L/rain
47°
L/rain
Hi 52° | Lo 44°

My Turn: Let’s do the right thing: expand Medicaid

Every day in our emergency department, we see people in need of immediate health care. Some of these patients are at Dartmouth-Hitchcock for routine care that could have been delivered in a doctor’s office; others are acutely ill from a condition that, if it had been treated earlier, would not have become so serious.

In a great many cases, these neighbors and fellow New Hampshirites are in the emergency department because they lack health insurance and can’t afford to see a doctor.

Anyone who has been in the emergency department knows it is not an ideal care setting. It is frequently noisy and chaotic and often involves long periods of waiting. It is also expensive. For example, one study found the average cost of a visit to the emergency department for a sore throat was $525, compared to $94 for treatment of the same condition at a medical clinic.

At that price and inconvenience, why would anyone go to the emergency department for a sore throat? Well, imagine you’re Mary, a 30-year-old mother, working two part-time jobs at minimum wage, with no health insurance. Mary’s husband has his own small contracting business but can’t afford insurance for himself and his one worker. The total income for your family of four is about $28,000, too high for Medicaid, but too low to afford to buy private. That’s how Mary and her 5-year-old son, with a sore throat and fever, end up at the emergency department.

Last year, Dartmouth-Hitchcock provided $188 million in uncompensated care. As a health system we absorb most of these dollars, but it also means higher insurance premiums for all of those who have or provide insurance and/or higher deductibles for employees and their families.

It’s an irrational system that can’t continue. You can’t afford it, employers can’t afford it, and as health providers, we can’t afford it.

At Dartmouth-Hitchcock, we are committed to creating a sustainable health system, focused on keeping people healthy and out of the hospital, and on delivering health care that is high quality, high-value, and less expensive. This involves new kinds of partnerships and collaborations to lower costs, getting the highest quality care possible, wherever you live.

In the coming years, care will be delivered in ways we’ve never imagined. Already, we are providing care in distant locations through “tele-medicine,” often with our partner physicians at Mayo Clinic. Smartphone apps and other technologies will replace visits to the doctor for routine blood pressure and cholesterol checks. Dartmouth- Hitchcock is committed to these technologies and others that improve access to the best care possible for our patients, anywhere, anytime at the lowest possible cost .

However, without insurance, uninsured New Hampshire residents, particularly those living at or below the poverty level, will continue to see the expensive option of an emergency department visit as their only route to health care. They will continue to lose out on regular preventive care, early intervention and disease management that would keep them healthy and improve their quality of life.

There are many pieces to solving the current health care puzzle.

For some of our citizens, like Mary and her family, an important piece of the puzzle is Medicaid expansion. According to the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, it would reduce the number of uninsured in our state by 41-50 percent, giving an estimated 51,000 of our neighbors’ access to insurance.

As I write this, the federal government is in a shutdown, caused by continued debate over the Affordable Care Act.

At the same time, health care exchanges are being launched. It is, to be sure, an unsettling time, and it is no wonder people are confused about where we’re going and what this all means for them and their families.

New Hampshire has always prided itself on its independence and fearlessness in doing the right thing. In the case of Medicaid expansion, it’s not only right for the uninsured of our state, it is a critical piece of reducing costs for those who do have insurance and ending the ongoing cost shift between the public and private sector. In a win-win situation like this, we should move forward to expand Medicaid.

Let’s do the right thing.

(Dr. James Weinstein is a spine surgeon and CEO and president of the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Health System.)

Legacy Comments7

Just 51,000 people completed Obamacare applications during its websites’ first week,

"It’s an irrational system that can’t continue. You can’t afford it, employers can’t afford it, and as health providers, we can’t afford it." No one can afford it. So, we have to made to pay for it? You're the CEO. If you want to provide care, DO IT. --What does everyone else lose by doing this? Quite a lot. NH has prided itself on independence. And that means exactly the opposite of subjecting itself to further entanglement in federal healthcare.

I'm not sure you understand the simple fact that you're *already* paying for it. That's not the question. The question is: Do you want to continue to pay for it? Apparently you do.

Dear Congress: Last year I mismanaged my funds, and this year I cannot decide on a Budget. Until I can come to a unified decision that fits all of my needs and interests, I will have to shut down my checkbook and no longer be able to pay my taxes. I am sure you will understand. Thank you very much for setting an example we can all follow.

BREAKING NEWS : we are broke - yes indeed ...in just 4 straight years the democrats in congress have increased the debt from 10 trillion to $$$$$$$ 17 TRILLION . Can any sane person ( democrats obviously excused) tell us how this democrat policy of more free goodies is sustainable?

You seem to have forgotten that we have been in a deep recession, caused by George Bush's wars and extravagant spending that went with them, as well as all the national security measures we have paid for in the past 10 years. We had a collapse of the economy, starting before Bush left, including market failures, bank collapses and major business turmoil and losses. People were laid off, business didn't expand and unemployment was high. That's why so many people ended up getting "more free goodies" for Medicaid, food stamps, etc. Recently, we were in a small recovery but shutting down the government by the Republicans may cause that to falter, which is what they want, to make Obama look bad again. It would be great if you would analyze this and understand the root problems instead of using insulting, immature rhetoric to spit your vitriol at others who are trying to find a way out of this.

Lets see, even though the democrats complained about Bush for eight straight years Unemployment averaged with Bush less than 5% average unemployment for Obama above 8%. How about gas prices gas was $1.85 when Bush left office we have been over a 1000 days with gas over $3.00 and years over $3.25. With Obama the average family income is $2,500 less than with Bush. Yes Bush had a few bad months at the end of his term but every month for Obama have been bad. The interesting thing is that the Bush bad months were from bad democrat policies forcing banks to make bad loans to democrat constituents, people unlikely to repay them. PS nobody is making Obama look bad more than Obama because: Obama is by far the worst president ever!

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.