Policymakers Cannot Deny What Medicaid Expansion Means to Survival

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/

Hypocrisy In Motion

The latest Obamacare navigator “compromise” may calm one small battle in Florida.  But it won’t end the war on Obamacare being waged by hypocritical public officials around the country.

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about the Congressional effort to undermine the Obamacare navigation program in its entirety.  A House Committee has ordered nonprofits winning navigation grants to produce reams of material, and promises to punish those that have failed to comply. 

Source: US Census Bureau

Navigators will assist people in applying for public or private insurance to pay for their health care.  

Navigators are not a new concept, created by Obamacare.  They are as old as Marco Rubio, and Obamacare is not the first federal initiative ever to fund them.  In fact, I implemented the policy of the Nixon Administration as a VISTA paralegal 35 years ago, navigating underinsured elders to the Medicaid program.

So we know that navigators can be trusted to do their jobs.

But that hasn’t stopped some public officials from sudden “worries” that navigators hired by nonprofit agencies will disclose private information that clients voluntarily give to them.

Three weeks ago, Governor Rick Scott of Florida – apparently trying to re-establish his credentials as the nation’s leading gubernatorial opponent of Obamacare after openly flirting with it during the 2013 legislative session – joined this chorus, wondering “how the federal government will prevent personal information from being stolen” by these nonprofits.

This was quite a contrast to enrollment efforts already well underway in states like Connecticut that actually want to help people get insured.

Then Governor Scott raised the stakes last week.  He ordered that no navigators be allowed in any state health department offices.  The reason this mattered is because in Florida, county health departments are actually arms of the state government, and their employees are state, not county, employees. 

So in banning the navigators from state offices, he was in effect banning outside navigators from enrolling people in county safety net clinics, federally-qualified community health centers, and a host of other facilities staffed by state employees.

He came under immediate fire from shocked public health officials, one of whom called the edict “cruel and irresponsible,” and said that it would compromise access to healthcare for “a multitude of needy Floridians.” Florida has the second highest percentage of uninsured people in the nation – two and a half times the rate of Connecticut.

A day later, state officials backed away after having an Emily Litella moment.  They realized that the counties actually own and control the properties in which the health department clinics operate.  The state employees, like the navigators, are just outside guests in these county buildings.   

A compromise of sorts was struck.  The state acknowledged that it had no authority to keep navigators out of the county buildings so long as the counties had them work outside of the actual clinic space.

Now most thoughtful people with any knowledge of history would probably use a colorful term here to characterize the state’s position.  I’ll just call it hogwash.

Public officials like Rick Scott are not the least bit worried about navigators being able to protect the privacy of individuals. How do we know this? 

Because Rick Scott was CEO of Columbia/HCA until 1997.  Like every hospital chain in the country, HCA hospitals have worked with navigators for years to capture Medicare, Medicaid, and insurance reimbursements for uninsured patients.  The navigators are often employees of outside entities working under contract.  Many even take a percentage of the billings for every person they enroll.

I know this because I competed with these companies when I was overseeing navigation programs for community nonprofits in Texas and Florida in the 2000s.  And these outside companies had access to all the private information about which Governor Scott professes to be worried today.

But there is more. 

In Florida, my nonprofit placed navigators in state health department clinics almost a decade ago and helped capture reimbursements for the state, relieving taxpayers of the bill.  No one accused us of breaching confidentiality.  But Jeb Bush – who had some common sense – was Governor then, and George Bush was President.

Hypocrisy is always in motion, and tough to pin down.  But in this instance, certain public officials made it too easy for us to see the real reason they want to prevent uninsured people from getting help paying the bills that clinics and hospitals must, by law, present to them.

They know for a fact that this part of Obamacare will work, and they desperately don’t want that to happen.

Paul Gionfriddo via email: gionfriddopaul@gmail.com.  Twitter: @pgionfriddo.  Facebook: www.facebook.com/paul.gionfriddo.  LinkedIn:  www.linkedin.com/in/paulgionfriddo/

Confused and Confusing

President Reagan gave his first speech on the AIDS epidemic almost twenty-five years ago on May 31, 1987.  This was after 36,058 Americans had been diagnosed with AIDS, 20,849 had died, and over a quarter of a million had been infected with HIV.

For years, he had been criticized for ignoring and underfunding the worst public health crisis of the late 20^thcentury.  

So he began his speech with a joke:

“A charity committee approaches the wealthiest man in town for a contribution.  ‘Our book shows that you haven’t contributed any money this year,’ they tell him.  ‘Does your book also show that I have an infirm mother and a disabled brother?’ he replies.  ‘Why no,’ they say, ‘we didn’t know that.’ ‘Well, I don’t give them any money.  Why should I give any to you?’”

The bad joke was an inadvertent punctuation mark on a presidency too fondly remembered by both republicans and democrats today.

On matters of health, Reagan took us backwards.  He was neither in touch with the nation’s growing needs nor successful in addressing them.

His inattention to the AIDS catastrophe in particular and public health in general were just two examples.

He also helped create a new generation of chronically homeless people when he significantly cut federal mental health funding as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981.  During his two terms as President, he also cut funding for safety net community health centers by over 25%.

Suggesting that Reagan would be too liberal by today’s GOP standards – as both some progressives and conservatives have done – is too liberal a stretch where health policy is concerned.

It was the Bushes who were progressives by today’s standards. 

Both delivered on campaign promises to expand the government’s role in health.

“Compassionate conservative” George W. Bush doubled funding to community health centers during his term and added a prescription drug benefit to Medicare.

And George H.W. Bush significantly expanded the federal Medicaid program.

Long before blogging, those of us who wished to express our opinions publicly used the “Letters to the Editor” forum in our local newspapers.  When I was in the Connecticut Legislature in the 1980s, I communicated regularly with my constituents through my local newspaper.

Here’s something I wrote about presidential health policy in October 1988: 

“When health insurance is necessary to pay for health care, how do we ensure that everyone has access to affordable insurance?  Both presidential candidates talk about this.  Governor Dukakis believes that the answer lies in the private sector, in all employers providing health insurance to their employees.  Vice President Bush believes that the answer lies in the public sector, in expanding the state and federal financed Medicaid program.  I know this looks like a classic role reversal, but solutions to health care dilemmas defy ideology.”

You can read the full text of what I wrote here.  If you do, you’ll be either fascinated or fatigued by how little health policy progress we have made in the last 25 years. 

Today, Mitt Romney, another former governor from Massachusetts, has a position on health care more similar to Michael Dukakis than to either Reagan or Bush.

Dukakis wasn’t very persuasive arguing for the private sector solution then, and Romney hasn’t been very persuasive arguing for it now – possibly because both headed a state with a long and solid reputation for making significant public investments in health.

At least President Barack Obama, the most vocal Democratic opponent of the individual mandate in 2008 who is now its leading proponent, recognized the importance of government funding for health when he said this past weekend:

“I refuse to pay for another millionaire’s tax cut by eliminating medical research projects into things like cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.  I refuse to pay for another tax cut by… eliminating health insurance for millions of poor and elderly and disabled Americans on Medicaid.”

But this hasn’t stopped President Obama from initiating or agreeing to multiple raids on public health funding.

Are you confused by all this?  You should be.  Presidents and presidential candidates have long taken confused and confusing positions on health policy with dire consequences for the public’s health.

Need some evidence?  Connecticut had over 250,000 uninsured people when I wrote my letter back in 1988.  Today, it is one of the states with the lowest percentage of uninsured people.  It has 384,000 uninsured.  Mental illness prevalence is up, autism is epidemic, obesity and its related effects have skyrocketed, and HIV still infects over a million Americans.

And our children, we all know by now, could be the first generation to live shorter lives than their parents.

An additional note on three sources:  I took the Reagan speech anecdote from the book And the Band Played On by Randy Shilts (1988 Penguin edition). My constituent letter was published in the Middletown (CT) Press on October 7, 2008. Kaiser Health News provided the Obama quotation on May 7, 2012.