It is never easy to absorb unpleasant information.
And when I was a policymaker, if someone told me that my decisions were going to cost innocent people their lives, then I usually chalked it up either to hyper-sensationalism or hyperbole.
After all, would passing a small increase in a business tax really force an employer to imperil workers by cutting corners on safety? Would gun registration really leave a homeowner defenseless in the case of a break-in? Would cutting back welfare a few dollars actually result in a choice between eating or heating in the winter?
In most instances, it was hard to see the direct connection.
But the more I learned about health issues, the more I understood that there really were some decisions that were a matter of life and death. These were the issues that taught me humility. These were the issues that taught me that I needed to set aside my political ideology and embrace both theology and hard data whenever they stared me in the face together.
One of those issues was Medicaid.
Back in the late 1970s, I saw Medicaid as a safety net program for seniors and people with developmental disabilities to help pay for skilled nursing or intermediate care.
And so when Ronald Reagan and, later, George Bush agreed to expand the program to cover children and families, I admit I was skeptical. Wouldn’t it burden taxpayers who were already paying far more for Medicaid than they ever expected? Wasn’t private insurance enough? And what would happen if we did not go along – would anyone die without the expansion?
That was always the billion dollar question – who dies without the help of government?
We knew that people caught in fires, victimized by criminals, or trapped by natural disasters died. We also knew that those who couldn’t get into hospitals, who couldn’t get emergency services, and who were given substandard care in institutions also died as a result. But we did not know how Medicaid fit into this.
Fortunately, we voted to expand Medicaid anyway, taking it mostly on faith that it was the humanitarian thing to do. And now we know the result. We saved a lot of lives, just as if we had disarmed potential killers or rescued people from fires burning out of control,
We do not have to assert this as a matter of faith anymore. We also have compelling hard data.
I wrote about this in February 2013 in a column I provocatively entitled Failure to Expand Medicaid: Just another Death Penalty? If you are interested, you can read the full column by clicking on the title, but the essential point was this: Based on a study published in the highly-respected New England Journal of Medicine, it did not take a rocket scientist to calculate that as many as 36,000 lives nationwide hung in the balance of the Medicaid expansion.
It may not be hard for a policymaker to dismiss the results of a single study; I did it myself in my day.
But it is not quite so easy to dismiss two.
And there was a second study, conducted by the prestigious RAND Corporation, published by the equally reputable Health Affairs in June of 2013. I wrote about it in another column entitled Grim Numbers Result from Failure to Expand Medicaid. By then, we could all come up with a first set of estimates of the numbers of people who would die in just those states that failed to expand Medicaid last year – up to 19,000.
But last year’s sessions were over by the time people saw the report. And so they likely threw it into the bottom of the circular file and forgot about it.
But can similar evidence be denied a third time – much as Peter denied knowing Christ?
Health Affairs blog published a new report just days ago, entitled Opting Out of Medicaid Expansion: The Health and Financial Impacts. It found that up to 17,000 lives still hang in the balance in states that have refused to expand Medicaid.
As Health News Florida pointed out: “More than 1,100 Floridians will die prematurely if the state Legislature continues to refuse to expand Medicaid.” As will more than 1,800 in Texas, 500 in Georgia, 400 in North Carolina, 350 in Pennsylvania, and 200 in Missouri, Alabama, Virginia, Louisiana, Tennessee, South Carolina, and Indiana.
Policymakers in those states – and others – can continue to vote against Medicaid expansion, but they had better be willing to embrace what they are doing. They are sentencing innocent people to death, and they will own this forever.
Paul Gionfriddo via email: gionfriddopaul@gmail.com. Twitter: @pgionfriddo. Facebook: www.facebook.com/paul.gionfriddo. LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/paulgionfriddo/
No comments:
Post a Comment