Secession Fever

There’s a new disease this year along with the winter flu.  It is called Secession Fever. 

Secession Fever has reached epidemic stage across the south.  As of Monday, there were more than 25,000 cases in each of eight southern states – North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Texas.  A ninth, Arkansas, had over 23,500.  Collectively, these states had almost 402,000 cases, and the number was still growing.

Secession Fever is a self-reportable disease.  People who have it signed a petition on the White House website.  Secession Fever is characterized by the irrational belief that the federal government does more harm than good, and that states would be better off if they seceded from the Union.

So what if these nine states did secede and form a new Southern Confederacy?  Would their citizens be better off?  Some data from the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Central Intelligence Agency suggest not.

In forming the Southern Confederacy, approximately 86 million people would find themselves living in the 14^th most populous country in the world, just behind Vietnam.  (The rest of the United States would drop from 3^rd to 4^th in population, trading places with Indonesia.)

They would find themselves worse off than they think they are.

The percentage of people living in poverty in the Southern Confederacy would be 17 percent, comparable to that in Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, and Turkey.  Meanwhile, the percentage living in poverty in the remaining United States would drop to 14 percent, comparable to the rate in the United Kingdom.

Life expectancy in the Southern Confederacy would also take a hit.  It would decline immediately to 77.7 years, 61^st in the world and comparable to life expectancy in Libya.  In the remaining United States, it would be almost 79 years.

That’s not all.  The health status of Southern Confederacy citizens would decline, too.

One in five residents in the Southern Confederacy would be uninsured, versus only 14 percent in the remaining United States. 

Even that high percentage would grow dramatically without the federal Medicaid and Medicare programs.  Without the federal share of Medicaid dollars, the percentage of uninsured in the Southern Confederacy would grow by at least 9 percent more, to close to 30 percent.  And without Medicare providing insurance for 16 percent of its population, the Southern Confederacy’s uninsured rate would approach 50 percent, killing off nearly every hospital and long term care provider.

Infant mortality would go up, too. 

For every one million births, 1100 more babies would die in the Southern Confederacy than in the remaining United States.  The infant mortality rate in the Southern Confederacy would be 7.5 per thousand – comparable to that found in Chile.

Disease prevention would also take a hit. 

The percentage of overweight adults in the Southern Confederacy would be over 65 percent, pushing ever higher the prevalence of diseases like diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension.

Public health would suffer, too.  The AIDS rate would grow, and the proportion of people infected with HIV in the Southern Confederacy would be similar to that found in Somalia.

Mental health services would not be spared, either. 

Nationally, we currently spend around $120 per capita on mental health services.  But in the Southern Confederacy, state mental health spending would be half that – just $61 per year.

It isn’t that people in the Southern Confederacy have better mental health status and need fewer services.  Just over one-third report being in poor mental health, just as in the rest of the country.  They’re just more likely to be ignored, neglected, or maltreated.

If there were ever a compelling argument for why we need a strong federal government, life in the Southern Confederacy is it.

Aspiring to the health standards of Somalia, Chile, Libya, Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, and Turkey – all nations with much to offer, to be sure – is hardly the stuff of “American Exceptionalism.”  But these nations turn out to be the real role models for those with Secession Fever.

These harsh health conditions reflect the realities of life in these southern states today.  We can argue that we can do better than this, but not if we can’t accept this reality – people are worse off in these states than in the rest of the United States.

Those with Secession Fever – and the political leaders who have fanned the flames of anti-federal sentiment for years – must be living in an alternate universe.

If you would like to schedule Paul Gionfriddo to speak to your group or organization, please email gionfriddopaul@gmail.com.

Haley Marie is Born

I am writing this column just a few hours after the birth of my second grandchild, Haley Marie.  Haley Marie looks like her father.  She is long and thin, and she is going to be very pretty when she is older.

Our first grandchild, Noah, was born four months ago.  He’s in the 5^th percentile in weight, and my wife and I joked that it would be hard for Haley to beat that when she came along.

She did.  She weighed in at two pounds and eleven ounces, which means that, according to the Annie E. Casey Foundation Kids Count project, she is one of the 1.5% of all U.S.  babies who are born each year at “very low birth weight,” or less than 1500 grams (3 pounds, 4 ounces). 

So Haley Marie will spend her first days in a hospital neonatal intensive care unit. 

Haley is fortunate.  She was beyond thirty-two weeks of gestation.  Her Apgar scores were stellar.  She is strong and has good lungs.  I can also offer direct testimony that she is alert and responsive to light.  I learned this when I snapped a picture of her at five hours without turning my camera flash off!

But not every baby born at very low birth weight gets off to as good a start as Haley.

We all say we care for babies, but here is something we don’t like to mention:  low birth weight babies have a higher risk of dying.  Very low birth weight babies have a 24% chance of dying during their first year of life.

I’m a worrier by nature.  So statistics like this have always worried me.  Even before there were children and grandchildren in my life back when I was a state legislator, I stressed constantly over how to help reduce our too-high infant mortality rates.

Prevention and good prenatal care are answers.  But sometimes – as in Haley’s case – a baby is born at low birth weight even though her mom has taken good care of herself during pregnancy and received high quality prenatal care.

Neonatal intensive care, thankfully, is another answer.  But neonatal care is expensive. 

In 2005, the Institute of Medicine found that most of the $26 billion annual cost of premature birth  - or over $51,000 per child – was for neonatal intensive care.  Haley’s parents can’t afford this, nor could most of us.

Thank goodness we have insurance to pick up the slack.  But relying on private insurance to pay our neonatal intensive care bills is a double-edged sword.  Insurers often charge hefty co-pays, and the amounts can change unpredictably.  As Michelle Andrews pointed out in an article in Kaiser Health News in January, 2011, “fewer parents-to-be realize that they may be in for a nasty surprise if their baby is premature or for some other reason needs special care immediately after birth: The neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) personnel at their in-network hospital may be out-of-network.”

Here’s something that may offend some people, but I’m going to write it anyway:  Relying on private insurance alone to pay for health care is too big a gamble when children’s lives are at stake. 

It’s a good thing many children have the security of a public option, too.  Shame on the politicians who say they have a problem with this, and want to roll back or block grant Medicaid or SCHIP funding at Haley’s expense.

They have never walked in her tiny shoes; I hope they never even have to walk in mine.

The NICU providing care to Haley today was also built in large part through the investment of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars beginning fifty years ago.  I’ve lost faith that the “tax cuts at all costs” politicians of today would have the backbone to launch a similar project.

And for this Haley’s granddaughter could someday pay a price.

As a group, children born at very low birth weight face more challenges as they grow up.  According to Child Trends, they are more likely to have chronic health conditions and developmental delays.  They are also more likely to need special education services.  They are at greater risk of dropping out of school, and have lower earnings potential.

I’m not going to think about all this today, however.

Haley, I am sure, will be just fine.  So I’m just going to celebrate the miracle that is her life.

And acknowledge with gratitude the governments that protect us all, especially those, like Haley, who are most in need.

If you have questions about this column or wish to receive an email notifying you when new Our Health Policy Matters columns are published, please email gionfriddopaul@gmail.com.

Please Vote for the Mental Health Association of Palm Beach County in the Chase Community Giving Campaign before Sept. 16th.  It just takes a couple of minutes to help win dollars for programs that prevent mental illness in children.  Click here to vote http://bit.ly/VoteMHA

Are Healthy Infants Really Clogging our Emergency Rooms?

New!! Can't remember exactly where you got a data reference from Our Health Policy Matters? Check out the new Data Source Links page for a complete list of past hyperlinks used in all Our Health Policy Matters columns.

A growing number of highway billboards encourage people to use hospital emergency rooms.  The ones in my area advertise pre-registration to avoid lines or shorter waiting times.

These billboards clearly aren’t targeted to people riding in the backs of ambulances, who generally aren’t ER comparison-shopping.  They’re for potential ER users who are in a position to make a choice.  That’s the “non-urgent” crowd.

The irony is that these billboards are proliferating just as state policymakers impose new charges to discourage non-urgent ER use.

Two examples from recent weeks:  Florida’s Legislature voted to impose a $100 charge on non-urgent emergency room visits by the Medicaid population.  Connecticut decided to impose a new $35 charge on state employees doing the same.

It’s important to recognize that these fees aren’t that high compared to the $500+ co-pays and deductibles in many private insurance plans.

But it’s wishful thinking that they will reduce program costs without consequence.

To justify its decision, Connecticut used the example of an unnamed state employee who had 150 ER visits in a single year.  There are a handful of such people in every state.  They’re often called ER “frequent flyers,” and health care providers generally know who they are.  Though it’s not clear how many should be admitted as inpatients instead, there’s no question that we should want to keep them from overusing the ER.

However, ER charges target too many innocent parties, and when you decide to impose them can make a huge difference in whether they discourage use, or just penalize people for guessing wrong about their emergencies.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we all collectively accounted for nearly 124 million emergency room visits in 2008.

At the time of triage, only 8% of all visits were considered to be non-urgent – a pretty small percentage.  The percentage wasn’t too different among payer groups.  The two groups targeted by Florida and Connecticut – Medicaid recipients and state employees with private insurance – had 9.5% and 6.3% non-urgent visits, respectively.

On the other hand, if you look at the same patients after the visit, the percentage of non-urgent visits is closer to half.

This is because apparent emergencies often turn out to be minor maladies.

Aside from injuries, people go to ERs for mostly common complaints.  Almost 4 million (or 17%) of all ER visits by children were because of fever.  Children also had 1.5 million visits related to coughs, and 1.1 million visits because of vomiting.

Non-elderly adults had 7 million visits (or over 8% of all visits) for stomach pain.  Chest pain accounted for 4.8 million visits. Back pain accounted for 2.8 million visits.

Chest pain and shortness of breath were the two most common reasons for ER visits by elders.  Each accounted for over 1.4 million visits.

When the underlying causes of these complaints were diagnosed, the most common non-injury diagnosis was respiratory disease.  13 million people of all ages, or 10.7 percent, had this.  Over 7 million had diseases of the digestive or muscular-skeletal systems, and over 6.5 million had diseases of the nervous system. 

Though not commonly given as the reason we went to an ER in the first place, diagnoses of mental disorder accounted for just over 4 million visits – the 8^th most common diagnosis after injury.

The main culprits using ERs for non-urgent reasons are not adults, but infant children.  They don’t read billboards, but they are the only group whose non-urgent visit percentage was greater than 10% of all visits at the time of triage.

Around 381,000 U.S. ER visits by infants were non-urgent in 2008.  If it is normal for 8% of ER visits at triage to be non-urgent, then the number of excess non-urgent visits by infants was 85,100.  Florida’s share of these was around 5,000, and Connecticut’s was around 1,000.  The Florida Medicaid share and the Connecticut state employee health insurance share were even lower.

Keeping a small number of infants out of our ERs may not be good public policy.

The infant mortality rate in Connecticut is around 6 per thousand, and the infant mortality rate in Florida is around 7.  The best-in-the-world standard is around 2 per thousand.  That means that in 2008 there were statistically as many as 25 preventable deaths among Florida infants who visited ERs for non-urgent reasons, and 4 among the Connecticut infants.

Accepting 6,000 excess infant ER visits in Florida and Connecticut to try to prevent almost 30 excess infant deaths seems like a good trade-off to me.

No one questions the goal of getting frequent flyers out of ERs.  The way to do this is to require them to participate in disease management programs. 

If co-pays work to discourage everyone else from using the ER, we’re going to lose lives.

Column update: In a past column entitled A Long Term Care Win for Everyone I wrote about Florida Governor Rick Scott's decision to accept a $35.7 million federal grant for the "Money Follows the Person" program, which would have enabled people (especially young people) with disabilities to move from institutions back into their own homes.  However, it was reported recently that the Florida Legislature declined to allow the State Medicaid agency to draw down the money.  If this decision stands, it means that FL residents with disabilities will lose access to these $35.7 million, and will have to remain in more costly institution-based settings. 

If you have questions about this column, wish to have Paul Gionfriddo as a speaker at an upcoming event, or want to receive an email notice informing you when new Our Health Policy Matters columns are published, please send an email to gionfriddopaul@gmail.com.

How Did We Let This Happen to Our Children?

The late comedian Jack Benny made himself the butt of a running gag about how cheap he was.  A crook would come up to him and demand “your money or your life!”  After a long pause, Benny would deadpan to the increasingly impatient crook, “I’m thinking about it.”

It’s funny to think about someone who would hold onto his own money so tightly that he would put his own life at risk.  It’s not funny to think about people who would do the same and put their children’s lives at risk.

At the beginning of the 21^st century, we could feel good about the progress we were making to improve the health of our children.  While child poverty rates were doggedly high, other key indicators, including infant mortality rates, low birthweight rates, immunization rates, and violence rates, were all improving.  We had reason to believe that even the “compassionate, conservative” approach to policymaking would continue to get results.

It didn’t happen.  Some data from the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s KidsCount program tracking children from birth to adulthood show just how poorly we've been doing these last few years:

• After dropping from 38,351 in 1990 to 28,035 in 2000, the number of infant deaths increased to 29,138 in 2007;
• The number of low birthweight babies increased from 289,418 in 1990 to 354,333 in 2007, and the percentage increased from 7% to 8.2% of all births during the same time period;
• 75.7% of children age 2 are properly immunized, up from 72.5% in 2003 but down from 77.4% in 2005; 
• 52% of children age 6-17 do not engage in exercise at least five days a week, and 32% of 10-17 year olds are overweight;
• 14,140,000 children in 2007 had special health care needs, up from 9,360,356 in 2001;
• There were 10,198 teen deaths from accident, homicide, and suicide in 2007, age 15-19, a number that has remained steady over the decade.

When some political leaders hold up a mirror to these facts, they see them backwards.  They see decline and call it exceptionalism; they see investment in our children and call it waste.

In the early part of the past decade, we cut our taxes and got involved in two wars.  We paid less attention to the health of our children than we should have.  We put too little money into their well-being, and the trend line is still going in the wrong direction.  

Where children are concerned, American exceptionalism has become American “except-ionalism.”  We’re taking care of everyone “except” our children.

Governors have asked the federal government to let them cut children’s health programs this year, when they should be expanding them.  Twenty-six of them even went to court over the Medicaid expansion mandate, arguing that they were being “coerced” into providing needed services for families and children (see below).

There was a time when we invested in programs for our children because we understood that letting any children go hungry, be homeless, or become sick and not be able to get care was unacceptable in the greatest nation in the world.

We created mandatory immunization programs to protect them from deadly diseases.  I've still got the polio immunization card my mother was given by the public health department when I received my vaccine.  No one argued that we didn't have the resources to pay for this.

We didn't always need a crisis to take care of our children.  We built playgrounds and sports fields to give them plenty of opportunities to exercise.  We protected them from weapons and violence to keep them safe.  We invented Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Programs in part to make sure they had health care when they needed it. 

Today, we have elected officials saying we can’t afford all these things.  It’s not really because the money’s not there.  It is.  It’s because they think we’re too cheap to part with it.  They have us playing Jack Benny's old role, except no one's laughing.    

The decline in the health status of our children is where the political fantasy that we can cut and do no harm is introduced to reality.  Children get sick, and some even die, when we stop investing in their health.

Some brave political leader needs to step up and ask: What's more important, your money or your children's lives?  Will we really need to think about it for long?

A note about the Florida court ruling on health reform:  A short version of what the judge decided on Monday was that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, but that the Medicaid expansions are not.

The Supreme Court will have the final word on the individual mandate, probably in 2012 or 2013, but before it takes effect in 2014.  The judge's ruling in that area will have no effect for now.  States that don't want to implement the provisions that are already part of the law probably will not be let off the hook.

Though it wasn’t part of the headline, the judge also found that states are not being “coerced” into participating in the Medicaid program and providing the expanded coverage mandated under the law.  This finding means that the 26 states battling against the law have been defeated on one of the two main fronts on which they joined the battle. 

The Medicaid expansions will cover over 15 million Americans by 2016, and will be paid for almost entirely by the federal government.  How the states respond will be a test of their support for children, elders, and low income families.