« October 2000 | Main | December 2000 »

November 24, 2000

Op-Ed by Bob LeBow, MD, Medical Director at Terry Reilly Health Services in Nampa, Idaho

People without health insurance suffer many indignities--long waits in overcrowded emergency rooms, the inability to pay for a needed prescription, and the scorn of those who think they are just looking for a handout. But they should not have to suffer untimely deaths. And, families should not be split by the lack of health insurance.

Unfortunately, I've seen that happen far too often. At our clinics, we see many families where health insurance is the dividing line between those who get care and those who go without. More than half of the people we treat -- about 17,000 patients a year at our four community and migrant health centers in and around Nampa, Idaho -- have no insurance at all. They either can't get it through their employers, can't afford it because of low pay, or they don't qualify for Medicare or Medicaid.

Our clinics -- known collectively as Terry Reilly Health Services - - offer medical, dental, and mental health care to anyone in the community, regardless of their ability to pay. But for some, the shame of being without insurance and lacking the money to pay for care outweighs the fear of disease and death.

A few years ago, a woman in her late 20s came to our clinic in Homedale, seeking prenatal care. She was two-to-three months pregnant and had no health insurance. Her husband had a green card, and both her children were eligible for Medicaid since they had been born in the U.S. But she was undocumented and ineligible for Medicaid pregnancy coverage.

We charge $500 for prenatal care and delivery, and we try to collect as much of that as possible. We explained to this woman that we would expect $50 a month from her. Maybe that was too much, because she did not come back. That is, until she came to our affiliated hospital, worried because her baby had not moved in two days. She was two weeks past her due date. We determined that her baby, weighing 12 pounds, was dead. The mother also had untreated gestational diabetes, which probably contributed to her infant's death. An obstetrician performed an emergency Caesarean section to remove the dead child. During the operation, fluid from the amniotic sac traveled to the mother's lungs and she died on the operating table.

Two untimely and tragic deaths could have been avoided if the mother only would have had gotten appropriate care. Another woman I treated died too young, as well. She was a single mother in her late 20s. She came to our walk-in clinic with the hallmark symptoms of bacterial endocarditis, an infection that can send clots from a heart valve and quickly kill someone. We hospitalized her immediately, but a clot broke off and caused a stroke. Although we did all we could, sadly, she died. Her mother came in three weeks later for care, and mentioned that her daughter -- whom I recognized as our patient -- had recently died. When I asked if her daughter had delayed care, the mother conceded that she had put off seeing a physician because of her lack of health insurance. Ironically, the young woman had recently been promoted to assistant manager at the convenience store where she worked, and was awaiting approval of her health insurance application.

Now, her mother will have to care for her two young grandchildren. Other patients put off getting the medications they need to survive, and get sicker. Some people with chronic illnesses such as diabetes or asthma go for months without absolutely crucial therapies because they can't afford them. Once, I had to call a woman and convince her to bring her 17-year- old son back for his asthma prescriptions. She told me that they had left the clinic humiliated when our desk clerk had inadvertently asked for our token $8 fee for the office visit. It had been a hurdle for them to come in because they knew they did not have the money to pay for the visit, much less the additional cost for the medications.

This young man eventually got his medication. But some of my patients have not been so fortunate. Many Americans, including local and national leaders are unaware that so many people are going without necessary medical care because they don't have health coverage. The uninsured as a group may be invisible but their problems are not. Let's start working toward resolving the problems of delayed care and lost dignity?

November 20, 2000

Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights: Health Coverage Proposal By Hospitals, HMOs and Families USA Falls Short of Real Fix

SANTA MONICA, Calif., Nov. 20 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following was released today by the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights:

The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) said today that the health coverage expansion model expected to be announced today by the Health Insurance Association of America, Families USA and the American Hospital Association falls short of a systemic fix to the uninsured problem because it leaves in tact unreasonable insurance overhead and profit expenditures, as well as abusive industry practices.

The model supposedly provides states additional funds to broaden Medicaid eligibility; allows states to expand CHIP eligibility; and offers tax credits to employers who provide coverage, which could be used to cover part or all of the cost of premiums that are often
too expensive for low-income workers. The participants believe half the uninsured currently will be covered by the plan.

"Keeping excessive HMO profits in the health care system means uninsured will continue to be kept out," said Jamie Court, executive director of FTCR. "Giving insurers and HMOs control over health insurance coverage reform is like turning cancer research
over to the tobacco industry. Insurers have realized that if they do not get on board with expanding health insurance coverage, then genuine universal health insurance initiatives will roll over them by redirecting the roughly twenty cents of every health premium
dollar spent on HMO overhead and profit toward additional coverage. The proposed model does nothing to address HMO profiteering and protect the taxpayer and patient from insurer price gouging. It seems insurers will only sign onto expanding coverage if it leaves in tact their right to charge as much as they like and do whatever they want with premium dollars. HMOs would have been on board with a universal health coverage solutions decades ago if it simply meant more profits from more customers and did not include controlling unreasonable industry prices, expenditures and practices, such as cherry picking. This is not a long term solution, but a taxpayer-funded expansion of a failed and costly corporate medicine model."