An RN's thoughts on the health care law

Nurses Activism

Published

I've been following the debate about the health care law and it seems like most commenters are totally for it or adamantly against it. I've been watching my family, friends, and patients face bad choices and rationed health care because of our current health insurance system. What I really want to know is if this law will fix it.

First, let's look at some of the key parts of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), most of which are phased in by 2014:

- The best parts of the law are the provisions that people cannot be denied health coverage because of pre-existing conditions, that insurers can not drop you when you get sick, and that eliminate annual and lifetime caps on coverage. What worries me are the loopholes that insurance company lawyers will use to continue to cherry-pick who they cover. For example, the law doesn't say how much they can charge to cover people with pre-existing conditions.

- Almost everyone (even the insurance companies) agrees that it's good to let parents keep their children, up to the age of 26, on their health insurance (if they have it).

- Large companies that don't give their workers health insurance will have to pay $2,000.

- People who do not have health insurance where they work and choose not to buy it will have to pay a penalty. Is the individual mandate a fee, a tax, or a penalty? I don't really care what we call it. I understand why everyone should be part of the healthcare system. Medicare does this, covering everyone 65 and over. The individual mandate is a clumsier way of creating one risk pool, through private insurance companies. I've don't like it because it requires people to give money to profit-making insurance companies.

- If you are very low income, you may qualify for a government-funded subsidy to buy insurance through a health exchange, or, for the most low income, become eligible for Medicaid which is set to expand.

- It shrinks the Medicare donut hole in prescription drug coverage, where there's coverage to a certain point and then nothing until a higher spending cap is reached. Since 2010, 5.2 million seniors and people with disabilities have saved $3.7 billion on prescription drugs. I believe the donut hole should be entirely eliminated.

- All insurance plans will be required to include preventative care (i.e. mammograms, vaccinations, colonoscopies, physicals) with no co-pay, by 2018.

- Medicare coverage will now include an annual physical and no co-pays for preventative services.

- Before, small businesses paid as much as 18% more than larger businesses for premiums. Now, they will get tax credits (up to 50% of the cost of premiums) for offering health insurance to their workers. In 2011, this affected 2 million employees.

- Pharmaceutical, medical device manufacturers and health insurance companies will have their taxes increased. I agree with this. This law gives them millions of new customers. They can help pay.

- The law increases funding for community health centers, one of the best provisions of all.

- For the first time, the law taxes health benefits, and the main target is the comprehensive, best plans. In 2018, those plans (more than $10,200/single; $27,500/family) will be taxed. The insurance company has to pay, but they're going to pass the cost along to anyone lucky enough to have a good plan. I think this will push more people into plans that cover fewer health needs and have large out-of-pocket costs.

- In 2013, if you make more than $200,00 (individual) or $250,000 (family), you will pay a Medicare tax on investment income (before Medicare tax was only on wages).

- The Medicare tax rate goes up to 3.8%, from 2.9%.

Although the advocates for the law say that it will bring down health care costs. I believe that some of these benefits are over-stated and ignore some remaining very large problems.

What the law doesn't or maybe won't do:

- Despite the all the claims about cost controls for individuals and families, most of them are weak. Insurance companies, drug companies, and hospitals will still largely be able to charge what they want. Although there are limitations on rate increases, this is not enough protection, 9% increases for several years is just as untenable (although it is better than the current, unfettered, increases).

- I expect that people will continue going bankrupt because of high medical bills or choosing to skip or delay doctor visits or needed treatment.

- Insurance companies will still be able to deny care recommended by a doctor using the same excuses ("experimental," "not medically justified," etc) as now.

- I read that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said that up to 27 million people will still have no health coverage. Since the Supreme Court decision allows individual states to opt out of the Medicaid expansion for low income people without a federal penalty, that number will probably grow.

- Some people are worried that employers will drop existing coverage because the exchanges will now be a more affordable option. I'm not too worried since before this law, employers could drop or reduce coverage any day they wanted (and many did). There's nothing in ACA which makes it more attractive to drop coverage, in fact they might have to pay a penalty for dropping coverage.

- The law promotes IT systems in healthcare, many of which are wasteful and have been used by some employers to erode RN clinical judgment.

- There are similar misguided incentives for "wellness" programs that penalize people who have diabetes, high blood pressure, or other medical conditions often beyond their control.

- The windfall for insurance companies, big pharmaceutical firms (who were exempted from strong cost controls to win their support for the law), further strengthen a healthcare system already too focused on profits rather than patient need.

For me, the bottom line is the ACA law didn't go far enough. Insurance companies are going to be a little more restricted more than they were in the past. It will help some people but doesn't cover all Americans.

Polls show that a majority of Americans would rather that Medicare cover everyone. We would still have to work to improve it, but it would be easier and more cost-effective. It would eliminate the higher administrative costs (ACA limits insurance companies to 15%, even assuming they don't find ways around that, Medicare's is 3%) and the corporate profits - billions of dollars removed from the health care system and not spent on health care.

Specializes in Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical.

As it is now, about a third of those who are eligible are not enrolled. With the AHA, more will be eligible, but a even higher % is expected to not enroll.

Understanding Participation Rates in Medicaid: Implications for the Affordable Care Act: ASPE Issue Brief

As it is now, about a third of those who are eligible are not enrolled. With the AHA, more will be eligible, but a even higher % is expected to not enroll.

Understanding Participation Rates in Medicaid: Implications for the Affordable Care Act:* ASPE Issue Brief

I just clicked on the link to this article and noticed the date at the bottom is 3/16/12 if I remember correctly. The Supreme Court ruled on the Health Care Act in June. So I am thinking, as I read in Bloomberg, that with the Supreme Court Ruling now not requiring states to expand Medicaid, that actually fewer people than this article projected will be expected to enroll.

Specializes in Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical.

A nurse who volunteered in Houston after Katrina and Rita told me what she and fellow volunteers did after the Astrodome refugees were gone.

They went into the east Texas piney wood hills where people were living in the yard because their roof had blown off and it was raining in the house.

With a church group the nurses, including NPs found old people with undiagnosed HTN, diabetes, and other illnesses. They didn't even know they could get Medicare or Social Security. They were treated at their homes, those who were willing were taken to a shelter. All were so very relieved that they could get some healthcare.

With the help of volunteers from various churches their roofs were replaced. These volunteer nurses truly helped those people.

A nurse who volunteered in Houston after Katrina and Rita told me what she and fellow volunteers did after the Astrodome refugees were gone.

They went into the east Texas piney wood hills where people were living in the yard because their roof had blown off and it was raining in the house.

With a church group the nurses, including NPs found old people with undiagnosed HTN, diabetes, and other illnesses. They didn't even know they could get Medicare or Social Security. They were treated at their homes, those who were willing were taken to a shelter. All were so very relieved that they could get some healthcare.

With the help of volunteers from various churches their roofs were replaced. These volunteer nurses truly helped those people.

I think it is wonderful that these nurses and NP's were able to help these people.

I am guessing that the NP's were self-employed practitioners. I am just wondering about the issues of malpractice coverage for the nurses and NP's involved. I know that my professional liability policy didn't cover me for volunteer nursing. I would not provide volunteer nursing services to the general public without professional liability coverage: I would only act within the limits of the Good Samaritan Act, unless I was employed by a group such as the Red Cross.

What makes you think doctor's offices will be hiring more RNs to teach the patients? They have removed RNs and even the LPNs from their offices! Why? Because they can work the MA (with significantly less education) for much less. Plus they can get the MA to do things that RNs know better. Have you ever had some education from an MA? I have. What a mess. All the doctors I have used in my area the MAs have no clue. Sorry but that's just the facts.

Specializes in Med-Surg.
Those of us who work in private hospitals receive a paycheck from payments to the hospital by Medicare, Medicaid, government workers insurance plans, private insurance and self pay.

Many of us also volunteer ate free or low cost clinics. If you've cared for someone who died as a result of untreated tooth decay you may understand why it is important for dental care to be included.

Nurses provide pre-screening for hundreds of people a day. Most are working people with no employer insurance or no dental. Before dental work can be done people must have their hypertension and/or diabetes under control.

Those are the most common medical illnesses treated. A nurse practitioner or physician diagnoses them. Nurses care and teach them. It often takes several hours, but needs to be done that day.

A volunteer pharmacist dispenses several months of medication. The patient is given a prescription good for a year.

Then they can come back another day, wait all night outside, and have their teeth worked on.

Remote Area Medical Volunteer Corps - Oklahoma : Remote Area Medical Oklahoma

Pikeville, KY Expedition 2012

Remote Area Medical ends weeklong clinic in Los Angeles | 89.3 KPCC

Let me tell you. I work in a home health company. I have been told SEVERAL times that we basically make NO profit from the Welfare patients after staff caring for them have been paid. So for those entrepreneurs trying to make something of themselves, which I thought was one of the biggest pros about the US, there is NO gain to be made by taking Medicare patients. And, as others have said, although I do believe everyone should have insurance, I dont think it is MY responsibility to work my butt off to barely scrape by on my bills as the sole earner in my household, then watch people receiving these benefits living better than I do!

There is a proverb in french that roughly translated says "Help yourself and the Lord will help you too".

Specializes in Med-Surg.
"That Guy" has the same reaction that many doctors have to coverage for everyone. It's commonly known as the "I've got mine" approach to the needs of others.

The way this remarkable act (remarkable for having passed both houses, despite strenuous opposition) works to lower medical costs, is that those who will be covered, will no longer use the ED as their neighborhood doctors' office, arriving in more advanced states of their illnesses. That costs us taxpayers more, and provides fewer other programs (like transportation) that could benefit us. Prevention programs also will keep almost everyone well enough to work, longer than the current programs.

Since doctors charge so much for their services, utilization of nurses for patient education and nurse practitioners for preliminary care will increase, and that means more time will be spent with patients by professionals who have expertise to educate them more thoroughly and effectively. Doctors traditionally speak to patients with terminology that is difficult for them to understand, and in a dispassionate manner that forbids emotional reactions (no time for that).

Consequently, remuneration for nurses will likely increase, as well as job opportunities.

I am very sorry Lamazeteacher, but I am ALSO from Canada, and that is not at all how I see things happening here. People still abuse the ER. They are uneducated so they go for anything and everything, and because its free, they figure, why not go to the ER? In Quebec, where I grew up, and practiced nursing, they have a big emphasis on community care, where nurses are basically the primary care givers. They do teaching, treatments, etc. However, Quebec has the lowest wages for nurses, and has the highest taxes in the country. And do you know what happens when wages drop? People leave the country or leave the profession because they can no longer afford to live that way. Or they go to agencies, which really ends up costing more for the hospitals and therefore the government. But whatever, I guess you will all see when the same happens here!

Specializes in Med-Surg.
What makes you think doctor's offices will be hiring more RNs to teach the patients? They have removed RNs and even the LPNs from their offices! Why? Because they can work the MA (with significantly less education) for much less. Plus they can get the MA to do things that RNs know better. Have you ever had some education from an MA? I have. What a mess. All the doctors I have used in my area the MAs have no clue. Sorry but that's just the facts.

Yup, as it is, I spoke to a pediatrician who told me she would love to hire me but she only can afford ONE RN, and for the rest she is hiring MAs. Thinks its going to get better guys?

+ Add a Comment