Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,256
|
Post by Ava on Apr 5, 2015 7:29:10 GMT -5
What are your impressions now that the show is up and running?
I have to say that I'm mostly pleasantly surprised. I have private insurance through my employer, so I don't use the exchange. But even with private insurance, I have noticed changes. Insurance covers more, my bills are way more reasonable. I have a HDHP. I was scared at first because I'm using it more now that I have a health issue. But no, costs and benefits have improved. I even got $20 back from a walk-in clinic I had to visit some time ago for a skin rush. They sent a check and a letter explaining they had overcharged me. Something like that had never happened to me before.
I was very reluctant about Obamacare. I wanted single payer, and if not that, at least a public option. I don't think the new system is perfect and I hope it will eventually become more similar to what other industrialized countries have. It certainly beats the old system.
Obama as a president; I love it. Since he's been in charge I got to refinance my condo through HARP even though it's severely underwater. I am saving $100 a month thanks to that. It looks like I qualify for the new student loan program the President implemented, Pay As You Earn. It can save me serious money and I'm excited about enrolling in it. It's a very reasonable 10% of your after-tax income. It excludes the first $17,500 (150% of poverty level for one person). Your balance is waived after 20 years. You pay taxes on the balance, but still. I think the economy has improved since he took office. I wish there were more jobs available, tough.
What are your views on our healthcare system and our President?
Personally, I miss him already even though he's still there and I think he'll be very hard to replace.
|
|
MarleyKeezy78
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 22, 2011 13:20:34 GMT -5
Posts: 3,226
Location: Sittin in the mitten
|
Post by MarleyKeezy78 on Apr 5, 2015 7:55:20 GMT -5
Our insurance went up $300 a month, so we are not exactly thrilled
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 11, 2024 23:28:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2015 8:42:46 GMT -5
Our healthcare system is broken in so many ways in this country. Obamacare solved some, but not all of them and I'm grateful for what it did solve. Even though I'm blessed with excellent health, I'm 62 and there are a few things in my medical history that might be used to deny me coverage if an insurer were really picky. Now I don't need to worry about it. I like the idea of mandating coverage, with subsidies for those who can't afford it. As long as hospitals are REQUIRED to treat people regardless f ability to pay, I think there should be an obligation on the patient side, too. I like the idea of required minimum policy provisions. No one should have to find out after their preemie has run up $500K worth of bills in the NICU that their policy has a lifetime cap of $100K per person. I also like the requirement that anyone under 26 can be included on a parent's policy. It brings more (generally) healthy people into the insured population.
I don't agree with everything Obama has done but he's made more progress on fixing the healthcare system than any of his predecessors.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Apr 5, 2015 9:16:30 GMT -5
Not a fan of either Obama or Obamacare. But I suspect that's true for most of us who are footing the bill for everything.
It's not really a shocker that a large group of people who are now receiving "free" things are happy with the system and the people who are paying for the handouts aren't.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Apr 5, 2015 9:21:48 GMT -5
I would argue that your statement about it being up and running is inaccurate. There are quite a few provisions that have not been implemented yet. So while a lot of the 'popular' mandates have been put in place a lot of the 'unpopular' ones haven't. Exactly. And many of the states either haven't started to feel the full brunt of their Medicaid portion (as that phases in later), etc. Just like insurers are still being pressured to offer plans at premiums below what their projected to cost, in order to make the system look good and get public support.
The only parts of the pain that have just now started to phase in are the tax hikes on certain people, which are starting with this tax return. Yay.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 11, 2024 23:28:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2015 9:25:52 GMT -5
I like it. I am one for whom it actually probably shifted more of the 'burden' to me. But I'm a ok with that.
|
|
Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,256
|
Post by Ava on Apr 5, 2015 10:30:02 GMT -5
Not a fan of either Obama or Obamacare. But I suspect that's true for most of us who are footing the bill for everything.
It's not really a shocker that a large group of people who are now receiving "free" things are happy with the system and the people who are paying for the handouts aren't. I work and pay taxes. I am doing all I can to become a higher earner; I am finishing an MBA and I'm going to start taking CPA parts after I finish the program. My income has steadily increased through the years and my tax payments have grown along with it.
I hope to become a high earner person. I still think programs who help society are great.
|
|
Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,256
|
Post by Ava on Apr 5, 2015 10:31:08 GMT -5
I would argue that your statement about it being up and running is inaccurate. There are quite a few provisions that have not been implemented yet. So while a lot of the 'popular' mandates have been put in place a lot of the 'unpopular' ones haven't. What are the unpopular mandates and how are they going to affect us?
|
|
Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,256
|
Post by Ava on Apr 5, 2015 10:44:14 GMT -5
To your second question, Ava, I see by your examples you are happy with the president because of all the 'free' things you are getting/have received. Personally I'm disgusted by all of spending and our new debt. But I guess it shows that buying votes works now in this country So far I've received a rate reduction for my mortgage, which saves me $100 a month. You have to have a good record to get into that program; no late payments for the past six months.
I'm still paying my mortgage every month. My principal hasn't gone down. It's just a rate adjustment because interest rates are so low. Everybody is refinancing but if your home is underwater you can't, even if you are up to day with payments. Now you can through HARP. My mortgage rate went from 6.8% to 4.5%. How is that a "freebie" and how does it affects anyone else?
About the student loan; I don't even know if I qualify yet. I think I do. With the high cost of education, what's wrong about getting into a program that keeps your payments manageable? There's nothing illegal or wrong in applying for this program. It caps your payments at a percentage of your income so you can still invest, save, do some consumer spending, etc. I plan to earn as much as I can, so my payments will go up with time. I'm fine with that.
And with regards to buying votes; I will vote for the guy or gal who offers the best conditions for me. Same way you and everybody else pick a candidate. What are you going to choose; someone who has an unfavorable stance to your situation? Every candidate has a platform that favors some segment of society; that's why people vote them. I also pay attention at the issues they are willing to work for; reduce military spending and wars, increase educational resources, invest in infrastructure, etc. So it's not all about me
|
|
hsclassic
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 8:15:12 GMT -5
Posts: 199
|
Post by hsclassic on Apr 5, 2015 13:23:04 GMT -5
As someone who as forced into Obamacare, I can unequivocally state it has been a nightmare for us.
1. Our original insurance policy for DH and myself was $425/month (HDMP). It was cancelled. 2. Replacement policy from same insurer was 2.5 times higher. No can do, so into the exchange. 3. Exchange bronze policy (best match to original policy) was still more than 2x original policy, but I got a subsidy to make it reasonable. 4. Now that first full tax year of subsidies is complete, got a seriously ugly surprise. Despite HealthCare.gov saying we were entitle to $8900 for the year, OOPS, now they say they overpaid our subsidy by $7300. What does that mean? Well. I get to repay $2500 of subsidy payments (which is the max for 2015), plus we now have to make quarterly tax payments because of this repayment. 5. And, none of our doctors carry any of the Obamacare policies.
Having done the math, if we still had the original HDMP and that price, it would be less than we pay now between monthly premiums and out of pockets (because our providers don't accept the policies).
So, for those of you with private insurance through your employer, embrace it and love it. If you are in between employer insurance and Medicare, you are likely in for an unpleasant experience.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 11, 2024 23:28:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2015 13:39:49 GMT -5
And with regards to buying votes; I will vote for the guy or gal who offers the best conditions for me. Same way you and everybody else pick a candidate. What are you going to choose; someone who has an unfavorable stance to your situation? Every candidate has a platform that favors some segment of society; that's why people vote them.
Actually, Ava, a lot of us don't necessarily base our vote on self-interest. I can honestly say I don't.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 11, 2024 23:28:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2015 13:41:49 GMT -5
Not a fan of either Obama or Obamacare. But I suspect that's true for most of us who are footing the bill for everything.
It's not really a shocker that a large group of people who are now receiving "free" things are happy with the system and the people who are paying for the handouts aren't. We were footing the bill anyway. Hospitals have to treat the uninsured and they pass the cost onto the people who can pay, one way or another- through higher charges and/or higher insurance premiums as the cost of unpaid care got loaded into everyone else's bills. It's still happening, of course, but I'm hoping that that will subside as more are covered. I'm also hoping some of the newly-insured will get preventative care. When you have no insurance and no money, healthcare consists of "wait till you can't stand it anymore then go to the ER".
When I retired last year, 4 years too early for Medicare, I bypassed the Exchanges and got a private plan for $430/month- definitely more than my share of my employer's coverage and the deductible was $6,000 instead of $2,500- but so far I'm happy with the coverage and the docs I've always used are in the network.
|
|
TheHaitian
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 27, 2014 19:39:10 GMT -5
Posts: 10,144
|
Post by TheHaitian on Apr 5, 2015 14:00:04 GMT -5
And with regards to buying votes; I will vote for the guy or gal who offers the best conditions for me. Same way you and everybody else pick a candidate. What are you going to choose; someone who has an unfavorable stance to your situation? Every candidate has a platform that favors some segment of society; that's why people vote them.
Actually, Ava, a lot of us don't necessarily base our vote on self-interest. I can honestly say I don't.
I call BULLSH*T on that one!
|
|
TheHaitian
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 27, 2014 19:39:10 GMT -5
Posts: 10,144
|
Post by TheHaitian on Apr 5, 2015 14:04:29 GMT -5
Obama: he is ok and has done just fine in my personal opinion. Some will agree and some won't... But it is my personal opinion.
Obamacare: I have heard both sides and I think it is way too soon to get a good idea of how much damage or how much good it has done. But like another poster mention: the system was broken. He didn't fix it, but he at least started the process and got people thinking and talking about it.
My rates have gone up and they have been going up since I got insurance on my own after getting married at 23. I don't blame it on Obama or Obamacare.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 11, 2024 23:28:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2015 14:22:48 GMT -5
Actually, Ava, a lot of us don't necessarily base our vote on self-interest. I can honestly say I don't.
I call BULLSH*T on that one! I guess I'm thinking primarily of state politics. There is no reason why a teacher in Alabama would vote Republican if he/she only thought about themselves. They are very anti-educators. They've worked hard to abolish tenure. They've allowed public funds to be used by a few special few to attend private schools. They have now set up charter schools that do not even require that the teachers be certified. Oh, and let's not forget that I can't accept a Christmas present that is valued over $5.
But I vote Republican because my job is only a small part of what education in this state is about. Also, there are larger issues than where my paycheck comes from, what pension I might receive, and so on. I need to consider prison reform, job creation, etc. even though I don't think I will be using the prison or needing a new job. Ironically, though, I also support higher taxes, a very non-Republican stance, because I do think we have to expand Medicaid so that our poorest citizen are taken care of. Oh, and I even self-report my best guestimate on what I spent on internet shopping so the state can get its share.
Certainly, I am aware of self-interest, but I try very hard not to vote based on it. Many of you do so as well. We may b*tch about high taxes, but no one wants our fellow citizens to starve.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 11, 2024 23:28:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2015 14:25:01 GMT -5
My rates have gone up and they have been going up since I got insurance on my own after getting married at 23. I don't blame it on Obama or Obamacare. That's a great point. There's been general inflation in costs for the same procedures/meds year after year, but there are also new procedures/meds so utilization is up. That's not necessarily good or bad, depending on what it is (I personally think too many people are on statins but what do I know?), but it sure drives up costs. The good news: you can now take medications that have a 95% chance of curing Hepatitis C. The bad news: a full course of the meds will cost $80,000.
Even before Obama, employers were passing on more of the cost increases to employees- making them pay a bigger % share of the premiums, changing to plans with networks (and heavy penalties out of network) and higher deductibles. So, that's nothing new.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 11, 2024 23:28:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2015 14:58:52 GMT -5
I really like my exchange policy. I had a ton of choices. What state are you in hsclassic?
|
|
Malarky
Junior Associate
Truth and snark are equal opportunity here.
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 21:00:51 GMT -5
Posts: 5,313
|
Post by Malarky on Apr 5, 2015 15:23:09 GMT -5
Our insurance has gone up $300/month, covers less and has much higher deductibles.
A number of people I know had their "inadequate" plans cancelled and are now paying more for plans that cover less. But birth control is free. Deductibles keep some of them from using it.
And the people I know who were always getting their healthcare for free still are.
I live in the great state of Massachusetts, birthplace of this monstrosity. It's been propped up by federal money and our emergency rooms are busier than ever.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Apr 5, 2015 17:20:46 GMT -5
Look Ava, I'm going to level with you for a minute.
Talking about ACA and Obama on this thread can generate a lot of strong feelings. Don't take it personally if people don't agree with you or say you're wrong. That just comes with the territory when you talk about politics.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Apr 5, 2015 17:28:26 GMT -5
I'm honestly not really sure how the ACA or "Obamacare" has affected me. I was never their target demographic, though my insurance rates have risen steadily since it was passed. It certainly hasn't saved me anything. Since I only go to the doctor once a year for a physical, I haven't been privy to all it's changes.
The same can largely be said of most of the other programs passed under the Obama Administration. I'm not really the target demographic of most of his "changes."
I will say he's been the stingiest president in history when it comes to giving cost of living raises to federal employees.
I'm gravely concerned over his handling of the national debt, and I'm really worried about the long term impact of the debt, and how the President's ACA will contribute to it. It's obvious they under reported how much it would cost to build public approval, and they intentionally "front loaded" the popular provisions, to also build public support. The less popular parts, like actually paying for it has yet to really come into full force and effect.
I am also gravely concerned over his abuse of executive orders, particularly in granting asylum to virtually every illegal immigrant. As the chief executive, it's his job to enforce the laws on the books. His refusal to do so, and giving aide and comfort to criminals is extremely disturbing.
There are other things I'm concerned about that occurred under this watch, the attacks in Syria, the Fast and the Furious scandal. While I agree that they may not all be laid directly at the feet of Obama, these things did happen under his watch.
I don't base my vote on how much stuff I get from the government, but what I feel is best for the country as a whole. To quote Mr. John Kennedy, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country." That seems to be a lesson lost on many in America today.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Apr 5, 2015 17:32:17 GMT -5
I call BULLSH*T on that one! I guess I'm thinking primarily of state politics. There is no reason why a teacher in Alabama would vote Republican if he/she only thought about themselves. They are very anti-educators. They've worked hard to abolish tenure. They've allowed public funds to be used by a few special few to attend private schools. They have now set up charter schools that do not even require that the teachers be certified. Oh, and let's not forget that I can't accept a Christmas present that is valued over $5.
But I vote Republican because my job is only a small part of what education in this state is about. Also, there are larger issues than where my paycheck comes from, what pension I might receive, and so on. I need to consider prison reform, job creation, etc. even though I don't think I will be using the prison or needing a new job. Ironically, though, I also support higher taxes, a very non-Republican stance, because I do think we have to expand Medicaid so that our poorest citizen are taken care of. Oh, and I even self-report my best guestimate on what I spent on internet shopping so the state can get its share.
Certainly, I am aware of self-interest, but I try very hard not to vote based on it. Many of you do so as well. We may b*tch about high taxes, but no one wants our fellow citizens to starve.
Maybe you could make use of the Alabama Correctional facilities if you so chose.
Maybe after you retire, you could take up a life of crime as your retirement project. Take over Alabama's criminal underworld. Seriously, you should think about it, a mild mannered retired school teacher by day, a ruthless crime lord by night. Seriously, nobody would suspect a thing.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 11, 2024 23:28:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2015 17:34:44 GMT -5
I live in the great state of Massachusetts, birthplace of this monstrosity. It's been propped up by federal money and our emergency rooms are busier than ever. Interesting timing of this discussion: I listened today to a Freakonomics podcast on "How do we really know what works in healthcare?" and they said the same thing. In Oregon they opened up Medicaid one year to 10,000 low-income people chosen by lottery, who would otherwise not qualify. (The state could afford to expand it only by 10,000). They followed those who got Medicaid and those who applied but didn't get it and ER use was similar. One possible explanation was that, while Medicaid offered access to doctors with no co-payment, ERs were no co-payment, too. That's what they were used to, I suppose, and maybe the newly-enrolled hadn't gone searching for a primary care doc and/or didn't want to wait a few days for an appointment.
In another study, they found that the 3 top reasons people went to the ER on Camden, NJ (very poor town) were the common cold, viral infections and sore throat. Crazy- and a very expensive way to treat them. They also found that 1% of the patients were responsible for 30% of the billings. One person had 459 ER visits in one year (yeah, more than one per day some days). Do the math at $500 or so per visit. They're piloting a program of 90 to 120 days of intensive support- home visits, stabilizing their living situation, getting them to doctor's appointments, helping them sort through a bag of meds, each with its own directions (3X/day on an empty stomach, 2X/day with meals, etc.) The goal is to get them better at independently taking charge of their own health. We've got to do something different with this segment of the population and it probably can't be done without extensive support one-on-one.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 11, 2024 23:28:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2015 18:37:00 GMT -5
That's interesting, Athena, because I never consider the ER as my first choice. In fact, I almost died (not an exaggeration) because I thought I was having an appendicitis attack, the ER doctor pumped me full of antibiotics and declared it a kidney infection, and the insurance company refused to pay for it. This was back in the 1980s, and they must have paid PART of it. But I know our part was so expensive (because it was an "unnecessary" visit) that I dreaded having to pay that much again.
So the next year when I got this so awful pain in my stomach so that I couldn't stand up, I sent my ex off on a trip out-of-state, drove my kids to school, and crawled, crying, to the doctor who told me I was having an appendicitis attack. My appendix had ruptured, and I spent over a week in the hospital. In addition to acute appendicitis, there is apparently something called chronic appendicitis.
Maybe the key is to make it not so easy to go to the ER? Make it just more cost effective to go to an Urgent Care clinic? Only pay if you went to the Urgent Care clinic first short of heart problems? They didn't have Urgent Care clinics back in the 1980s, or I would have gone to one in a heartbeat.
I'm not saying Obama Care/Affordable Care Act is the cure to health care problems. I am fortunate enough to never have tested my insurance. DH has mine primary and Medicare secondary to pick up co-pays, but that wouldn't be true for me. The appendicitis was on the ex's insurance. All I've done is outpatient procedures at $150 copay.
I think a real illness on my part could be fairly devastating at 20% copay.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Apr 5, 2015 19:20:06 GMT -5
I live in the great state of Massachusetts, birthplace of this monstrosity. It's been propped up by federal money and our emergency rooms are busier than ever. Interesting timing of this discussion: I listened today to a Freakonomics podcast on "How do we really know what works in healthcare?" and they said the same thing. In Oregon they opened up Medicaid one year to 10,000 low-income people chosen by lottery, who would otherwise not qualify. (The state could afford to expand it only by 10,000). They followed those who got Medicaid and those who applied but didn't get it and ER use was similar. One possible explanation was that, while Medicaid offered access to doctors with no co-payment, ERs were no co-payment, too. That's what they were used to, I suppose, and maybe the newly-enrolled hadn't gone searching for a primary care doc and/or didn't want to wait a few days for an appointment.
Wow, talk about cherry picking results of a study! That's not remotely what the study said if you look at it in its entirety. Saying their ER use was "similar" is blatantly misstating what the study found.
kaiserhealthnews.org/morning-breakout/oregon-study-medicaid-expansion-higher-emergency-visits/ www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303640604579296580732297854?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTTopStories
Some supporters of President Barack Obama's health-care overhaul say that putting uninsured Americans on Medicaid will reduce costly emergency-room visits by giving them more access to care in other settings.
But a new study found the reverse: A group of 10,000 low-income Oregon residents who recently obtained Medicaid coverage visited ERs 40% more often than those without insurance.
The new Medicaid recipients used ERs more often for all kinds of health issues, including problems that could have been treated in doctors' offices during business hours, according to the study published Thursday in the journal Science. Earlier studies had found the same patients used more of other medical services as well....
"Now we know—the hope that Medicaid will save money turns out not to be correct, at least in the first two years," said Amy Finkelstein, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist and a principal investigator of the study. On average, the Medicaid recipients visited ERs in 12 Portland-area hospitals 1.4 times during an 18-month period, compared with 1.02 visits for the control group without insurance.
In the latest study, which is based on records of 25,000 lottery participants, the authors said the increase in ER visits wasn't surprising, because Medicaid made them effectively free. "As I tell my economics students, when something is free, people use more of it," said Dr. Finkelstein.
But because Medicaid also makes primary care and other services free for the recipients, some policy analysts theorize they would need less emergency care and possibly cost the health-care system less overall.
"It may be that some people did substitute the physician's office for the ER, but there wasn't enough of that to offset the increase in ER use," said Katherine Baicker, an economist at the Harvard School of Public Health, another principal investigator of the project. She said the data from all their research to date suggest that extending Medicaid to the uninsured increases health-care costs between 25% and 35% per person."
The really awful part about all of this extra spending? Although the 10,000 recipients self-reported feeling significantly less depressed, there was no change in the overall measured physical metrics - blood pressure, blood sugar and cholesterol. So this population will likely experience diabetes, heart disease and obesity in pretty much the same way that the uninsured would. So much for the idea that if it were free, people would use preventative care. Instead it looks like we spent a large amount of tax money for people to feel better, but still be as fat, dumb, diabetic and unhealthy as they were before the taxpayers were spending all that money. Not a great use of tax funds.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,622
|
Post by swamp on Apr 5, 2015 19:48:04 GMT -5
There is also a problem finding a primary care doc who takes Medicaid. If you sing have a doc, you go to the ER when you need medical help. They have to treat you. Privately owned urgent care doesn't have to.
Also, I would surmise that many, or even most of the frequent fliers are mentally Ill or are drug seeking junkies. No changes in a health insurance plan is goimg to help them.
|
|
Cookies Galore
Senior Associate
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 18:08:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,892
|
Post by Cookies Galore on Apr 5, 2015 20:01:57 GMT -5
I live in the great state of Massachusetts, birthplace of this monstrosity. It's been propped up by federal money and our emergency rooms are busier than ever. Interesting timing of this discussion: I listened today to a Freakonomics podcast on "How do we really know what works in healthcare?" and they said the same thing. In Oregon they opened up Medicaid one year to 10,000 low-income people chosen by lottery, who would otherwise not qualify. (The state could afford to expand it only by 10,000). They followed those who got Medicaid and those who applied but didn't get it and ER use was similar. One possible explanation was that, while Medicaid offered access to doctors with no co-payment, ERs were no co-payment, too. That's what they were used to, I suppose, and maybe the newly-enrolled hadn't gone searching for a primary care doc and/or didn't want to wait a few days for an appointment.
In another study, they found that the 3 top reasons people went to the ER on Camden, NJ (very poor town) were the common cold, viral infections and sore throat. Crazy- and a very expensive way to treat them. They also found that 1% of the patients were responsible for 30% of the billings. One person had 459 ER visits in one year (yeah, more than one per day some days). Do the math at $500 or so per visit. They're piloting a program of 90 to 120 days of intensive support- home visits, stabilizing their living situation, getting them to doctor's appointments, helping them sort through a bag of meds, each with its own directions (3X/day on an empty stomach, 2X/day with meals, etc.) The goal is to get them better at independently taking charge of their own health. We've got to do something different with this segment of the population and it probably can't be done without extensive support one-on-one.
You should check out what Dr. Jeffrey Brenner has done in Camden in regard to hotspotting. Incredible guy. He gave a talk at work last year.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 11, 2024 23:28:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2015 20:03:13 GMT -5
That's interesting, Athena, because I never consider the ER as my first choice. Same here. I last used one around 15 years ago when I sliced my thumb badly with a saw and needed a lot of stitches. No way I'd go there for a cold. We love UrgentCare places- me for stuff like poison ivy and DH for immediate access to antibiotics when he gets a bad respiratory bug. I doubt they're an option in poorer neighborhoods. They put them in suburbs where people cheerfully hand over a credit card. Really poor people don't have credit cards or they're close to maxed out.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,622
|
Post by swamp on Apr 5, 2015 20:23:49 GMT -5
We don't have urgent care here. Not enough well insured or wealthy enough population to support them.
I have a problem, I call my doc at home, or my friend who is a nurse practicioner. The average Joe can't do that.
|
|
wvugurl26
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 21,890
|
Post by wvugurl26 on Apr 5, 2015 20:34:50 GMT -5
My only trip to the ER was after the car wreck. The allergy clinic told me to go when I was reacting badly to shots but by that time I had got through the worst of it. I was not spending all day in an ER so I went to urgent care. Urgent care is a $35 copay, ER is $100 which is waived if they admit you.
|
|
teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by teen persuasion on Apr 5, 2015 23:14:47 GMT -5
We don't have urgent care here. Not enough well insured or wealthy enough population to support them. I have a problem, I call my doc at home, or my friend who is a nurse practicioner. The average Joe can't do that. None near me, either. A few years back I sewed thru my finger with my sewing machine. I knew my tetanus shot was not up to date and I needed a booster. I could not convince a local doctor to give me one without a 3 week wait for a new patient visit. My OB doesn't do them, kids' ped wouldn't, DH's GP, nobody. My choices were cross my fingers and go without, go to ER, or drive an hour+ to find an urgent care in the land of the malls. Urgent care won, but even they were ridiculous with pushing unnecessary procedures - they insisted I needed an X-Ray, I might have chipped the bone. Um, what would you do if I did chip the bone in my fingertip? Cast it? It was my fingernail I sewed thru, I just need a tetanus shot!
|
|