“Aren’t you kind of young for this?” inquires the pharmacist at my local Walgreens. “It would seem that way except my mother was just diagnosed with colon cancer two months ago. So I am doing this as a precaution.” The pharmacist eyes widened, “Oh my gosh, I ‘m sorry.” “It’s ok…she is fine now thank god,” both breathing a collective sigh of relief.
My mother, a 59-year old of relative good health, underwent an endoscopy and colonoscopy to try to find out the reason she has always suffered stomachaches. Having dismissed it as something minor, both her and her doctor assumed they would just find some digestive valves not working.
Three days after the procedure, my mother phoned, asking me to come over after work. When I arrived, my father and her were sitting at the table. Composed, she explained that a tumor was removed during the colonoscopy and that the biopsy revealed it was malignant. Located near her appendix, this would require her to undergo surgery to remove a section of her large intestine, blood vessels, and lymph nodes all in the area where the tumor had been located, making sure the cancer did not spread. Cancer? Our family? Unable to hold back the tears, my sobs became uncontrollable. My mother’s once calm demeanor morphed as well.
A tense two weeks followed, but after a successful surgery and a clean biopsy, my mother was given the ‘green light.’ Now it was my turn. Although harboring my own fears of the outcome, I knew that I was doing the best for my health and if something was wrong-catching it early. My parents motto to my brother and I was that our health was most important. With that in mind, I made the arrangements.
Schedule the doctor, the hospital, pick up my ‘enjoyable’ prep-pack, and call the various billing departments to find out how much out-of –pocket I would be responsible for. Having insurance, I was floored by the $873.21 I shelled out for a 20-minute procedure. Maybe I should have had them take a kidney out while they were there so I could try to sell it to pay this medical bill. And this grand total is WITHOUT anesthesia.
When I was thirteen years old, I had a tonsillectomy, and remembered my parents’ shock at the cost of the anesthesiologist bill. With that engrained in my memory, I explained to my doctor that I do not want anesthesia for this. Understanding, it was the nurses that then urged me to ‘go-under’ when they wheeled me in. Explaining once again, it wasn’t necessary. After pressing me further, I told them flatly, “Not unless you want to pay the extra 700 dollars.” With that, silence.
Doctors, nurses, health care professionals…these are the people in our society that should be making the most money. Not actors, or sports figures, but those who choose to save lives, or at least help make lives longer and healthier. I begrudge them nothing, but there needs to be point where their efforts and the institutions they work for and with, do not cause people financial strain, and in many cases, bankruptcy.
The main reason so many people lack health insurance is because of its cost.(1) Currently 47 million Americans are without insurance(2) and increasingly, this is a problem for the middle class, not just the underemployed. Seventy-four percent of people without insurance are part of working families; sometimes they can’t afford their employer’s health plan (employee premiums have skyrocketed 74 percent since 2000) or their job doesn’t provide benefits. Michelle Jones is a single mother of two working as a case manager at a center for brain-injured adults. Grossing $36,000 a year, rent already gobbled half her take-home pay. The medical coverage that was offered with cost her over $200 per pay period and there was still a $500 deductible. Crunching the numbers, she turned down the coverage.(3)
For those looking to gain insurance, they can have doors slammed in their face because the insurance company may suspect that they will not make money off of you. Cheryl Gorham eats right; exercises regularly…can’t even remember the last time she took a sick day from work. Applying for an individual health plan, she was baffled when she was denied. “I’m young, I’m healthy, I don’t smoke,” says the 42-year old. “I never thought I’d have a problem getting insurance.” Turns out, the insurance company cited preexisting conditions, namely uterine fibroids and “infertility with consultation/treatment.” She had experienced bleeding from fibroids while on birth control pills but once she went off the Pill, the bleeding stopped. As for infertility, Cheryl had been trying to get pregnant but with no success. Her doctor sent her for a hormone test, which came back normal but the simple fact that he’d given her a referral, made Cheryl uninsurable. “I had no idea that anything you tell your doctor can wind up hurting you.” (3)
Even with the phony safety net of insurance, you can still be denied treatments and pay outrageous out-of-pocket expenses. In 1999, Sandy Flanigan was diagnosed with acute lymphocytic leukemia. Her insurance company promptly raised her monthly premiums to more than $2,000. Over the next four years, Sandy received chemotherapy and immunoglobulin treatments to boost her immune system costing $46,000. This expense does not include the doctor bills, body scans, lab charges, medicines, vitamins and special food. Sandy sold her jewelry, car and dining room set. She and her husband cashed in annuities and, as a last resort, their children’s college funds. One illness has shattered her family financially. Sandy had worked all her adult life and always carried health insurance, yet she cannot obtain the care that might keep her alive. An estimated fifty five percent of bankruptcy cases are caused at least in part by medical bills. As Sandy puts it, “you’re one diagnosis from being where I am.” (3)
Even people like my mother who had no symptoms, was lucky enough to find this tumor at the early stages, but even that ran a bill of almost $45,000. Screenings are recommended to start at age 50, but many people refuse because they cannot afford them. Deaths could be cut in half, meaning 26,000 lives a year could be saved, if all those who need screening where to receive it.(4) What costs $2000 for a pre-emptive colonoscopy could cost an insurance company tens of thousands for extended care for letting a condition develop further. Surgery, radiation, chemotherapy…for a tumor that might have been easily cured if it had only been found sooner. And why wouldn’t health insurers want their ‘customers’ to live longer and therefore, pay more premiums? Because with older age, usually concludes more health care expenses that an insurance company would have to pay out. With that, they look for excuses to deny coverage.
At 65-years old, Mary Rose Derks began scrimping together about $100 out of her grocery fund each month to pay for an insurance policy that promised to pay eventually for a room in a assisted living home. Twelve years later, after bouts of hypertension and diabetes had hospitalized her dozens of times, she reluctantly agreed it was time. Moving into Beehive Homes, she filed a claim with her insurer, Conseco. Conseco denied her claim stated that Beehive Homes was not an approved facility despite its state license and that Mrs. Derks was not sufficiently infirm, despite her early-stage dementia and the 37 pills she takes each day. More than four years has passed and she has yet to receive a penny from Conseco while her family has paid about $70,000. “The bottom line is that insurance companies make money when they don’t pay claims,” said Mary Beth Senkewicz, who resigned last year as a senior executive at the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. “They’ll do anything to avoid paying, because if they wait long enough, they know the policyholders will die.”(5)
With insurance companies having a stranglehold on our lives, we need each individual to push policymakers to enact regulation to protect Americans from financial devastation due to improper insurance and overwhelming medical bills. So far the cries have not been loud enough…in October 2007, a bill providing health insurance for 10 million children failed to override President Bush’s veto.(6) Administration officials had stated that it should be the states that make better use of the money they already have.(7) This is unacceptable and each representative that did not vote to override the bill, should have their constituents vote them out of office. Health care affects each American and there are representatives that want to help.
Visit your governor’s, senators’, and representatives’ websites to see if he or she has prioritized reforming health insurance. You can find their contact information at vote-smart.org. Call, write or send an email outlining your concerns. Also go to the National Conference of State Legislatures (ncsl.org) for up-to-date information on which states have proposed health-insurance legislation. Numerous non-profit organizations are dedicated to health-care reform such as CodeBlueNow! (codebluenow.org) and Health Care for All. The Commonwealth Fund (cmwf.org) has a quarterly online newsletter that outlines state initiatives...sign up and get informed!
How much will you pay for your life?
Sources:
(1)“Health Care as if Costs Didn’t Matter”, David Leonhardt, New York Times, June 7, 2007
(2)“Health Plan Used by U.S Is Debated as a Model”, Reed Abelson, New York Times, October 24, 2007
(3) “How Bad Does the Health-Care Crisis Have to Get”, Fran Smith, Redbook, June 2007
(4) “Cancer Patients, Lost in a Maze of Uneven Care,” Denise Grady, The New York Times, July 30, 2007
(5)“Aged, Frail and Denied Care by Their Insurers,” Charles Duhigg, The New York Times, March 26, 2007
(6)“House Fails to Override Child Health Bill Veto,” David Stout and Robert Pear, The New York Times, October 18, 2007
(7)“Child Health Care Splits White House and States”, Robert Pear, The New York Times, March 1, 2007
Showing posts with label Health Care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Health Care. Show all posts
Monday, August 25, 2008
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Sovereign Anatomy
Who makes decisions about your body? New laws give physicians and hospitals the right to deny the best care…even in emergencies. A recent poll conducted by Self.com resulted in nearly 1 in 20 respondents noting an incident in which their doctor had refused to treat them for moral, ethical, or religious reasons.
“Doctors swear an oath to serve their patients. But instead, they are allowing their religious beliefs to compromise patient care,” says Jamie D. Brooks, a former staff attorney for the National Health Law Program. At the forefront of this controversy is woman’s health care.
Lori Boyer was trembling after being sexually assaulted by an acquaintance. Bruised and shaken, she drove straight to Good Samaritan Hospital in Lebanon, Pennsylvania. After speaking to a rape counselor, she met with Martin Gish, M.D. for a pelvic exam and inquired to the doctor about the morning-after pill, which the counselor had mentioned earlier. She was mid-cycle, putting her in danger of getting pregnant. “No,” replied Dr. Gish. “It’s against my religion.” Emergency contraception is most effective within ideally 72 hours. She now had to look for another doctor who was willing to put religious beliefs aside in order to prevent a forced pregnancy. “I was so vulnerable,” laments Lori. “I felt victimized all over again. First the rape and then the doctor making me feel powerless.” Luckily Boyer was able to find a physician in enough time to prescribe her EC.
“What person who has been raped would really welcome a pregnancy from that?” asks James Trussell, Ph.D., director of the Office of Population Research at Princeton University. “Even if you oppose abortion, what could be better than preventing the pregnancy in the first place?”
In the absence of any local laws, it is up to individual hospitals to decide whether a rape victim will be given – or even told about – emergency contraception. (Glamour, May 2006) In The New England Journal of Medicine survey, 8 percent of physicians said they felt no obligation to present all options to their patients. Eight percent might not seem to be a high percentage but imagine you being one of the numerous patients to a doctor that falls in that 8%. “Especially in a crisis situation, like a rape, you often don’t think to question your care. But unfortunately, now we can’t even trust doctors to tell us what we need to know,” Jill Morrison, senior counsel for health and reproductive rights at the National Women’s Law Center points out.
There have been highly publicized articles and discussions about pharmacists who have refused to dispense birth control and emergency contraception. But more and more incidents like Lori Boyer’s are being noticed.
Cheryl Bray, a single 41-year-old, had decided to adopt a baby from Mexico. Where woman are dying because they are poor and having unsafe abortions since it is illegal. Those that do go through with a pregnancy often cannot afford to raise the child and put he/she up for adoption. Being a well-respected realtor in California, Cheryl decided to open her home and her heart to one of these children. She had already gone through a long and arduous application process along with various inspections, background checks, etc. One of the last requirements was to undergo a routine physical. “So, your husband is in agreement with your decision to adopt?” inquires Fred Salley, M.D. “I’m not married,” Bray told him. “You’re not?” He calmly put down his pen Bray recalls. “Then I’m not comfortable continuing this exam.” He later stated that his “decision to refer Ms. Bray was not because she was unmarried; rather, it was based on my moral belief that a child should have two parental units. Such religious beliefs are a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.”
So by Dr. Salley’s statement and belief that a child should have two parental units, then widows should never be allowed to raise their own children unless they immediately get remarried. Interesting! As for the second part of his statement about religious rights, Bray has a right to her beliefs just as much as Salley. “Apparently it is ok to discriminate against somebody, as long as it’s for religious reasons,” Bray surmises.
Besides the doctor’s beliefs to content with, nearly one in five hospital beds is in a religiously owned institution, according to the nonprofit group MergerWatch. Often times, mergers take place at hospitals. As a result, the name of the hospital might not change but its philosophy does. Every Catholic hospital is bound by the ethical directives of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which forbid abortion and sterilization (unless they are lifesaving), in vitro fertilization, surrogate motherhood, some prenatal genetic testing, all artificial forms of birth control and the use of condoms for HIV prevention. (“Is Your Doctor Playing Judge?” Self, June 2007)
At just 14 weeks pregnant, Kathleen Hutchins had her water break. Because there wasn’t enough amniotic fluid left and it was too early for the fetus to survive, the pregnancy was hopeless. Hutchins would miscarry in a matter of weeks but in the meanwhile, she stood at risk for serious infection, which could lead to infertility or death. Hutchins chose to go to local Elliot Hospital but Elliot had recently merged with nearby Catholic Medical Center – and as a result, the hospital forbade abortions. “I was told I could not admit her unless there was a risk to her life,” Dr. Goldner remembers. “They said, ‘Why don’t you wait until she has an infection, or she gets a fever?’ They were asking me to do something other than the standard of care. They wanted me to put her health in jeopardy.” (Self, June 2007)
South Dakota Governor Michael Rounds, signed into law the nation’s most sweeping state abortion ban in March 2006. The law makes it a felony to perform any abortion except in a case of a pregnant woman’s life being in jeopardy. (“South Dakota Bans Abortion, Setting Up A Battle”, The New York Times, 3/7/2006) But who decides when a woman’s life is in jeopardy? For Kathleen Hutchins, it was the local hospital. Isn’t it her body? Shouldn’t she ultimately make that decision? Not when doctors and hospitals are given the right to refuse care. They are making your decisions.
Since 2005, 27 states introduced bills to widen refusal clauses. Four states are considering granting carte blanche refusal rights – much like the law adopted by Mississippi in 2004, which allows any health care provider to refuse practically anything on moral grounds. (Self, June 2007) “It’s written so broadly, there’s virtually no protection for patients,” says Adam Sonfield, senior public policy associate for the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive-health research group.
The relationship between patient and his/her doctor should be ‘sacrosanct’, and the moral condemnation of a doctor’s faith on a patient has caused patients to retreat from seeing and vocalizing their health in fear of being judged. As upsetting and discouraging as these changes might be, we must always be in control of our own body and health.
In 2002, I was diagnosed with Hashimoto’s Thyroiditis, a hereditary autoimmune disease. After years of arguing with doctor’s that I knew something was not right, it was a gastroenterologist that finally looked into it. Blood tests confirmed my assumptions and he referred me to an endocrinologist for further medical attention.
After being under the endocrinologist’s care for a year and taking the prescribed Levoxyl, I still did not feel any better. Being concerned about my health care, I read articles and studies on various medications and treatments. When I confronted my doctor, he responded “You shouldn’t read so much!” Needless to say, that was my last visit with him. I found a new endocrinologist who listened to my concerns and wound up changing the brand of medication. Although the main difference is just the fillers in the medication, sometimes it is even something that small that can make a difference. Luckily I had enough gumption to not accept substandard care but many people do not.
Doctor’s seem to forget that EVERYONE is different. We can all have a different reaction to the same treatment and as a doctor, you should always look to finding what is best for your patient.
“Doctors swear an oath to serve their patients. But instead, they are allowing their religious beliefs to compromise patient care,” says Jamie D. Brooks, a former staff attorney for the National Health Law Program. At the forefront of this controversy is woman’s health care.
Lori Boyer was trembling after being sexually assaulted by an acquaintance. Bruised and shaken, she drove straight to Good Samaritan Hospital in Lebanon, Pennsylvania. After speaking to a rape counselor, she met with Martin Gish, M.D. for a pelvic exam and inquired to the doctor about the morning-after pill, which the counselor had mentioned earlier. She was mid-cycle, putting her in danger of getting pregnant. “No,” replied Dr. Gish. “It’s against my religion.” Emergency contraception is most effective within ideally 72 hours. She now had to look for another doctor who was willing to put religious beliefs aside in order to prevent a forced pregnancy. “I was so vulnerable,” laments Lori. “I felt victimized all over again. First the rape and then the doctor making me feel powerless.” Luckily Boyer was able to find a physician in enough time to prescribe her EC.
“What person who has been raped would really welcome a pregnancy from that?” asks James Trussell, Ph.D., director of the Office of Population Research at Princeton University. “Even if you oppose abortion, what could be better than preventing the pregnancy in the first place?”
In the absence of any local laws, it is up to individual hospitals to decide whether a rape victim will be given – or even told about – emergency contraception. (Glamour, May 2006) In The New England Journal of Medicine survey, 8 percent of physicians said they felt no obligation to present all options to their patients. Eight percent might not seem to be a high percentage but imagine you being one of the numerous patients to a doctor that falls in that 8%. “Especially in a crisis situation, like a rape, you often don’t think to question your care. But unfortunately, now we can’t even trust doctors to tell us what we need to know,” Jill Morrison, senior counsel for health and reproductive rights at the National Women’s Law Center points out.
There have been highly publicized articles and discussions about pharmacists who have refused to dispense birth control and emergency contraception. But more and more incidents like Lori Boyer’s are being noticed.
Cheryl Bray, a single 41-year-old, had decided to adopt a baby from Mexico. Where woman are dying because they are poor and having unsafe abortions since it is illegal. Those that do go through with a pregnancy often cannot afford to raise the child and put he/she up for adoption. Being a well-respected realtor in California, Cheryl decided to open her home and her heart to one of these children. She had already gone through a long and arduous application process along with various inspections, background checks, etc. One of the last requirements was to undergo a routine physical. “So, your husband is in agreement with your decision to adopt?” inquires Fred Salley, M.D. “I’m not married,” Bray told him. “You’re not?” He calmly put down his pen Bray recalls. “Then I’m not comfortable continuing this exam.” He later stated that his “decision to refer Ms. Bray was not because she was unmarried; rather, it was based on my moral belief that a child should have two parental units. Such religious beliefs are a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.”
So by Dr. Salley’s statement and belief that a child should have two parental units, then widows should never be allowed to raise their own children unless they immediately get remarried. Interesting! As for the second part of his statement about religious rights, Bray has a right to her beliefs just as much as Salley. “Apparently it is ok to discriminate against somebody, as long as it’s for religious reasons,” Bray surmises.
Besides the doctor’s beliefs to content with, nearly one in five hospital beds is in a religiously owned institution, according to the nonprofit group MergerWatch. Often times, mergers take place at hospitals. As a result, the name of the hospital might not change but its philosophy does. Every Catholic hospital is bound by the ethical directives of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which forbid abortion and sterilization (unless they are lifesaving), in vitro fertilization, surrogate motherhood, some prenatal genetic testing, all artificial forms of birth control and the use of condoms for HIV prevention. (“Is Your Doctor Playing Judge?” Self, June 2007)
At just 14 weeks pregnant, Kathleen Hutchins had her water break. Because there wasn’t enough amniotic fluid left and it was too early for the fetus to survive, the pregnancy was hopeless. Hutchins would miscarry in a matter of weeks but in the meanwhile, she stood at risk for serious infection, which could lead to infertility or death. Hutchins chose to go to local Elliot Hospital but Elliot had recently merged with nearby Catholic Medical Center – and as a result, the hospital forbade abortions. “I was told I could not admit her unless there was a risk to her life,” Dr. Goldner remembers. “They said, ‘Why don’t you wait until she has an infection, or she gets a fever?’ They were asking me to do something other than the standard of care. They wanted me to put her health in jeopardy.” (Self, June 2007)
South Dakota Governor Michael Rounds, signed into law the nation’s most sweeping state abortion ban in March 2006. The law makes it a felony to perform any abortion except in a case of a pregnant woman’s life being in jeopardy. (“South Dakota Bans Abortion, Setting Up A Battle”, The New York Times, 3/7/2006) But who decides when a woman’s life is in jeopardy? For Kathleen Hutchins, it was the local hospital. Isn’t it her body? Shouldn’t she ultimately make that decision? Not when doctors and hospitals are given the right to refuse care. They are making your decisions.
Since 2005, 27 states introduced bills to widen refusal clauses. Four states are considering granting carte blanche refusal rights – much like the law adopted by Mississippi in 2004, which allows any health care provider to refuse practically anything on moral grounds. (Self, June 2007) “It’s written so broadly, there’s virtually no protection for patients,” says Adam Sonfield, senior public policy associate for the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive-health research group.
The relationship between patient and his/her doctor should be ‘sacrosanct’, and the moral condemnation of a doctor’s faith on a patient has caused patients to retreat from seeing and vocalizing their health in fear of being judged. As upsetting and discouraging as these changes might be, we must always be in control of our own body and health.
In 2002, I was diagnosed with Hashimoto’s Thyroiditis, a hereditary autoimmune disease. After years of arguing with doctor’s that I knew something was not right, it was a gastroenterologist that finally looked into it. Blood tests confirmed my assumptions and he referred me to an endocrinologist for further medical attention.
After being under the endocrinologist’s care for a year and taking the prescribed Levoxyl, I still did not feel any better. Being concerned about my health care, I read articles and studies on various medications and treatments. When I confronted my doctor, he responded “You shouldn’t read so much!” Needless to say, that was my last visit with him. I found a new endocrinologist who listened to my concerns and wound up changing the brand of medication. Although the main difference is just the fillers in the medication, sometimes it is even something that small that can make a difference. Luckily I had enough gumption to not accept substandard care but many people do not.
Doctor’s seem to forget that EVERYONE is different. We can all have a different reaction to the same treatment and as a doctor, you should always look to finding what is best for your patient.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)