PDA

View Full Version : Oregon (A state with "free" healthcare) Offers to Pay to Kill, but Not to Treat Cancer Patient



sws4420
08-13-2009, 07:05 PM
June 4, 2008

Lung cancer patient, Barbara Wagner, was recently notified that her oncologist-prescribed medication that would slow the growth of cancer would not be covered by the Oregon Health Plan; the plan, however, she was informed, would cover doctor-assisted suicide should she wish to kill herself.

"Treatment of advanced cancer that is meant to prolong life, or change the course of this disease, is not a covered benefit of the Oregon Health Plan," read the letter notifying Wagner of the health plan's decision.

Wagner says she was shocked by the decision. "To say to someone, we'll pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live, it's cruel," she told the Register-Guard. "I get angry. Who do they think they are?"

This past Monday morning, however, Wagner had reason to rejoice. A representative from the company that manufactures the treatment called the cancer patient to say they would give her the medication for free.

"I am just so thrilled," she said. "I am so relieved and so happy."

Dr. Walter Shaffer, medical director of the state Division of Medical Assistance Programs, which administers the Oregon Health Plan, attempted to defend the health plan's decision. "We can't cover everything for everyone," he said. "We try to come up with polices that provide the most good for the most people." Shaffer then addressed a priority list that had been developed to ration health care. "There's some desire on the part of the framers of this list to not cover treatments that are futile," he said, "or where the potential benefit to the patient is minimal in relation to the expense of providing the care."

According to an AP story on Wagner's case, local oncologists in Oregon have said that, despite the Health Services Commission's assertion that they were just clarifying policies already in place, healthcare practitioners have observed a sizable shift in policy in the way recurrent cancer is treated in the state. Increasingly, say local oncologists, sufferers of recurrent cancer are not receiving coverage for chemotherapy. They are always, however, eligible for state-funded assisted suicide.

Wesley J. Smith, a prominent conservative bioethicist, says that he was not surprised by the events.

"We have been warning for years that this was a possibility in Oregon. Medicaid is rationed, meaning that some treatments are not covered. But assisted suicide is always covered. And now, Barbara Wagner was faced with that very scenario."

Smith also mentioned a similar circumstance that had occurred in the past: "This isn't the first time this has happened either. A few years ago a patient who needed a double organ transplant was denied the treatment but would have been eligible for state-financed assisted suicide."


http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08060402.html

trojanmiro
08-14-2009, 08:33 AM
im curious though if private insurance is still an option in oregon.

i am not saying that gov't healthcare is the end all answer to this nations medical problems. but i still believe one should exist. i also believe that if people want to hold onto their private insurance that they should be able to.

and also, this type of treatment to patients happens with many private insurance also. insurance companies are always looking for ways to either make it more difficult to receive treatment or ways to deny claims. the more claims they have to pay the more it cuts into their profits.

Cutesunshine
08-14-2009, 08:59 AM
This will probably always be a huge argument between you and I. I dont think you realize how this will affect you personally. How this is going to slow down and probably stop the care you're already receiving. A government run agency doesnt want to pay you for the fact that you cant work, they don't believe that you're sick enough to even give you SSDI for one year to help you get treatment, have auto coverage medically, and have enough to financially support yourself (minimally at best)... Why would you think a panel of the same type of "professionals" are going to approve thousand dollar treatments on a monthly basis?

There are healthcare plans out there for people. Most people our age, who aren't sick, don't want the healthcare coverage that they don't have. They have access to it, just don't chose to get it. People with income issues who have no healthcare, need to bring their asses down and take care of the programs which are already in place, and not putting more billions of dollars into our deficit.

They need to fix the nursing and doctor shortages before putting in a plan which is going to stretch an already thin number of people helping the sick even thinner, or quality of care is going to be much worse.

I know you're thinking of this as a basis to the fact you were sick, and didnt have insurance, but you do now, and while it was a pain in the ass to obtain, you got it and are getting the treatment you need. You have no old healthcare costs because medicaid back pays old bills.

I really want to pick apart his speeches, because some of the things he says just infuriates me as a nurse, as a mother to a child who needed and still needs/or may need extensive treatments, as a person who is in pain every day of her life, and still has no answers as to why.

trojanmiro
08-14-2009, 09:32 AM
I know you're thinking of this as a basis to the fact you were sick, and didnt have insurance, but you do now, and while it was a pain in the ass to obtain, you got it and are getting the treatment you need. You have no old healthcare costs because medicaid back pays old bills.


actually st mary's hospital is suing me for a few thousand dollars for unpaid medical bills. my medicaid only went back 30 days from when i received it.

i understand where you are coming from on the nurse standpoint, and i do agree with you to an extent. but i also believe that even though it falls under the same chapter of healthcare, the nurse shortage is a different crisis. such as malpractice and civil suits are a different crisis.

there are many things wrong with our healthcare system. nothing will be fixed with the wave of a magic wand. but lets put it in this perspective. hospitals can not refuse treatment to uninsured even though they know the likely hood of them getting paid is not very good. to offset those losses they charge 10 bucks for one tylenol and so on and so forth. doctors charge a thousand dollars per er visit to cover those same losses and malpractice insurance.

now, even a minimal health insurance program would enable the hospitals to get some sort of income for what are typically their losses. to me this would free up a huge amount of revenue. perhaps allowing wages or atleast the hiring of more nurses. it might even bring some of the hospital charges in check so that insurance companies are trying to deny a nickel wherever they can on a claim.

and yes, alot of people do have access to healthcare and choose not to obtain it. its a nieve belief that they are typically healthy and it is cheaper to pay for a dr visit once a year rather then full year cost of a policy. no one really believes they will ever get a chronic or terminal illness. nor do i believe its just as a society to throw them people to the side because of poor judgement.

but, their are also plenty of people who do work, who make slightly more then the allowances for discounted healthcare, and whos employers dont offer healthcare. for those people to purchase healthcare without the contributions of an employer, the cost is a heavy burden.

is a government insurance the answer to all our problems? absolutely not. but i do believe that it is a start in the right direction. i also believe that private insurance should still be offered for those who wish to have it.

Cutesunshine
08-14-2009, 09:55 AM
This will drive private insurance out of business, without a doubt. If now, there's gov spons insurance, companies aren't going to continue to dish out the premiums as a benefit... instead they'll choose not to give benefits out, and be able to get away with it.

One of obama's big thing is repeat testing. Yes, in some instances it is a cost that could be avoided... but docs should/and do share medical results. Some specialists use different labs, or have more specialized radiologists to read results, which is why, in most cases, tests are repeated numerous times. Sometimes something is caught in test number 2, that wasn't in number 1. And I dont see anything wrong with that. If it wasn't for trial and error and numerous tests, you'd never have found out what your diagnosis was, and you'd never be able to get help.

They need to come down more on the employer, and not the healthcare field and insurances. They need to come up with a contract between private healthcare companies and businesses of various sizes to come up with a cost effective plan for it's employees.

A gov sponsored plan is going to change healthcare for the worst. You'll never have reduced costs, or marginal profits in the hospitals. You're going to have increased lawsuits with heavier case loads on this docs and nurses who's services are already stretched thin. They've tried to cap malpractice suits, and it's not decreasing he frequency of them at all. As long as unforgiving bitter money hungry people exsist, malpractice premiums will remain where they are, which will keep healthcare costs at their high.

I dont know how to put this in terms you'd be able to relate more to...

Say you open your own construction framing business.... You frame at a rate where you're average home construction you're profitting an average of 300k a house (Not that I know a damn thing about costs bear with me) Big brother government steps in and says... Well, we're going to give EVERYONE a house now, and we're going to use our current contractors and pay them out of this big pot of government money. Each family who has a house is only going to pay the government 10k for the house, and we'll pay what we feel the contractor deserves based on what he builds. Now you, as a contractor are going to have to build 10 times as many homes as you do normally, with your current staff... and the government will give you 125k per house that you'd normally get 300k for.... How are you going to make that work????

That's basically what the government is asking the hospitals and docs to do. It's what they do now with medicaid and medicare. Medicaid is not covering 100% of your costs... The doctors eat those last few dollars that they aren't getting. Or they rebill... That is another reasons costs are going up, because they're not getting what they bill.


as a nurse, I can work a contract position and work in a nursing home making 30 an hour. I could become a full time employee of that same nursing home and make 16-18... or I could walk into ahospital and make 12-13. The nurses are all going administrative (like I have) where there's more money available. The same with the docs.