Is This Post About Medicaid, Universal Healthcare, or Cancer?
by Catherine Morgan

I'm not sure how much we really needed a study to determine that uninsured people are more likely to be diagnosed with cancer too late to be treated successfully. In most cases, a person actually needs to see a doctor to be diagnosed with a disease. So, is anyone surprised to find out that poor, uninsured people, aren't going to the doctor?

I didn't think so. The only thing this study does do, is underscore the healthcare crisis we are currently facing (with 47 million Americans uninsured), and the need for all Americans to have access to quality healthcare.

However, in order to prevent this study from being used as an argument for some type of universal healthcare...Medicaid has been thrown into the mix.

Here is an example from The New York Times, of how the news of this new study is being reported...

A nationwide study has found that the uninsured and those covered by Medicaid are more likely than those with private insurance to receive a diagnosis of cancer in late stages, often diminishing their chances of survival.

Cleverly, someone decided to throw a monkey wrench into this study, by comparing having no insurance at all, to having Medicaid. I say "cleverly", because without that little snip-it of information, this study would appear to be the perfect argument for universal healthcare. But now some can argue, that Medicaid is a government program that isn't working...So, how could the government ever be capable of implementing a healthcare program that would work?

From WebMD...

Researchers say the findings should have important implications for the nation's health care system and policy decisions about health care reform.

Here is what Jude, from First Draft thinks, in a post titled "Two Americas"...

Now, this might not be the biggest revelation ever, but it seems that people who don't pay a lot for their health care get lesser-quality care. I can hear the wingers already screaming that this is obviously a failure of public insurance, as private insurance leads to better care.

I admit, I know very little about Medicaid, but when you dig a little deeper into the reporting of this study, it appears there is more to the "Medicaid" aspect then meets the eye.

This study seems to find that having Medicaid is still better than being one of the 47 million that are uninsured...

Results showed that uninsured patients were 90% more likely and Medicaid patients were 40% more likely to be diagnosed with stage II than stage I disease compared with those who had either private insurance or Medicare (difference not significant between the two latter groups).

And, are the Medicaid patients in this study mostly from nursing homes? If so, this study on Medicaid and nursing homes seems to indicate the problem is more to do with the actual care being given in nursing homes, and less to do with being insured with Medicaid.

A study in the January 2008 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute suggests that Medicaid patients in nursing home care receive limited cancer services. While the prevalence of cancer in nursing home patients is 1 in 10, according to Dr. Bradley and coauthors this population has received little attention in outcomes research.

The report concludes that nursing home patients had a preponderance of late or unstaged disease, high mortality with a few months of diagnosis, low hospice use, and very little cancer-directed treatment, even among patients with early stage cancer where treatment can alleviate symptoms.

I'm pointing these discrepancies out because - If this study is really going to be used to help determine our country's healthcare policy, then we need to understand a few things. Most importantly, that the problems facing Medicaid are much different than the problems facing any plan to insure the uninsured. In other words...Don't use statistics on orange trees, to determine whether or not to grow an apple tree.

Also see:

Health Insurance only for the Healthy -- If 47 million uninsured Americans is not high enough a number of vulnerable people who often do not visit the doctor soon enough to receive an early cancer diagnosis leading to a higher cancer survival rate, Blue Cross of California is looking to increase the number of uninsured -- with the help of doctors.

Sweet Surrender -- C is for CANCER

Anyway, I still don't know what this post is really about, I guess it could mean different things to different people. If you have good insurance it may mean one thing...but if you have a parent in a nursing home, or are uninsured yourself, probably something totally different. What does this information mean to you? Will these issues have any affect on how you vote in November?

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
CatherineBlogs, The Political Voices of Women, Care2 Election Blog

Comments

 

I have insurance, and STILL, I avoid medical
care...

Because in spite of the fact that I shell out monthly for a kinda crappy plan, it STILL ends up costing me a packet. I spend HUNDREDS of dollars on standard tune up stuff last year, just having the routine tests for a physical. I asked myself why I bothered.

Insurance is totally broken. A friend of mine in the same sector, with a day job, just had major surgery and she got six weeks PAID disability and all expenses paid. If I had to have that done, I'd be screwed. She's insured, I'm insured. WTF? We're both middle class, household breadwinners. Difference? She has an employer, I don't. Why am I being punished?

Broken, broken, broken.

Nerd's Eye View

 

The whole system is BROKEN.

You are soooo right Pam. This is a system that is totally broken. I wish there was a way to crumble it up, throw it out, and start from scratch.

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
CatherineBlogs, The Political Voices of Women, Care2 Election Blog

 

All of The Above

It seems that this post raises issues involving both the availability and quality of healthcare in the US as well as the likelihood of surviing life threatening illness.

If you are wealthy, or one of the very lucky ones who has comprehensive health coverage, then you are more likely to take a "preventive" approach to healthcare. You will probably get a full annual physical with tests and not the 10 min. in and out interview that most doctors call an "annual physical".

However, if you are like the majority of working class Americans you have coverage that allows you one "wellness visit" to your primary care physician, if you are a woman, one visit to your gyn per year and a minimum of tests. Even if ar primary care doctor recommends that a patient takes a variety of diagnostic tests that could be life-saving, if the tests aren't covered by their insurer or someone in the HMO's office decides that they know more than the primary care physician, the patient never gets the test.

I also believe that another key in healthcare is the ability to maintain a long term relationship with a doctor. Sadly, most worker healthplans have in-network versus out-of-network rules that force people to change doctors virtually every time that they change jobs.

While, I am not totally familiar with Medicaid, I believe that I can safely say that many Medicaid patients do not truly have long-term relationships with a primary care physician. And the physician that they do have is not likely to refer them to the best specialists for follow-up diagnoses and treatment.

Obviously, if you are totally uninsured you are not getting preventive care at all.

I'm not sure how you fix this system but it HAS to be fixed and soon. Americans are living longer but getting sicker and sicker while healthcare costs are going through the roof.

 

Healthcare system is broken.

Hi Pam. Thanks for your comment, I totally agree with you. I wish there was some easy fix, but like you've pointed out, there are just so many broken pieces. Even though I can't imagine how this system can ever be fixed...I just pray that somehow it will be.

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
CatherineBlogs, The Political Voices of Women, Care2 Election Blog

 

what it means to me

In 20001, I was working at a good job for the first time in 4 years, and had great insurance benefits through that employer. As soon as we were covered, my husband and I both went to the doctor for checkups. I was diagnosed with type II diabetes, he was diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue, on the same day. He went through months of treatments including having all of his teeth extracted, surgery and radiation treatments. I was laid off from that job in April of that year. His last radiation treatment was on May 30, my insurance expired on May 31. We could have continued coverage through COBRA, except that the premium payments were more than we could afford to pay at that time with neither one of us working, and our savings being exhausted by paying the co-pays for his treatments.

We looked for other coverage options, but the premiums for coverage because of our health histories is $1200 per month. He had some health problems in 2005, was admitted to the hospital for 4 days. We worked out a payment plan with the hospital and doctors, so we are now paying $90 per month for services we actually used, instead of $1200 per month for services we MIGHT use someday. While this is not an ideal solution to the insurance-no insurance problem lots of us face, at least we we able to get the medical care he needed at the time.

I would like to see if not Universal Health Care in this country, at least some affordable options for people like us who are uninsurable in the system as it is today.

Read the latest at http://fabgrandma.blogspot.com/

 

Hi FabGrandma.

I know exactly what you mean, some people (because of the way the industry is set up today) are better off not having insurance. Not only because of the cost - the truth is, not all insurance is created equal. In fact...depending on the type of insurance you have...you may actually get better and more thorough care in hospitals, when you don't have insurance at all. I know that sounds crazy but it's true. So many insurance plans (especially HMOs) have specific "can do" and "can't do" requirements for doctors and hospitals. If something is done that is not on the "can do" list - then the insurance company will not pay. This puts doctors and hospitals in very sticky situations...ultimately, the losers are the patients.

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
CatherineBlogs, The Political Voices of Women, Care2 Election Blog

 

National Health-care

I agree with everything being said here. The system is a mess. I am a health care provider and I can tell you that it can be very difficult to get paid. The only thing certain about our current system is that the insurance companies will make sure that they are paid (and paid well!) and then all bets are off. I have seen too many people have to fight to get claims paid.

Medicaid is not a bad system. Most providers will treat Medicaid patients. The poor have a far better deal as far as health care access than the working poor and lower middle-class. Many people do not realize that a serious illness in an insured patient can still leave thousands in bills.

We really need a single-payer system. Incorporating the greedy insurance companies simply reeks of pandering to the interests of big business with powerful lobbies. It is time that someone listens to what the American people want.

I am happy to see that so many bloggers are taking the time to talk about these important issues. It's our only hope for change.

 

Bloggers and voters are talking...

Bloggers and voters are talking...I just hope somebody is listening.

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
CatherineBlogs, The Political Voices of Women, Care2 Election Blog