme Court—would engage in a bit of sabre rattling, we can expect few, if any, to be foolish enough to pass up the opportunity to expand their Medicaid programs when Washington is offering such an exception deal for them to do so.
As National Journal’s Ron Brownstein points out, the 26 states that sued to block the Medicaid expansion contain over half of the nation’s unemployed and an even greater percentage of the nation’s uninsured population. Texas—one of the plaintiff states in the healthcare lawsuit—alone accounts for slightly over 6 million of the uninsured, 2 million of whom would gain coverage under the Medicaid expansion.
Additionally, because the federal government picks up virtually all of the costs attached to covering more people through expanded Medicaid, the program represents a massive transfer of money to those red states that tend to have less generous Medicaid programs already in existence. As a result, a state like Texas, with a rather sparse program, is going to get an enormous sum of federal cash where Massachusetts, which already has a generous program, will get very little in federal funding.
Are these red state governors really going to sit by and watch the taxes their citizens pay to the federal government flow to the benefit of their neighboring states as the recalcitrant governors allow their own residents to miss the benefit of that money?
I don’t think so. Ideological opposition is one thing—denying access to health care to voters who could certainly use it when, to do so, would cost the state a relatively tiny amount of money, is just dumb politics.
The pressure will not come only from the voters.
If there is one lobby that is highly supportive of the Medicaid expansion it is the nation’s hospitals. For them, covering millions of low income Americans means dramatically less free medical services being doled out to people who cannot pay. With more of those who have depended on free emergency room care as their sole means of getting health care now eligible to have Medicaid coverage, hospital balance sheets can be expected to look a lot better in the coming years.
Expect lots of huffing and puffing on this topic in the coming days.
Expect GOP governors to continue pressing the case that a Romney victory means saving their states from the further economic distress that these politicians will claim to be the fate of expanded Medicaid.
But remember that this Medicaid expansion is the bargain of the century for each and every state in the union that does not already offer generous Medicaid programs—especially the red states—and that beneath the inevitable bluster, there isn’t a Republican or Democratic governor in the country who doesn’t understand that passing up a sweet deal like this will bring unhappy political results.
My prediction?
Medicaid expansion, as written in the Affordable Care Act, will take place in every single state in the nation, without exception.
By: Rick Ungar, Contributor, Forbes, June 30. 2012
Texas-Style Tort Reform: Rick Perry’s Texas Health Care Hoax
In his quest to win the Republican presidential nomination, Texas Gov. Rick Perry is perpetuating a convincing hoax: that implementing Texas-style tort reformwould go a long way toward curing what ails the U.S. health care system.
Like his fellow GOP contenders, Perry consistently denounces “Obamacare” as “a budget-busting, government takeover of healthcare” and “the greatest intrusion on individual freedom in a generation.” He promises to repeal the law if elected.
Unlike those in the “repeal-and-replace” wing of the Republican Party, however, Perry has emerged as leader of the “repeal-and-let-the-states-figure-it-out” wing that believes the federal government has no legitimate role in fixing America’s health care system.
“To hear federal officials tell it, they’ve got all the answers on health care and it’s up to the rest of us to sit, wait and embrace whatever solution — if any — they may eventually provide,” Perry wrote in a newspaper commentary in 2009. “I find this troubling, since states have shown they know a thing or two about solving problems that affect their citizens.”
Even as he points with pride to the alleged benefits of malpractice and other tort reforms that have been enacted during his tenure as governor of Texas, Perry says he is opposed to tort reform at the federal level. He cites the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which states-rights advocates say limits the role of the federal government.
But if Perry had his way, all the states would do as Texas did in 2003 when lawmakers enacted legislation, which he championed, limiting the amount of money juries can award patients who win malpractice lawsuits against doctors and hospitals. The legislation capped non-economic (pain and suffering) damages at $250,000 in lawsuits against doctors and $750,000 against hospitals. A few months after he signed the bill into law, the state’s voters narrowly passed a constitutional amendment, also endorsed by Perry, which had the same effect. Proponents of the amendment wanted to be sure the new law would be constitutional.
Texas, he wrote in that 2009 commentary “stands as a good example of how smart, responsible policy can help us take major steps toward fixing a damaged medical system, starting with legal reforms.”
As a result of the 2003 tort reform law, malpractice liability insurers reduced their rates in Texas and, according to Perry, the number of doctors applying to practice medicine in the state “skyrocketed.”
He says that in the first five years after tort reform was enacted, 14,498 doctors either returned to practice in Texas or began practicing there for the first time.
Tort Reform Backfires in Texas
That certainly sounds impressive — so long as you look at that number in isolation. But when you look at how Texas stacks up with the rest of the country in terms of physician growth in direct patient care, tort reform appears to have given Texas no leg up in competition with others states for doctors. In fact, according to statistics compiled by the American Medical Association and other physician organizations, Texas has actually lost ground when it comes to the number of doctors practicing in the state since tort reform was enacted. Big time.
In 2008, the number of physicians in patient care per 10,000 civilian population in the United States was 25.7. At just 20.2 doctors per 10,000 people, Texas ranked near the bottom of the 50 states. In fact, only nine states fared worse. In 2000, three years before tort reform, Texas was still bringing up the rear, but not as badly. Back then, 11 states fared worse than the Lone Star state.
Even more revealing, the number of doctors in patient care increased 13.2 percent nationwide from 2000 to 2008. It increased only 12.8 percent in Texas. The rate of growth was actually greater in 41 other states and in Washington, D.C. than it was in the Lone Star state.
It is true that malpractice insurance rates dropped in Texas after tort reform was enacted, but Texans would be hard pressed to claim any direct benefit from that drop — except, that is, Texans who are doctors.
The Dallas Morning News published a chart earlier this year showing that the average malpractice rate charged ob/gyns in Texas by the state’s largest domestic insurer of physicians fell from $53,752 in 2003 to $33,881 in 2011. The paper reported drops of similar percentages for doctors in family practice and general surgery.
Advocates of tort reform have long claimed that one of the reasons for escalating health care costs is the “defensive medicine” doctors practice, such as over-treating and prescribing more medications and diagnostic tests than necessary, out of fear of being sued. Well, if Texans believed their own health insurance rates would go down once tort reform made defensive medicine less prevalent, they have by now been disabused of that notion. The chances of a Texas family saving a few bucks on premiums would actually be greater if they moved to another state.
In 2010, the average premium for family coverage in Texas was $14,526. That’s $655 higher than the U.S. average. Those numbers seem to indicate that doctors have not passed on their own insurance savings to their patients and that they are not practicing medicine any less defensively than before tort reform was enacted.
Not only are Texans paying more for their own insurance while doctors are paying less for theirs, their chances of getting employer-subsidized coverage is less than it would be if they lived in another state. The Dallas Morning News, citing statistics from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and other sources, reported that a smaller percentage of employers in Texas offered coverage to their workers last year than in the U.S. as a whole (51 percent and 53.8 percent, respectively). And the Texans who do have coverage through the workplace are contributing far more out of their own pockets for that coverage than people who live in most other states. In Texas last year, the average employee contribution toward company-sponsored coverage was $4,500. The U.S. average was much lower: $3,721.
Another statistic Perry is not likely to mention when he talks about the benefits of tort reform is the number of Texans who are uninsured. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that Texas continues to be the state with the highest percentage of its residents without coverage, a whopping 25 percent last year, compared to about 16 percent nationwide. It was dead last in 2003 and it is dead last now.
All this should leave us wondering what “thing or two” states have come up with to solve the problems that affect their citizens. Considering the dismal state of health care in Texas, perhaps Perry had Massachusetts in mind.
By: Wendell Potter, Center for Media and Democracy, September 1, 2011
How The Budget Deal Affects The Affordable Care Act
So how does this mammoth budget-cutting deal, with its congressional “supercommittee” affect health reform?
Good question, because lots of people in Washington are asking it too.
More specific answers will become clearer in the next few weeks, but here’s a first version of the road map to both the policy and the politics.
First, understand there are two different processes – and each, separately, aims at cutting more than $1 trillion over the next decade.
The one that you’ve probably heard most about is the “supercommittee” of 12 members of Congress. They are supposed to identify savings by Thanksgiving. Entitlements – Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and aspects of the Affordable Care Act – are part of their turf. So are taxes and revenue – at least in theory. It’s not so clear that the Republicans see it that way given the public statements of Congressional leaders.
If they agree on some kind of grand deal by Thanksgiving, Congress has to take it or leave it by the end of December, eliminating the usual congressional dilly-dallying. (It looks like dilly-dallying to the casual observer or much of the public, but remember that all that arcane, tedious process IS policy in Congress. If you slow something down, make it go through hoops, amend it, hold it up, etc., it doesn’t become law. That may be good or, depending on your point of view, bad politics.)
If Congress takes any recommendations that the supercommittee agrees on, that’s the law. If the committee fails, or Congress rejects it, then the “trigger” gets pulled. The official name is “sequestration.” That’s a fancy name for automatic cuts – 2 percent across-the-board cuts in Medicare, for instance, affecting all health care providers, doctors, hospitals, etc. It won’t affect beneficiaries – at least not directly.
Medicaid is not subject to the trigger. Neither, according to the preliminary interpretations I’ve received from analysts and congressional staff, are the big, key subsidies in the health care reform law – the Medicaid expansion and the subsidies that will help low-income and middle-income people afford health care in the new state exchanges.
Other parts of the health reform law are, however, subject to automatic cuts. Among them: Cost-sharing subsidies for low-income people. This isn’t the help paying the premium; this is the help with the co-pays when people do get care. But the payments are made to health plans, not directly to beneficiaries so it won’t have the direct impact of discouraging care. It may affect how health plans make decisions about what markets to participate in. Gary Claxton and Larry Levitt at Kaiser Family Foundation explain here.
Also, the supercommittee could have a partial deal – meaning there’s still a trigger, but a smaller one. Maybe they won’t reach agreement on $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion in savings, which would avoid the trigger. But maybe they could agree on, say, $500 billion. That means a trigger wouldn’t have to go as deep because some of the savings would already be identified.
To recap – before we go on to the second stage of this process: The “super-committee” can do whatever it wants to health care, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. – if it can agree, if it can get the rest of Congress to agree and if the president doesn’t veto it.
Will the Democratic Senate and the Obama White House agree to cuts that eviscerate health reform? Not likely. In fact, the Democrats “won” on very few aspects of the budget/debt deal. Walling off Medicaid and key parts of the health coverage expansion were two of the “wins.” That’s a bright line worth paying attention to as this moves forward.
Does that mean other health-reform related spending will be untouched? Given how many moving parts there are to any spending deal, and the fact that defense and tax policy are also part of the mix, chances are it will be affected. But expect to see that bright line remain visible – maybe not quite as bright, but visible. (The CLASS Act, the voluntary long-term care program created under health reform, is a different story; it’s quite vulnerable.)
The second part is the annual appropriations process. The budget deal provides for cuts – real cuts in spending, not just slowing the rate of growth. Health programs (aspects of the health reform legislation touching on exchange creation, prevention, community clinics, etc., and just about everything else at the Department of Health and Human Services – the FDA, NIH, CDC, etc. – will be subject to these cuts. But this isn’t an across the board process, it’s a line-by-line, or at least category/agency-by-category/agency, process. And there is some horse trading.
It’s safe to say that the Republicans will try to cut discretionary portions of the new health law. That’s not a new political dynamic, it doesn’t arise out of the debt ceiling or the Wall Street woes. It’s what we’ve seen since last fall’s elections and the repeal/defund fights of the past few months. And House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan has publicly tried to insert health care into any potential deal. So expect to see more Republican push to cut, and continued Democratic push back. Will health spending emerge unscathed? It’s too soon to know but, given the amount of savings Congress needs to find –both in this budget deal and in the perennial quest to fund the “doc fix” payments – some cuts are clearly possible. Some of it may affect aspects of exchange establishment, regulation, prevention, public health, etc. But it’s hard to see the Democrats allowing cuts so deep that they basically constitute a side door to repeal.
One further twist – some Republicans are calling for a delay in health reform implementation to save money.”Delay” may sound better to an ambivalent public worried about spending than “repeal.” What’s delayed (if anything), how it’s delayed, how long it’s delayed, and what stopgaps are created in the meantime could have an impact on how many people get covered in 2014.
Assorted committees and government agencies are still examining the new budget law and how it will affect … everything. So the perspective I’ve outlined here – and I’m writing amid all the market turbulence – may change as the economic and political climates change. But the lines in the sand around the trigger – health reform, Medicaid and Social Security – tell us something about where the White House will come down.
By: Joanne Kenen, Association of Health Care Journalists, August 10, 2011
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 