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 Cardiology.

What does a 5000 tax return have to do with what physicians get paid? I'm not seeing a correlation.The first few posts clarify a lot. There are still a lot of unanswered questions related to these changes. No one can answer as to how a certain career field will be affected because no one knows. There are too many variables to make a prediction. Stay involved in your community and you'll find out.

THAT is what "assistance" is for - to assist you to get off of welfare. Most people who go to college receive some form of assistance. The difference is, we are required to pay it back. I also paid for nursing school - through my JOB. That was one of the benefits of working there. I too, come from a single parent home, and a mother who worked 3 jobs so we were never on welfare. I also spent most of my 20s without health insurance, even though I had a job. I just paid cash for my appointments and meds if needed. Don't think it didn't kill me to pay $100 for PenVK, because it did. I didn't buy groceries that month. What I resent is the fact that I have 3 degrees (for which I paid and am still paying) and still have to work 3 jobs (to pay for my education and just to live) and and able bodied 25 y/o gets to benefit with his medical, rent, food, cell phone (yes, they get them free now) and I (and everyone else who has a J O B pays for it. You, my friend, are in the minority I'm afraid. You have pride and drive, and many of these people don't. And when you work in the ER and see your medicaid pt with their bedazzled cell phone and their mani/pedis with the fake nails on their toes, and you're working your 5th 12 in a row, you'll get a little resentful too. I believe in society taking care of their elderly, infirm and those who truly cannot fend for themselves, and there are scores out there. I also believe what God said in 2 Thessalonians 3:10 "If a man does not work, neither shall he eat." Not true for those unable, SO true when I hear you talking about how you spend $300 on your Coach purse and you pull out a medicaid card!

Paying doctors the same amount doesn't help, it hurts. Doctors will leave practice, and people will become generalists instead of specialists, which hurts all of us. Tell me, when you have chest pain or are in labor, do you go to a podiatrist? Of course not. If you had to go to med school and then 10 years of surgical training to be a cardiothrocic surgeon amd earn $100,000, or go to medical school and 3 years of training to be a family practitioner and earn a $100,000 which would you choose? Assuming you're a nurse, would you work your butt off to go through nursing school, clinicals, boards and assuming the legal responsibility that you do if you and the CNA or the housekeeper made the same $7/hr? Absurd? Well, so is paying each doctor regardless of training, speciality or liability. OB and ER docs have some of the highest (our ER doc pays over $100,000 year for his) and OB is even higher. Podiatry probably has some of the lowest. Why would I assume the same risk for so much less reward? What starts with docs will filter to nurses. Also, when docs leave, why do you need nurses? No clinic, no nurse. If nursing starts to pay that way, I'm out. Presumably you go into nursing not just to help people, but as a career move, better pay. I like my job, but I have to eat too.

Specializes in Cardiology.

I see. I had not thought if it that way. Thank you for clarifying!! That's the kind of abuse that tax payers DON'T want to pay for, nor do I. I had heard a rumor that if things head that way, physicians would leave their practices, as would I. I would hope physicians would fight such a concept. Do you think nursing would shift from majority bedside care to more claims and insurance?

Honestly, I don't know. Possibly in clinics. MDs in clinics have reams of paperwork that they do every day just to deal with insurance issues. One thing that has started changing in med schools is the addition of business classes. There used to be little need for those types of skills, as office managers dealt with the day-to-day running of things. Now doctors must deal with many aspects of insurance and billing. I work (and have always worked) in a hospital, so that's a good question. I would think that would be impractical. But, in dialysis clinics I have covered, RNs do coding and billing as part of their daily charting, so, who knows. As of yet, I haven't seen any shift, but then these big changes are just getting started, so who knows what extra "duties as assigned" will be given to us? Maybe billing and coding will be part of the RN pre-reqs!

Specializes in Rehab, LTC, Peds, Hospice.

It bothers me that some practioners would drop patients if Medicare reimbursements are lower. Thank goodness for those that choose to serve communities. When my husband and I didn't have health insurance for a short (bad) time - my OB GYN made it clear that she would work with me. Another time in our lives, free clinics are what helped us through when we were traveling because of my husband's job. We paid based on what we made. (Had insurance but found out the hard way we weren't covered out of the state we had purchased it in for anything other than Emergency care.)

I realize health care is a business, we all need to eat, but it's also caring for people. Even lawyers provide Pro Bono work.

I guess most likely it will be the Free Clinics that will end up accepting those medicare patients.

@ That Guy. Best point made! The answer is: It won't help you at all...that is if you work for a living. I have insurance, I work. I want everyone to have insurance..I just don't want to pay for everyone to have it!

@Ludlow. WHAT????? The government has NO money of their own...you know who pays for that?????? THE WORKING CLASS!!! I don't know if you work for a living, but I do! I have worked in almost every country in the western hemisphere and let me tell you having a Universal health care system is NOT a good idea. I have insurance. I want YOU to have insurance. I just don't want to pay for you to have it!!!!

Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
It bothers me that some practioners would drop patients if Medicare reimbursements are lower. Thank goodness for those that choose to serve communities. When my husband and I didn't have health insurance for a short (bad) time - my OB GYN made it clear that she would work with me. Another time in our lives, free clinics are what helped us through when we were traveling because of my husband's job. We paid based on what we made. (Had insurance but found out the hard way we weren't covered out of the state we had purchased it in for anything other than Emergency care.) I realize health care is a business, we all need to eat, but it's also caring for people. Even lawyers provide Pro Bono work. I guess most likely it will be the Free Clinics that will end up accepting those medicare patients.
Here in NYC, there is already a several years old pattern of doctors refusing to take Medicare. I believe that patients will eventually pay cash or go to a clinic. Since I am now on Medicare, I pay attention to this dumping of Medicare pts. Maybe if the administrative headaches were magicslly removed, MDs couldcut their staffs by half.
Specializes in Wilderness Medicine, ICU, Adult Ed..

Thank you for taking the time to publish this thoughtful summary and commentary. You raise many important points, but one that stands out in my mind is your apparent distaste for profit. Do you offer your talents and services at no charge, or do you require that those who benefit from them compensate you?

I work to make a profit (i.e., to make more money than I need to survive) so that I can also save, invest, buy luxury items, and enjoy other pleasures over and above what I need to survive. I do not apologize for this, nor do I ask thers to apologize, whether they are individual employees like myself, or a members of a groups of people joining together to form a corporation.

Best wishes,

David Detsch, RN

Specializes in Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical.

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

Good points Mr. Detsch.:up:

There are many of these kinds of threads going on so I don't want to repeat myself by adding links I've already placed with ideas for market-driven solutions.

I will say THIS RN is firmly against Obamacare. And a recent poll showed that "67% of Americans disapproved of the indivual mandate when it was being labeled a penalty. Now that the Supreme Court has confirmed it as a tax, we can expect the law's popularity to fall even further." I sincerely hope so.

This is the biggest tax hike in history and will be paid for by middle-class taxpayers. When we are already so deeply in debt (China) . . . I don't think this is the way to solve what many folks on all sides of this issue agree are problems that need solutions.

I'm in favor of market-driven ideas. Not handing it all over to the government which will increase our tax burden (we are already struggling) and will entail losing many of our liberties.

I've refused to join the ANA due to it's pro-Obamacare stance. And the fact that they market it as if ALL NURSES are on the same page as the leadership of ANA.

All nurses are not in favor of more government involvement in healthcare decisions.

As an aside - the comparison between car insurance and Obamacare has been proven null and void for years and I've posted links before to that truth. I found a new one today from an actual insurance agent that spells it out more thoroughly though.

Obamacare vs. Car Insurance

[h=1]Obamacare vs. Car Insurance[/h]"I wrote this article because I got tired of people comparing the "Affordable Care Act" to car insurance. Being an independent agent and selling health insurance, I'm both the policyholder and knowledgeable about the products available. I can tell you, Obamacare has very little in common with car insurance.. . . . ."

+ Add a Comment