The American Journal of Bioethics and Stanford's Center for Biomedical Ethics (David Magnus & Bela Fishbeyn) on Feb. 16 put on an excellent panel discussion of the ethics of COVID-19 vaccination policies. It was a far-ranging discussion with knowledgeable participants and well worth watching.
It's short but sweet. The Government Accountability Office has issued GAO-21-343SP (02-17-2021), a nifty description and analysis of the role of the federal-state Medicaid program in times of crisis (e.g., epidemics and pandemics, economic recessions, natural disasters, and personal health crises). Specific examples over the past 15 years include Hurricane Katrina, the Great Recession, the opioid epidemic, and of course COVID-19.
This is further proof, as if any were needed, that Texas's policy of not expanding Medicaid eligibility at largely federal expense isn't only hurting the indigent (and largely minority) individuals -- including millions of kids -- that legislators seem keen to punish for being, you know, indigent, nonwhite, and young. The policy is also depriving public-health officials of an important tool in times of great public need.
From Kaiser Health News (2/18/2021):
KFF has an updated analysis of state-reported data as of February 16, 2021 on COVID-19 vaccinations, cases, and deaths by race/ethnicity.
New to the analysis are comparisons of vaccination rates in each racial/ethnic group based on state-reported data of total people who have received at least one dose of the vaccine. Among just over half of states reporting data, the vaccination rate among White people is over three times higher than the rate for Hispanic people (10% vs 3%) and twice as high as the rate for Black people (10% vs. 5%). The vaccination rate for Asian people is closer to the rate for White people in most reporting states, although they are less likely to have been vaccinated in most reporting states.
Another example of weaponization was pointed out in an op-ed in the New York Times (02-17-2021) by Dr. Samuel Dickman, an internist and the medical director for primary care at Planned Parenthood South Texas:
For the past several years, Texas politicians have worked to cut off Medicaid recipients’ access to the wide range of services offered by Planned Parenthood. Now, barring an extension of a state district court’s temporary block on their efforts, they may have gotten their way.
Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, and like-minded state officials targeted Planned Parenthood because it offers abortion services. But abortion services account for just a fraction of the care we provide, which means the consequences of a new policy would be far more sweeping.
If it goes into effect, this policy would block patients’ access to blood pressure checks, cancer screenings, birth control, S.T.D. treatment and other medical care routinely provided at Planned Parenthood health centers in Texas, where I serve as a medical director for primary care. Nationally these other essential services, not abortion care, account for 96 percent of Planned Parenthood’s patient visits; in Texas, for example, some 24,000 Medicaid patients received non-abortion care over the past four years.
The aforementioned cruel and punitive nature of the proposed change should be obvious:
States’ denials of health care coverage, including Texas’ refusal to expand Medicaid, contributed to 461,000 excess deaths in 2018 that would have been averted if the United States had kept up with other wealthy countries, a tragedy documented in a report by my colleagues and me published this month in The Lancet.
It is also just bad policy. Not just bad health policy, which it obviously is, but bad fiscal policy as well. Untreated STDs will increase the cost of health care because of expensive later treatments. Forgone cancer screenings, untreated hypertension and a host of other chronic conditions only get more expensive the longer preventive care is postponed denied once Planned Parenthood is knocked out of the Medicaid program altogether. Gov. Abbott and his pals have to be stopped. If they aren't, any Medicaid expansion that Texas may stumble into (see yesterday's post) will leave these 24,000 women and many others in years to come out in the cold.
As reported by The Washington Post (02/16/21), the 5,593-page COVID relief bill supported by the Biden Administration contains a provision to increase Medicaid reimbursements by 5 percent for holdout states that finally do the right thing and expand Medicaid eligibility to 133 percent of the federal poverty line. Some excerpts from the Post's article:
Texas has more uninsured residents than any other state — partly because the massive state has spurned expansion. That means no Medicaid for most adults earning up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level (around $17,000 for a single person or $35,000 for a family of four). . . .
A coronavirus relief bill working its way through Congress and backed by President Biden includes a hefty incentive for states to expand Medicaid. If a state did so, the federal government would increase its Medicaid contribution to the state by 5 percent. The increased match rate would apply to everyone outside the expansion group and would last two years.
For Texas, that would mean nearly $6 billion extra dollars in Medicaid funds over two years. . . .
It appears that a handful of Republican legislators -- and even Governor Abbott -- may be warming to the idea of accepting billions of federal dollars in order to provide decent health care to over 5 million uninsured Texans (that's 17.7% of the population, more than double the national rate of uninsured (8.5%).
This shouldn't even be debatable. But maybe, just maybe, the times (and the state) are a-changin'. San Antonio's Republican Representative Lyle Larson has introduced HB 1730, a bill "[r]elating to the expansion of eligibility for Medicaid to all persons for whom federal matching money is available." Fingers crossed.
When a woman gets a caesarean section at the gleaming new Van Ness location of Sutter Health’s California Pacific Medical Center, the price might be $6,241. Or $29,257. Or $38,264. It could even go as high as $60,584.
Sutter Health isn't doing anything illegal or even unique. It bills different amounts based on whether the patient is uninsured, insured, a subscriber to the Sutter Health HMO, or (worst-case scenario) out-of-network. There is a historical and economics-based rationale for the way serves are priced in the hospital's ChargeMaster and ultimately billed to patients and payers of various stripes. Unfortunately, the history and accounting rationales conspire to hurt the patients least able to protect themselves with health insurance, Health Savings Accounts, and the like. I hope everyone has a chance to read this article.
In a two-page letter from the Office of the Solicitor General makes two simple assertions, with which neither the trial court nor 5th Circuit agreed:
