Medicaid Reimbursement Rates Are a Feminist Issue

I generally try not to say anything negative about specific doctors, clinics or hospitals in any printed format, including online, because let’s face it: those folks have better lawyers than I do and they could sue the pants off of me, even though every word I’ve said is true (to the best of my knowledge and recollection).

Still, l had something happen at a doctor’s appointment recently that I think needs to be talked about. It doesn’t matter who the doctor was or where the clinic was. It doesn’t even matter whether the doctor was a man or a woman. It’s a long story, but I was treated very poorly and I actually walked out of the appointment. The doctor was rude, abrasive and extremely condescending. S/he acted as if s/he didn’t want to treat me, as if my case was too complicated and time consuming.

I believe I was discriminated against because I have Medicaid for my health insurance. After I left, I couldn’t figure out why a doctor would treat a patient that badly and the best explanation I can come up with is that s/he wasn’t getting paid enough to make my case worth her/his time and energy.

In other words, the Medicaid reimbursement rates in our area must be pretty low and if a doctor is driven by profit, taking a case like mine would not be cost-effective. This concerns me, not just on a personal level, but on a national level as well. 1 in 10 women receives her health coverage through Medicaid. For low-income women, this statistic is even higher: 1 in 5 women have Medicaid. These numbers are only expected to rise as approximately 17 million people will be enrolled in Medicaid as health care reform is enacted over the new few years.

Increasing Medicaid enrollment without boosting doctors’ reimbursement rates leaves poor and disabled women open to discrimination and abuse.

I worry that even if a doctor does accept patients with Medicaid, some patients with complicated cases will be turned away by doctors who don’t want to treat them. If they are lucky enough to find a doctor, they may be forced to accept substandard care or facilities. During the health care debate last winter, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) called Medicaid:

a medical ghetto called Medicaid that none of us, or any of our families, would ever want to be a part of for our health care.”
I thought he was exaggerating and took the senator to task on my blog. As time went by, I realized that while I have had really excellent care and providers, others may not be so lucky.

After thinking about it, I can see that I’ve had the best experiences with Medicaid providers who were part of large clinics and/or hospitals. It always seems to be the independent contractors – the little guys and gals at private clinics – who either refuse to treat me or have a lousy bedside manner when they do.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) even admits that it doesn’t pay for some doctors to take the cheap Medicaid patients on:

Medicaid payment is often very low. Low payment rates discourage provider participation in Medicaid… Rural areas usually do not have sufficient patients to fully support a doctor’s practice.

The HHS website I linked above goes on to list suggestions for how the Health Resources and Services Administration can use Medicaid funding to improve rural health care for Medicaid patients but at the end of the day, money talks: Congress will have to increase the reimbursement rates so doctors can afford to treat Medicaid patients. As feminists, we need to push Congress to do this so women and girls on Medicaid (and Medicare) receive the best health care possible.

Driving home from that doctor’s appointment a few weeks ago, I was angry and upset, not only for me but also for the millions of other women who are currently on Medicaid or will be soon. Regardless of our income level or what insurance we have, we all deserve dignity, respect and first-class health care.

Share

April is Women’s Eye Health and Safety Month

April is Women’s Eye Health and Safety Month in the U.S., which is sponsored by Prevent Blindness America “to encourage women to make their vision health a priority and schedule a dilated eye exam.”

I took the hint and went to see my eye doctor yesterday. He had good news and bad news. The good news was that they weren’t any worse than they were at my last appointment, sixteen months ago. The bad news is that they’re still pretty lousy.

My eyes are pretty screwed up. When I was injured five years ago, the third nerve was damaged pretty badly and I now have double vision, as well as an ultra-fun condition called nystagmus. The double vision is pretty self-explanatory: without corrective lenses, I see two of everything. (Of course, sometimes it seems like I can see an infinite amount of objects, such as when I’m trying to focus on an object right in front of me. Say I have a pen in my hand. As my eyes switch from one to the other trying to decide which is the ‘real’ pen, my eyes become like a set of opposing mirrors, forever trying to focus on one pen, an impossible task.)

I also have nystagmus, which basically means that my eyes jump up and down. This was really hard to get used to at first but as the years have gone by, I’ve become somewhat accustomed to it. That’s a good thing, as there really isn’t any treatment for nystagmus.

And lest I forget, I also have my garden-variety near-sightedness, which bestowed upon me my first pair of glasses at age eight and my first pair of contacts at age eleven. Yes, I know that was probably too early for contacts. At the time, the optometrist said other docs would probably balk at prescribing contacts for someone my age but I was having headaches from wearing the (Diet) Coke bottle lenses so that was the best option. (I call them “Diet” Coke bottle because 1) they weren’t as bad as in the sixties and seventies but not the super-ultra-dooper wonder-lite lenses of today and 2) I lurve Diet Coke. With a passion. To the Nth degree. A lotta bit. Yeah. Like that.)

So how’s your eye health? Do you know have you been to the eye doctor lately, aka your friendly neighborhood optometrist (or even ophthalmologist) lately?

Prevent Blindness America (let’s call it PBA, I’m feeling lazy today) thinks you should and so do I, for that matter. (I don’t know where this sass and vinegar is coming from today, but I like it!) According to PBA:

  • More women than men are diagnosed with eye diseases such as glaucoma, cataracts, macular degeneration and diabetic retinopathy
  • Women may experience changes in vision in various stages of their lives including pregnancy and post-menopause.
  • More than 2.3 million women (out of 3.6 million people total) live with visual impairment, including blindness
  • 6 million women (vs 3 million men) have dry eye syndrome, a condition where not enough natural tears are produced.

Every woman needs to take care of her eyes but women of color need to be especially vigilant about because, believe me, vision problems of any sort aren’t fun. 1 in 3 Americans/USians who have glaucoma are African-American and glaucoma is the leading cause of blindness among African-Americans. Latinas should be aware that they, too, are prone to startlingly high rates of rates of eye disease and visual impairment. Asian/Pacific Islanders and American Indian/Alaska Native women have a greater risk of developing diabetes, which can have various eye diseases as a complication.

Pregnant ladies? Eye disease is one more thing you have to worry about. The increased hormones can cause “refractive changes, dry eyes, puffy eyelids that obscure side vision and sensitivity to light due to migraine headaches.” If you have blurry vision or are seeing spots, you should call your doctor immediately, since this may be a sign of high blood pressure or diabetes. The PBA suggests, “All women who are diabetic and pregnant or who are planning to become pregnant should get a full, dilated eye exam.” As if you didn’t have enough to think about. Good grief.

In case this post sounds über-bossy, please remember that I live with really, really insert-your-own-swear-word eyes every day. It impairs my life in a lot of ways that are hard to even begin to describe. If I can spare you even a little bit of this, well, yeah, I’d like that.

So what are you waiting for? Go call the optometrist!

##

Share

Bye, bye, Bart Stupak!

So in case you haven’t heard, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) is retiring from Congress when his term expires in January. When the news broke this morning, feminists rejoiced. (Republicans and Tea Party activists are ecstatic, too, but that’s another story, one that other people are much more qualified to talk about.)

Personally, I am thrilled Stupak is retiring, but unlike many feminists, I see this as more than a victory for women and reproductive rights. It is a victory for the people that Stupak was elected to represent: the residents of Michigan’s 1st Congressional District. (After this, I’ll refer to 1st Congressional District as CD1.) CD1 encompasses the entirety of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and several counties in the Lower Peninsula. (Apparently, the mitten part is called the Lower Peninsula. Who knew?) He was not elected to represent the residents of the C Street house, the religious organization known as The Family, the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops or the anti-choice movement.

Obviously, Stupak was and is free to vote according to his conscience and convictions. Since we live in a democracy, that is one of our founding principles. Another one of our founding principles is a representative government. When Stupak became the de facto leader of the anti-choicers in the House and nearly killed health care reform over the issue of abortion, he was no longer representing the CD1. Stupak put the needs if the “pro-life” movement ahead of his own constituents.

CD1 residents didn’t need an anti-abortion activist to advocate for them in the health care debate. They needed their member of Congress. The 118,000 seniors on Medicare who live in CD1 needed a representative working to close the so-called “donut hole” that can sometimes cost hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars a month. 324,000 women needed him to make sure that maternal and preventative health care is covered. Since the district is extremely rural, with the largest town having a population of 20,916, residents across the CD1 needed him to work on improving Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement rates for rural doctors and providing other much needed assistance to rural medical providers.

In short, Bart Stupak failed residents of the 1st Congressional District. They deserve better. Whether his successor is a Democrat or Republican, I hope they get it.

##

Share

Stop Stupak-Nelson

Note: The following is a letter to the editor I wrote that appeared in the Eau Claire Leader-Telegram and Madison Capitol Times (both in Wisconsin). The Stupak-like amendment was introduced in the Senate today by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) and will likely be voted on tomorrow (Tuesday, December 8th) so call your senators at (888) 423-5983 now. The U.S. Capitol switchboard is open 24/7 so when you ask for your senators’ offices you may get voice mail. Leave a message!

Without further ado, let’s Stop Stupak!

Dear Editor:

On November 7th, the House of Representatives passed its version of health care reform, which included an anti-abortion amendment sponsored by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI). According to the American Association of University Women, the Stupak Amendment will prohibit “women who receive federal subsidies from purchasing a comprehensive insurance plan that includes abortion services. Private plans that offer abortion coverage would be banned from receiving funding.”

The Stupak Amendment goes far beyond the 1976 Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding for abortion. Insurance companies participating in the new insurance exchange who receive even one dollar of revenue from federal subsidies will be banned from offering any policies with abortion coverage. An analysis of the amendment by George Washington University found it “will have an industry-wide effect, eliminating coverage of medically indicated abortions over time for all women.”

Abortion is a currently a safe, legal medical procedure. One in three American women will have an abortion by age 45. The risk of death is less than 0.6 per 100,000 procedures here in the U.S. In contrast, 68,000 women die each year in countries where abortion is illegal. (Guttmacher Institute) The Stupak Amendment threatens to take women back to the days of unsanitary back-alley and dangerous self-induced abortions with wire hangers. The Stupak Amendment is not about “unborn” fetuses but saving the lives of women who are already here: daughters, sisters, wives, and yes, even mothers.

Stop the Stupak Amendment. Call Senators Feingold and Kohl. Tell them to vote “no” on Stupak.

Image courtesy Stupak Amendment REVOLT (Facebook)

Share

Sen. Feingold Explains "No" Vote on Mikulski Women's Health Amendment, Sort Of

In yesterday’s post, I wrote about Sen. Feingold’s puzzling and infuriating “no” vote on the Mikulski Women’s Health Amendment, which will require women’s preventative health services to be full funded by insurance companies. I emailed Sen. Feingold’s office, expressing my anger and disappointment in the senator’s vote. I also made some comments on Twitter, encouraging others to email and call his office.

I was not the only one who noticed Sen. Feingold’s somewhat-peculiar vote.  David Dayen over at the influential Firedoglake.com took note, as did the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and Politico. By last night, Sen. Feingold’s office released this statement:

I am disappointed that the Senate health care debate has gotten off on the wrong foot.  The first amendment voted on would add almost a billion dollars to our budget deficits over the next 10 years.  We should make sure health plans cover women’s preventive care and screenings, but we should also find a way to pay for it, rather than adding that cost to the already mountainous public debt.  At a time of record deficits, Americans expect fiscal responsibility from their representatives in Congress.

I also received a reply to my email from Sen. Feingold’s aide early last evening. She assured me that Sen. Feingold is a strong supporter of women’s access to health care and preventative services and that his “no” vote was “was not about the policy of the amendment.”

I believe her. I know that Sen. Feingold is a deeply principled man who has decided to take a stand on fiscal responsibility. He recently introduced a new bill, Control Spending Now Act, the purpose of which is quite simply, “to control Federal spending now”. I also appreciate that Sen. Feingold has been an advocate for women’s health. He sponsored a resolution that the Senate support  “the goals and ideals of National Women’s Health Week”. He is a co-sponsor of Sen. Shaheen’s resolution condemning violence against women’s health (read: abortion) providers. He is a co-sponsor of the Breast Cancer Education and Awareness Requires Learning Young Act, which will raise awareness and provide support for young women with breast cancer.  Sen. Feingold also deserves major kudos for being a co-sponsor fo the Paycheck Fairness Act and for recently co-chairing a hearing on rape as a weapon of war with Sen. Boxer in May.

So, yeah, Sen. Feingold usually walks the walk on fighting for women’s rights. He’s definitely a male ally. He really dropped the ball on this one, though. As I told the senator’s aide, it feels like he sold women out to uphold his pledge of fiscal responsibility. One billion dollars is basically chump change in Washington. If he was really concerned about the money, he should’ve worked with Sen. Mikulski to find the money to pay for her amendment. She announced she would be introducing the amendment before Thanksgiving, over a week ago. There was time for negotiation on this one.

After all is said and done, here’s what I think happened: I think Sen. Feingold knew there were sixty votes to pass the amendment. Sen. Snowe was a co-sponsor (way to go, Olympia!) and Sen. Collins probably made her intentions to vote for the amendment known as well. Sen. Feingold probably had political cover to vote against the amendment and went for it.

He still should’ve done the right thing, though.

Share

Medicaid Is NOT A "Medical Ghetto", Senator Alexander

During Saturday’s debate on the cloture vote, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) said the proposed health care reform bill is:

“arrogant in its dumping of 15 million low-income Americans into a medical ghetto called Medicaid that none of us or any of our families would ever want to be a part of for our health care.”

Here’s the video:

I have Medicaid. It is not a “medical ghetto”. Without Medicaid, I would not be walking or talking today. I would not be typing this sentence. I would not be able to swallow food or get dressed by myself.

Medicaid is a good program. It paid for two more weeks of inpatient rehabilitation at the Spinal Cord Injury Center at Froedtert Hospital in Milwaukee, WI, than United HealthCare would have. Those extra two weeks are the reason I’m walking today.

Medicaid paid for as much outpatient physical, occupational and acquatic therapy as I needed when I got home. United HealthCare would have only paid for twenty sessions each per year. Without Medicaid, I would not have been able to go to physical therapy 2-3 times a week for eleven months, occupational therapy 2 times a week for six months and aquatic therapy once a week for five months.

Medicaid has paid for all of my doctors’ appointments. I have been able to see all of the specialists I needed, no questions asked.

Medicaid has kept me alive and put me back on the road to recovery. It is not a “medical ghetto”. It is a vitally important (and yes, imperfect) safety net for millions of Americans.

Senator Alexander, you would be lucky to have Medicaid.

Share

Women on Medicaid Are Being Forgotten in Stupak Outrage

denied2

On Saturday night, my joy and relief at the health care reform bill being passed in the House of Representatives was quickly wiped out by the fury being expressed on Twitter and elsewhere by feminists and progressives over the Stupak amendment. According to the Feminist Majority Foundation, the amendment “bans abortion coverage even if women pay for it with their own money in the public option or private plans in the insurance exchange.”

This is obviously a big deal. In a press release, FMF’s president Ellie Smeal said:

“Millions of poor and middle class women will be denied abortion coverage. Millions more may lose abortion coverage because currently some 85% of private plans now have such coverage.”

I agree the Stupak amendment is terribly, terribly wrong. It is, as Ms. Smeal said, “an unacceptable, giant step backward for women.” Still, abortion cannot be allowed to derail health care reform. This is far too important to me and millions of other women – and men. Health care reform is about life and death. Out-of-control premiums and medical bills are forcing families to choose between buying groceries for their kids, paying the mortgage or obtaining life-saving medical treatment and prescription drugs.

Health care reform is not about abortion. Bart Stupak and the other “pro-life” members of Congress should be ashamed of themselves for hijacking what may be the most important piece of legislation of our time. This is truly a matter of life and death.

Abortion cannot be allowed to derail health care reform. Still, there is another issue that has been overlooked in the outrage over the Stupak amendment. According to the Kaiser Foundation, 9.5 million women are currently on Medicaid. The federal standard for Medicaid requires abortion coverage only in situations where the mother’s life is in danger or in the case of rape or incest. Thirty-two states and the District of Columbia only provide this level of coverage while seventeen states exceed federal requirements, funding “all or most medically necessary abortions”.

If abortion doesn’t derail the bill and we actually get health care reform passed, Medicaid’s ranks will expand to include 150% of the Federal Poverty Level, including millions more women.

What about poor women? Don’t we deserve abortion coverage as part of our reproductive rights? Where is the outrage for us? It seems like the feminist movement has simply forgotten about the poorest and sickest of women, those who are most likely to be in need of abortion services. Indeed, many women enroll in Medicaid because they are pregnant and uninsured. Our society has created a safety net for low-income women when they get pregnant but that safety net is full of knots and hard to break free of.

Medicaid’s income limits keep women mired in poverty. StateHealthFacts.org reports that 52.3% of non-elderly families receiving Medicaid have at least one full-time worker, which means that worker is working full-time but doesn’t have health insurance through their job. In order to keep their Medicaid, they cannot earn more than the FPL eligibility limits for their state. If they do earn more than the limits, they risk losing their health insurance.

Furthermore, 47.8% of the non-elderly on Medicaid work part-time or not at all. These people are not eligible for employer-sponsored plans and will probably be unable to afford any plans in the new insurance exchange. They will be stuck on Medicaid. Without abortion coverage.

It has been extremely frustrating and infuriating to watch the uproar over the Stupak amendment. It feels like the feminist movement has forgotten about the poor, sick and disabled women who are on Medicaid and only have access to abortion services under the Hyde Amendment.

Those of us on Medicaid deserve the same reproductive rights that everyone else is entitled to. We are not second-class citizens. We’re women.

Share

I Am Not a Pre-Existing Condition

denied2In addition to yesterday’s post on the New Office of Women’s Health in House Health Care Bill, I have another National Women’s Day of Action for Health Care Reform postup at the AAUW Dialog blog entitled I Am Not a Pre-Existing Condition. here’s an excerpt:

I have a long list of pre-existing medical conditions, so I have a lot invested in health care and health insurance reform. But even if I didn’t have this crazy, messed-up body with all its injuries, conditions, and surgeries listed in my medical chart, I could still be denied health insurance. At the very least, I would probably have to pay more than a man would.

Why, you ask? The answer is simple. I’m a woman.
Keep reading…

Also, a little National Women’s Day of Action for Health Care Reform link love:

So… have you called or emailed your representative and senators to ask them to vote for health care reform? Do it now!

Share

New Office of Women's Health in House Health Care Bill

Note: This post is part of the National Women’s Day of Action for Health Care Reform. Learn more at A Woman Is Not A Pre-Existing Condition

denied2Being a glutton for punishment, I decided to embrace my masochistic tendencies and try to tackle the (Democratic) House health care bill yesterday. I was searching for information on new regulations that will prohibit insurance companies from using gender ratings to discriminate against women when I came across Sec. 2588 on pg. 1609.

What is Sec. 2588? I’m so glad you asked. Sec. 2588 (under Division C – Public Health and Workforce Development > Title V – Other Provisions > Subtitle E – Miscellaneous)  will establish an Office of Women’s Health (OWH) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Yes, you read that right. There will be an entire division of the federal government devoted to women’s health.

Among other things, OWH will establish short & long-term goals for HHS and other agencies for women’s health: disease prevention, health promotion, service delivery, research, and public and health care professional education. OWH will be headed up by a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, which is an appointed position. (Sec. 229, pg. 1609)

The Deputy Assistant Secretary, who I’ll just refer to as the Secretary to make my life a lot simpler, will establish and chair the  HHS Coordinating Committee on Women’s Health. It will be composed of senior-level representatives from each of the federal agencies. Although the bill doesn’t explicitly lay out the functions of the Coordinating Committee, I assume it will be a lot like the White House on Women and Girls, only for health issues.

OWH will coordinate efforts to promote women’s health initiatives in private sector. Additionally, it will set up a National Women’s Health Information Center. This office will serve as a clearinghouse for women’s health information to the public and private sector.

There will also be an Office of Women’s Health established at the Center for Disease Control (CDC). This office will monitor will monitor women’s health initiatives within the CDC and establish short and long-term goals for the CDC relating to women’s health. In other words, this mini-OWH will be in charge of making sure the CDC is researching women’s health – what a concept! (Sec. 310A, pg. 1614)

There will also be an Office of Women’s Health and Gender-Based Research within HHS. This office will keep tabs on the current status of research, identify areas of need for research on women’s health and make short and long term goals for research on women’s health.

There will be an Office of Women’s Health within the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Again, what a concept. This office will monitor and report on women’s participation and outcomes in FDA clinical trials. It will establish short and long term goals for “adequate inclusion of women and analysis of data by sex in Administration protocols and policies”. In regular person talk, that means they’ll actually have to make sure to include women in their studies and reports. It will provide information to women and health care providers on differences between men and women in FDA studies and trials. Unfortunately, this mini-OWH at the FDA will not have any new regulatory authority. I’m not sure what the possible ramifications are but this seems bothersome. (Sec. 911)

All in all, I am extremely impressed with this new Office of Women’s Health. It appears that it will coordinate women’s health services across all the federal agencies and work to improve women’s health by conducting research, disseminating data to consumers and institutions, promoting prevention and wellness and more. Of course, this will be a brand-new bureaucracy so it will never work perfectly. Still, what excites me the most is the research OWH and its affiliates will conduct. For so long, medical research has been done on men and the results were assumed to be the same for women. This would be long overdue.

There is one very large BUT here. The provision to create an Office of Women’s Health is only in the Democratic House bill. It is not in the Senate bill or the Republican House bill. The House is tentatively set to vote on this bill as early as Saturday. I’m not sure if Sen. Reid is allowing amendments to the Senate bill anymore but if he is, we need to urge our senators to include a similar provision. That way, it will have a better chance of being in the conference bill.

Read the House bill here. The Office of Women’s Health provision starts on p. 1609, Sec. 2588. Make your life simple and use the search function to find it. Oh, and if you notice I read or summarized the bill incorrectly, please let me know: danine@danine.net. Thanks!

Share

Transcript and More Thoughts from Lummis Call

I posted a link to this transcript in my Saturday Link-Love but I wanted to post the actual text of my conversation with Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) from last Thursday. As you may recall, I was part of the BlogHer conference call on health care along with some other great bloggers. Reading the transcript back, I’m a little embarrassed at how incoherent I was. Okay, I’m more than a little embarrassed, but I was really emotional. Moreover, I was hesitant and nervous about challenging a Republican member of Congress, even over the telephone.

Here’s what I want to point out: I asked Rep. Lummis if there was any way she could support the current health care reform bill. She never answered that question and instead reverted to her Republican talking points. It seems to me that if Republicans really are in favor of health care reform like they profess to be and aren’t just playing politics, they would realize that health care reform is happening. They would be demanding a chair at the negotiation table and arguing for what was best for their constituents, not their campaign financiers.

The other notable point from the conversation is that after I talked about how Medicaid and disability are demonized, Rep. Lummis went on to tell me I shouldn’t be ashamed of being on the program. Rep. Lummis barely skipped a beat before going on to say that Medicare and Medicaid are going broke and she refuses to burden her daughter and grandchildren with these unsustainable government programs. I’m sure she didn’t realize she was doing it, but Rep. Lummis was doing the exact “demonizing” I was talking about: Making me feel like I am contributing to our national economic downfall by being a recipient of an “entitlement” program. She nearly brought me to tears.

Anyways, here’s my portion of the call:

Operator: Thank you. And the next question coming from the line of 455-L. Please proceed.

(Danine): My name is (Danine) and I am calling from (assumption). I have a complicated medical history and I currently on – I’m so sorry – on Medicaid and I want to get off of those programs, be kind of quite frankly, Medicaid and disability are demonized and treated, you know, every time you talk about an entitlement program, you know, well, they’re demonized.

But I absolutely have to have health insurance. I have a condition called (hydrocephalus) and I have a shunt in my head that relieves the pressure from my brain and every single day of my life, I have to be able to afford health insurance and healthcare.

And I – in order to get off of SSI and Medicaid, I need to be able to – I’m working towards self-employment – and I need to be able to afford health insurance.

And with all due respect and I mean this incredibly, the reality is is that our greatest chance for – I don’t – I can’t – the reality is is that I probably won’t be able to afford private insurance in the current environment and my best option is probably – I’m sorry – but it’s probably in with this healthcare reform as the Democrats are proposing it.

Is there any possible way that you can support their policies or get on-board with healthcare reform in 2009? I need healthcare reform. I need something because the day that I don’t have health insurance, that could be the day that my shunt breaks and I need emergency brain

It’s a life – I think it was literally started – no, I’m sorry. I don’t remember which person said it. That’s the day that I could – that’s the day that – it’s a life and death thing and I’m sorry, but it’s very, very personal for me.

And I need my legislative Congress people to help. I’m not trying to put you on the spot, but…

Cynthia Lummis: No, you’re not putting me on the spot and I appreciate your dilemma. I want you to know how proud I am of America that Medicaid is there for you and you should not feel the least bit apologetic about the fact that Medicaid is serving you to help you with a condition that is highly debilitating and that really affects your quality of life.

That’s why it’s there so please take advantage of it. You are exactly the person that it was meant for. In the case that your condition were to improve to the extent that you could leave the availability of Medicaid, there would be tax credits in Republican plans for low-income people.

Of course the high-risk pools if you still can’t get coverage would be available to you. There is in Republican bills the opportunity for insurance to be purchased across state lines so in states like my state of Wyoming which has a very small population and health insurance cannot be pooled across state lines, bills would allow for Wyoming to participate in much bigger pools.

And the people of Wyoming could band together either through their church or their trade associations or states themselves to provide larger pools of people who can share the burden and lower the cost of health insurance, especially for those of us as I said that are in areas of very small populations.

So by all means, keep your Medicaid, keep healthy to the extent that those medications are helping you have a higher quality of life and don’t be the least apologetic about participating in Medicaid. That’ what it’s there for.

Now the problem I have with the bill that the Speaker rolled-out today is that it forces on states unfunded mandates to expand Medicaid. Where are the states going to get the money to do that?

In California, there would estimates that it could cost California $8 billion a year to expand Medicaid according to the Speaker’s bill. California is already awash in debt. They can’t add $8 billion to the state’s debts in order to cover programs that Congress mandates on them that they can’t afford to pay for.

So the problem I have with the Speaker’s bill and with these government-run programs that Democrats are advocating is that they are not paid for so it will just create a situation just like we’re going to face with Medicare down the road and that is that Medicare will eventually go broke because it is going to be paying out more in benefits than people are paying in.

And with those kinds of unsustainable government programs that promise a lot but are unpaid for, we are burdening our children and grandchildren with paying for us and for our needs without regard to what our children and grandchildren will face in the future.

And I’m opposed to saddling my child and her children with debts that I incur. I need to make sure that while I’m here in Congress, I am being responsible to the next generation and doing the best job I can for us in this generation.

That’s why I encourage you to stay on Medicaid to the extent that you are able to and when your situation improves to the extent that you are able to afford insurance, take advantage of the tax credits. Take advantage of state high-risk pools and thank you and, you know, I hope your condition improves and thank you for your question.

(Danine): I have one quick question. How is Medicare and Medicaid more – how is Medicaid more financially solvent and this is – I’m not being just (cold), I actually want to know?

Cynthia Lummis: What was your question again?

(Danine): Is Medicaid more financially solvent than Medicare?

Cynthia Lummis: Well, Medicaid is – they’re both in trouble. They’re both in trouble in the long run because they’re paying out more in benefits than they take in and every year more of the federal budget is going to pay for entitlement programs, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the states are responsible for of course picking-up a share of Medicaid so it’s also having a big impact on state budgets.

(Danine ): Okay. Thank you.

Read the rest of the transcript here

Share