When President Obama signed the historic Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act last year, there was great hope that California could begin making strides toward delivering health care to the 7.5 million people in our state who are uninsured.
There was hope that the quality in the health care delivery system would improve, costs would come under control, and physicians and pharmacists would be more accessible to the most vulnerable people in our state.
However, last month, with the quiet approval of draconian cuts to the Medi-Cal program, the state and federal governments have counteracted all of those goals and have made it more difficult to implement the Affordable Care Act in California.
Without the proper legal review, without a single public hearing, and without input from the Californians who will be dramatically affected, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) approved yet another 10% cut to the reimbursement rates paid to medical providers who see patients through the Medi-Cal program.
Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid Program, is supposed to serve as a safety net for low-income Californians so that they can keep their families healthy. The program is legally required to be structured such that enrollees have just as much access to doctors’ offices and pharmacies as do individuals who are privately insured. That means enough health care providers throughout the state need to participate in the program so that families can easily find a place to get the care they need. But each time the state reduces the rates it reimburses for those services, fewer and fewer medical providers choose to participate — and the safety net gets shredded.
This latest 10 percent cut has reduced reimbursements to below the cost of actually providing the care. In some cases, pharmacies will have to pay money out of their own pockets to provide medications to Medi-Cal patients, receiving only a fraction of the actual cost for filling the prescription. Of course this will drive some pharmacists out of the program, and that means many communities will be left without a place for Medi-Cal patients to receive care. For low-income Californians, many of whom have no means of transportation, this becomes a very real hardship.
So, why would Governor Brown propose and implement such damaging cuts? The reason given year after year is the state budget crisis and the need to balance the books. Problem is, while cutting Medi-Cal might look good on the books in the short term, it will not help our structural state budget problem, and in the meantime, it will damage our economy at a time when we can least afford it as a state, and hurt patients when they can least afford to be denied access to healthcare services.
For many pharmacies, for example, Medi-Cal patients are a significant portion of their business. These cuts will force pharmacists to stop participating in Medi-Cal, and that will mean layoffs or even closures of community pharmacies. Because they are foundational businesses, job losses in a pharmacy are felt throughout the community they serve. That means the Medi-Cal cuts will be working against another major goal of every elected leader from President Obama on down to the local city council member: Create jobs.
It is nonsensical that the state and federal government would approve cuts that will put health care further out of reach for so many Californians, at the same time that they are implementing reform to improve health care access. No wonder they made the decision behind closed doors, without transparency and without public inclusion. A collection of patients, doctors, pharmacists and drug stores is suing to overturn the cuts, and they are right to do so. Healthcare is a basic human right.
Marshall Getto is a political activist in the South Coast. He serves on the Santa Barbara County Democratic Central Committee and is a delegate to the Democratic State Convention.



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
By cutting the Adult dental program they were pennywise and pound foolish. A couple months ago I ended up being hospitalized for a wk because no Oral Surgeon is willing to take payments and I called every Oral surgeon after my reg dentist told me the extraction was too complicated for a reg. dentist. To make a long story short once I was taken to the ER within hrs of the abcess poison going to my brain and killing me, the Oral Surgeon on call was forced to take my case and payments or give up his Hospital privileges. Imagine the cost of a weeks stay in the hospital vs paying for a dentist visit, not to mention the extra pain and danger to the patient.
SmileySam (anonymous profile)
December 21, 2011 at 7:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Healthcare is NOT a "basic human right," Marshall.
No one has the right to goods and services that have to be provided by others. Everyone wants the best healthcare and services that other peoples' money can buy.
Sure there are those truly in need and the safety net helps them.
But there are those medi cal folks here in our own town who drive Cadillac Escalades and have the latest smart phones. They can pay their share of healthcare costs. Don't cry "woe is me, we're so poor." I call bull crap.
sez_me (anonymous profile)
December 21, 2011 at 7:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Everyone has access to healthcare just as everyone has access to an attorney, an accountant or a hair dresser or nail technician.
Pay for those services.
How did medical care get carved out as something that people expect to get for free all the time?
sez_me (anonymous profile)
December 21, 2011 at 7:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Basic health care, that is, care sufficient to prevent epidemic diseases and chronically overloaded emergency rooms, is in the best interest of our society. Basic health care is not a luxury. It should be publicly funded and regulated and available to everyone we share our air and water with for the same reasons that municipal water and sewage systems are: Without a healthy base population our system will not function well.
hodgmo (anonymous profile)
December 21, 2011 at 7:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Not to quibble with hodgmo's enormous leap in logic, but "care sufficient to prevent epidemic diseases and chronically overloaded emergency rooms" is a million miles away from the rest of your post claiming that public funding is necessary since it's like air and water?
italiansurg (anonymous profile)
December 21, 2011 at 8:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The US has the only for-profit health care system in the world. The US has the highest medical premiums in the world. Go figure.
"How did medical care get carved out as something that people expect to get for free all the time?"
That is simply not true - there are lots of people paying insurance companies huge monthly payments for healthcare. And the insurance companies are making out like bandits.
Medi-Cal is just for people who cannot afford it otherwise, and do not represent the majority of people. It would be nice to have some facts to back up the certainly erroneous assertion that "But there are those medi cal folks here in our own town who drive Cadillac Escalades and have the latest smart phones. " (Is that from the Department of Statistics of Free Air)
There are a lot of poor people in this country. For the last 3 decades the incomes for the vast majority of people have flat-lined or dropped, because of the greed on those at the top whose salaries have increased by over 250%.
tabatha (anonymous profile)
December 21, 2011 at 10:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Healthcare is a human right, even more so for children, the elderly, the physically and mentally handicapped. Not treating problems until they're crises is also much more expensive and the suffering on the part of patient needless.
The mark of a society's health is how it treats its most vulnerable and needy.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 21, 2011 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
@sez_me I appreciate your comments, however...
There used to be a time in our country when retirement was only for those who could afford it. Wealthy children were spared the horrors of factory child labor and allowed to go to school, while their piers from a wide majority of backgrounds were yoked to factory work early in their lives. Our elderly had an effective poverty rate of +35% and were unable to be assured medical coverage. This occurred through the Robber Baron's Gilded Age. A time of income disparity only rivaled, or exceeded, by our own income gap today.
During these times there were many programs, which we now consider enshrined as part of our social contract with our citizens, that are currently being attacked: The ability to retire and age with grace knowing that your medical bills and income was paid forward by younger generations, just as you had paid it forward for the ones who came before you; Guaranteed public education; 40-hour work weeks; Weekends/overtime pay; Workplace safety; Collective bargaining rights, and the list goes on and on.
People didn't think that education was a right until, in 1852, Massachusetts made it so. It took until 1917 for Mississippi to follow suit. That, along with us investing in our public secondary education and enormous post-war manufacturing booms, helped pave the way for the largest growth of middle-class that this country (or arguably any country) has ever seen. As we all know, a vibrant middle-class is hugely key to a healthy economy.
There are reasons that programs such as Medi-Cal, Medicare, Social Security, and the like were created. They made, and still make, sense. I, personally, do not want to see us slide back into conditions as they existed in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Those were not happy economic times for the vast majority of people, and would be a death knell for whatever is left of our decimated Middle-class in this country.
When we are talking about budgets, please keep in mind the billions we give away in tax breaks, and the billions we could recoup if we only did such things as demanding oil royalties from the oil extracted from our state, (like every other state with oil does including Alaska and Texas). Closing loopholes and demanding fair payment for utilizing California's resources would more than make up many of our budget shortfalls, especially when it comes to human-essential programs that are literally about to implode.
Thanks to all the readers and comments! Very interesting hearing from all of you!
marshallgetto (anonymous profile)
December 21, 2011 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
During these times there were many programs implemented,*
I fail at editing on the fly in the comments field.
marshallgetto (anonymous profile)
December 21, 2011 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Healthcare is not like life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. Byt saying that people have a "right" to healthcare, you are saying that people have a right to someone else's labor. What if you can't get people to provide the labor? Do you use conscripts?
Botany (anonymous profile)
December 21, 2011 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
KenV: "Healthcare is a human right, even more so for children, the elderly, the physically and mentally handicapped. Not treating problems until they're crises is also much more expensive and the suffering on the part of patient needless.
The mark of a society's health is how it treats its most vulnerable and needy."
There is a good preventative medicine message in there Ken, but in the end, health care is NOT a right under the Constitution.
My problem w/ health care being a "right" is all those people who choose to smoke (something I never did) & ruin their lungs.
Why should I have to pay for somebody else's insecurity "I wanna be cool" induced stupidity?
Just like an alcoholic, why should I pay for their treatment when it was that person that refused to put the bottle down?
But the sad reality is we already DO pay for services to those that choose to go against logic, science & data to be cool & the life of the party :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
December 21, 2011 at 9:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@Botany Quick question: It takes resources for us to produce: Potable water to deliver it to our population; Roadways to transport goods and services; Schools; Parks; Food that is non-toxic (though we have A LOT of work to do on this one); etc. These products and services were not considered to be things that were guarenteed when our country was founded, but they evolved from the interpertation of the US Constition to "...promote the general Welfare..." Why would these services be any more deserved or important than keeping our populace healthy?
@hank All I can say to that is, we all rise or fall together. Are we to deny healthcare to people based on how they live their lives, thereby curtailing peoples' freedoms? It might be far smarter to just tax cigarettes and blatantly unhealthy foods, (even though that latter idea opens an enormous can of worms), and put that money towards our communal healthcare. As you say, we are already paying for it, just in one of the most inefficient and costly methods possible.
marshallgetto (anonymous profile)
December 22, 2011 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Marshall: You are confusing things that society chooses to pay for that are for public use such as schools, roads, bridges with individual needs. There's a big difference between building a bridge for public use and having our taxes pay for my sister's gall bladder surgery. I hope you can see the difference. The government takes responsibility for infrastructure needs and GENERAL public health needs, like food safety, communicable disease prevention and the like. INDIVIDUAL health needs should be the responsibility of individuals. The government shouldn't be paying for my house, my car, my bigscreen TV or my healthcare.
Botany (anonymous profile)
December 22, 2011 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Botany, owning a house, driving a car, and owning a big screen TV are luxuries. Healthcare is a human necessity (i.e. we all need it sooner or later), exactly like food and water. If we actually made our healthcare system about preventing illness instead of treating the symptoms of it, (and yes, I realize this would make big pharma a whole less profitable, hence why we got watered down versions of healthcare reform with no real cost controls), our society would, in my humble opinion, be more profitable and productive as a whole.
Watching my sibling have my two nephews in London where he married my sister-in-law was truly astonishing. I submit that there are certain services in this world that work better without a profit motive involved, thereby guaranteeing equal access. Examples I point to are education, defense, public libraries, parks, transportation, prisons/jails/detention facilities, and healthcare.
As our healthcare system stands now in this country, it is just another means by which we are straddled with indentured servitude-inducing debt, very much like our current college loans situation, or the housing crisis. Who does that serve besides the bottom lines of healthcare middle-man corporations?
I very much appreciate your comments! :-)
marshallgetto (anonymous profile)
December 22, 2011 at 12:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
MarshallG: "All I can say to that is, we all rise or fall together. Are we to deny healthcare to people based on how they live their lives, thereby curtailing peoples' freedoms? It might be far smarter to just tax cigarettes and blatantly unhealthy foods, (even though that latter idea opens an enormous can of worms), and put that money towards our communal healthcare. As you say, we are already paying for it, just in one of the most inefficient and costly methods possible."
Your point is well taken & believe me, I don't want the nanny state telling people how to live their lives.
But when somebody chooses to be stupid, why should it fall on you or me?
The other week I messed up my right wrist skating the skateramp in IV then aggravated it more @ the BMX track just riding.
Did I rely on the nanny state to take care of me? No. I paid my $20 co-pay to my doctor, they x-rayed my wrist, found no new fractures, but saw an old fracture that will probably need surgery.
Am I gonna get billed for that x-ray? Oh, hell yeah. Am I gonna pay it? Most certainly! Why? Because I did it to me by me. No other idiot told me to go out & be an idiot, it was all me.
In ANY sport I do (skateboarding, surfing, snowboarding, BMX racing, DH MTB, skimboarding) the risks are known & I know what the potential outcome could be. I also know it's on me.
The thing here is accountability, or the lack thereof on all levels.
As for comparing it to the curent college loan situation, well, again, accountability.
Who guaranteed a job for that post-colonial French literature degree?
Seemed romantic @ the time, equates to underwater basket weaving when all's said & done.
The housing crisis, that's another classic case of dwindling accountability.
Sure, when you buy a house the banks give you an unlimited line of credit, but does that mean to go out & live high on the hog w/ the plastic? Nope.
There's an old saying: Just cause you can don't mean that you should.
People have a lot more control over their lives than they think & maybe if that saying is applied more often, as simple as it is, things would probably be a hell of a lot better on all levels :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
December 22, 2011 at 5:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Marshall - keep on fighting the good fight on this issue. I have four family members, including one child, who rely soley on Medi-Cal for their care. Before Medi-Cal was available to them, they had to resort to using the ER when they became seriously ill or injured. They had no resources to pay those bills, which went unpaid. For you heartless nay sayers on this thread, you can't get blood out of a rock. Would you have a person who is has been rendered destitute simply die or suffer for lack of healthcare coverage?
I worked in healthcare my entire career before losing my livelihood due to the "deprecession". I had health coverage through my employers for my entire career, and have had none since. When I recently NEEDED surgery to save my life, I had to sign up for SB County MIA, as I could not qualify for Medi-Cal, even though I had ZERO income. Should I have just died due to my condition to satisfy the small minority of citizens who have means and healthcare coverage?
Healthcare IS a basic human right. Not just in America, but in the world. Tens, if not hundreds of millions of people die to lack of or insufficient health care every year around the world? I guess "survival of the fittest" is now defined as whether or not one has the means to afford health care.
Shame on those of you who think poor, elderly or disabled people should just be ignored when it comes to health care. I guess 'tis the season to be a Scrooge - Bah! Humbug! Sadly, I gess Dickens' tale is timeless.
Gandalf47 (anonymous profile)
December 23, 2011 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There are few doctors that accept MediCal. It seems that MediCal exists to provide jobs for its workers.
Someday you will be old and need healthcare. The bill will use up all of your life savings and you will become a Medi/Medi patient.
Protecting and providing for Medi/Medi now only makes sense. Air, water, roads and all infrastructure are provided and protected by the government. The economic system has been established and nutured by the government. What do you think you would have if you did not live in this country? The government has nursed us all along in our lives and careers. No one is self-made. Who can say, "I did it myself?" We all rely on government largesse. Some people more so than others. Medi/Medi programs need to be expanded not cut. Just as education needs to be funded for all. These things improve society to the benetit of all. We have all helped to build this country. We all participate in this economy. Why should only the wealthy be able to afford healthcare?
myrrddin (anonymous profile)
December 23, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This country was not founded on the principal that we all need to be "nursed" by the government. Some people don't realize that with freedom comes responsibility. If I want a nanny, I'll hire one. We should be learning from what's happening in Europe, not making the same mistakes. The people that think we should just feed everyone, clothe everyone, house everyone and care for everyone lack a basic understanding of economics.
Botany (anonymous profile)
December 23, 2011 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah, y do people think we should build roads so they can drive their hummers on them? Ridiculous, build your own road! Refine your own oil after you drill it out of the deep blue! On the real, I cried watching a commercial last night about making an appointment online to go to the ER. What sickens me and everyone else who uses their brain on this subject, is the millions they make off us in the insurance industry all the while we still have to use the ER as a doctor's office. Shame on this system of millionaire welfare! And shame on those who cry about having to pay for someone else's medical expense. You are currently paying for millionaire welfare and you're cool with that, but you don't think the poor deserve decent, affordable healthcare? Greedy scum (probly go to service on sunday too!). My independent work makes me seek out insurance on the open market (expensive) & when you ain't in the 'pool', you're swimming out in the open with the sharks. $20 Dr. visit? ha!
spacey (anonymous profile)
December 26, 2011 at 12:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's hilarious the arrogance of some people who just can't beare to part with ten cents a month to help someone else but are the first to poke their nose in your business. And one did nothing with their College Degree so automatically everyone else's degrees are worthless..?! Personally I think my education at UCSB alone was invaluable - completely immeasurable in base material things like dollars; but I guess I'm one of those pesky people who actually went and did things after graduation. But hey college isn't for everyone, those people deserve Health Care too. They are the people who repair our cars, build our homes, deliver our foodstuffs, many many different ways do they add to our community..
I am beginning to think Nonnaturalized citizens should perhaps have limited voting rights based on some of the comments here.
Now that would be a joke almost as big as some of the gasbags that have exploded in this thread.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 27, 2011 at 9:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Gandalf47: "Healthcare IS a basic human right. Not just in America, but in the world."
Alright, lets try this again: No it isn't. It is a service paid for by either individual payment (USA) or taxed payment (socialism).
In either case, it ain't a right & it ain't free. Lets not even get into the quality of care because in those tax based systems the care is well, let's just say questionable.
Spacey: "You are currently paying for millionaire welfare and you're cool with that, but you don't think the poor deserve decent, affordable healthcare?"
Thanks for assuming that for me, but you're wrong again spacecadet. But then the question needs to be asked: So when's the last time you got hired by a poor person? Yeah, that's what I thought.
KenV: "but I guess I'm one of those pesky people who actually went and did things after graduation."
WOW! You did too? Congrats dude, welcome to the club. Tomorrow I'll show you the secret handshake.
KenV: "I am beginning to think Nonnaturalized citizens should perhaps have limited voting rights based on some of the comments here.
By "nonnaturalized citizens" are you meaning illegal immigrants? According to city, county, state & federal elections law(s) THEY AREN'T ALLOWED TO VOTE
KenV: "Now that would be a joke almost as big as some of the gasbags that have exploded in this thread."
So how's that hydrogen inhalation therapy going Ken? Stay away from open flames, sparks & other ignition sources. Oops, too late you already exploded the moment you typed. Oh the humanity! Have a nice Happy New Year Herr Hindenburg :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
December 27, 2011 at 11:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
People who paid attention in Humanities classes no doubt appreciated the irony of my joke. But today's students are so overburdened and stressed that itsa wonder they can catch a breath to absorb and contemplate anything. What a great idea to make it all more expensive for them or throw them as prey to the big banks. Enslave them before they graduate.
Colleges and universities like UCSB, NYU ect aren't meant as job training schools, they have trade schools for that (everything from automotive mechanics to medicine). What is taught is the ability to think, to conceptualize, to analyze and many cases create and all this can only be done when building upon the work and knowledge of those who came before. Of course skills are taught and talent nurtured that can be used "on the job". But overall the job of the universities isn't to pump out drones and clones.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 28, 2011 at 10:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm still waiting for someone to point out where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights is the "Right to Health Care". Obama Care? Where I would by statute have been banned from purchasing my rather prohibitive but luxurious coverage? That's why the citizens of Massachusetts got it right when as A STATE they voted to have a system of coverage that helped those in need.
And thanks Hank for echoing my thought about Nonnaturalized US citizens; thank goodness KV is getting on board with regards to illegal aliens.
Hey KV, my primary undergrad degree was in humanities too before I moved on to advanced degrees in science. How come the left supports giving money away to illegals for the (bad) Dream Act and college education in order to "create an educated and productive workforce" but now you're making the diametrically opposite point about the UC system.
italiansurg (anonymous profile)
December 29, 2011 at 6:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I do not support racist views on illegal aliens so please don't put me on your page Italiansurg. Did you know that most illegal aliens are European and Canadian? Maybe it'd be better if foreign born citizens had limited voting rights so we would not get such whacky interpretations of our Constitution, tradition, history and culture inflicted on us.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 29, 2011 at 5:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
KenV: "Did you know that most illegal aliens are European and Canadian?:
So this "statistic" comes from where? DAMMIT! Where is God" to point out the flaws in your posts?
Oh, that's right, letting it slide because he's a "progressive" as well & besides, he's usually (if not mostly) wrong.
KenV: "Maybe it'd be better if foreign born citizens had limited voting rights so we would not get such whacky interpretations of our Constitution, tradition, history and culture inflicted on us."
Sounds pretty Nationalist Socialist Party there Ken, err, RACIST. So the truth comes out, as ugly as it is.
By the same convention maybe they should limit the voting rights of bisexuals too, those are pretty whack :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
December 29, 2011 at 6:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Have a nice Happy New Year Herr Hindenburg :) henry"
It's "Herr Bormann", Sr. Franco.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 30, 2011 at 3:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Seriously though, what would happen if the power of the insurance companies was lessened?
billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 30, 2011 at 3:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
@italiansurg:"I'm still waiting for someone to point out where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights is the 'Right to Health Care'"
Enough with this idiotic argument, please...
There are plenty of federal statutues not directly covered in the Constitution. Hell, no where in the Constitution do I see references to corporations having the same rights as individuals, but I don't hear you so-called "Constitutionalists" clamoring over the Citizens United SCOTUS decision.
Apparently, when it comes to de-commodifying health care, it's suddenly an Constitutional issue. But when it comes to keeping improper corporate influence out of our political system, you're the Three Wise Monkeys.
@italiansurg:"How come the left supports giving money away to illegals for the (bad) Dream Act and college education in order to "create an educated and productive workforce" but now you're making the diametrically opposite point about the UC system."
How come so-called fiscal conservatives don't support a program that would generate anywhere from $1.4 trillion and $3.6 trillion in taxable income? (Hint: Because you only claim to be fiscally conservative, when in reality...)
EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
December 30, 2011 at 5:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
While my proposal regarding the voting rights of foreign born citizens was meant as a joke, it could be argued that since foreign born citizens aren't able to be President, they should not be allowed to vote. That's not my position but it is a legitimate argument.
RE: The nationalities of illegal aliens, one need only consult every study out there. Its funny you never see Russian or Italian mafioso in anti- immigration ads. And some commentators forget that a good many illegal immigrants are fleeing conditions worse than some of our precious foreign born commentators here on this thread themselves fled.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 30, 2011 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"...foreign born commentators here on this thread themselves fled."
Fulgencio Bautista, Martin Bormann, and Benito Mussolini.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
January 2, 2012 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
...and possibly Howie Mandel.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
January 2, 2012 at 3:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ETR: "Enough with this idiotic argument, please... "
Well, in all honesty, the ONLY reason this argument seems idiotic is simply because you disagree w/ it, so therefore, under that convention, your view is idiotic since I don't agree w/ it. There, FTFY. So again, healthcare is a service, not a guaranteed right.
However, it is a service that can be willfully provided for free by doctors that choose to do so & if the medical code of ethics is so profound, then why aren't more doctors guaranteeing said "right" to free healthcare?
Oh, that's right, pesky lawyers & insurance companies, the same people Obama has put in charge of Obamacare.
The foxes ARE in the henhouse, they always have been :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
January 4, 2012 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)