Obamacare? How will it affect dialysis?

Trauma Columnist · Jan 28, 2013

Heres the American Kidney Funds outlook on the changes: 2012 Policy Issues Affecting Kidney Patient Care - American Kidney Fund

Chisca, RN · Mar 6, 2013

If the recent testimony of David Nicholson, head of the NHS, is to be believed I think I know exactly where this is heading. Nicholson was called before Commons to give account as to why he shoudn't be sacked after reports of horrific care surfaced at Staffordshire hospital and throughout the NHS. He described a system that is not "patient centered" and in which financial targets were the most important goal for management. It is estimated over 1,200 patients died of neglect in this one facility alone. Whistle blowers, over 600, were routinely silenced by paying them off or intimidating them.

NurseRies, BSN, RN · Mar 6, 2013

I have been hearing alot of changes coming in the future for dialysis none sound very good. What have you all heard & how do you think it will affect our careers as dialysis professionals in the future?[/quote']
"A kidney transplant is often the treatment option associated with the best outcomes for patients. Patients who receive a kidney transplant must take anti-rejection or immunosuppressive drugs for the life of their kidney transplant. However, Medicare will only pay for these drugs—which average $17,000 per year—for the first 36 months after a patient receives their transplant. Patients who are unable to pay for the medications are often forced to discontinue their use, resulting in kidney rejection and a return to Medicare-covered dialysis treatments at an annual cost of nearly $71,000 per patient.
POSITION: The American Kidney Fund urges Congress to fund the vital coverage for immunosuppressive drugs."
THIS MAKES NO SENSE. So they're going to stop paying for transplant meds after 3 years at a cost of $17K, and then the kidneys will fail and it will in turn cost them $71K. This infuriates me!! What can we do as nephrology nurses to help advocate this issue?
Des the government not realize that the more transplanted patients they have, the cheaper the bill? Not to mention quality of life for patients and families. This is a no brainier! What can we do?!?

Trauma Columnist · Mar 8, 2013

The thought is that after three years, the pt should be back working and have insurance again.

Or if they are older, they will be Medicare-eligible due to age.

NurseRies, BSN, RN · Mar 8, 2013

The thought is that after three years, the pt should be back working and have insurance again.
Or if they are older, they will be Medicare-eligible due to age.

The new rules also say that the patient can only use private insurance for so long and then they are required to use Medicare. Don't get it.

NurseRies, BSN, RN · Mar 8, 2013

Issue 5: Medicare Secondary Payer

Kidney failure is the only chronic disease that automatically qualifies an individual for Medicare, regardless of age. Dialysis patients have the option to continue with their employer group health plans (EGHPs) as a primary payer for the first 30 months. After that period, patients must use Medicare as their primary insurance, even if the EGHP offers better coverage. Other Medicare patients already have the option of continuing their private insurance as primary for as long as they choose. For many patients, private health insurance coverage provides a more extensive benefit package and lower out-of-pocket costs.

NDXUFan · Mar 14, 2013

If the recent testimony of David Nicholson, head of the NHS, is to be believed I think I know exactly where this is heading. Nicholson was called before Commons to give account as to why he shoudn't be sacked after reports of horrific care surfaced at Staffordshire hospital and throughout the NHS. He described a system that is not "patient centered" and in which financial targets were the most important goal for management. It is estimated over 1,200 patients died of neglect in this one facility alone. Whistle blowers, over 600, were routinely silenced by paying them off or intimidating them.

Yes, this does not surprise me. It is well known among people on dialysis that the dialysis industry engages in intimidating individuals who blow the whistle on the dialysis industry. Patient care in the for-profit dialysis industry is not "patient-centered." If you think Obamacare will be "patient-centered," I have news for you.

NDXUFan · Mar 14, 2013

In a normal economy, I would agree with your post and statement. Yet, millions are unemployed and on food stamps. It is not going to end until the idiot in the White House is gone, he has no knowledge of basic economics. It is amazing to me that people always look at intentions and not the actual results of policy. I was not a Romney fan, but, the buffoon in the White House is much worse.

NDXUFan · Mar 15, 2013

NurseRies is correct. In economic terms, this has to be one of the dumbest policies of all-time. It took me about 10 minutes to figure this out when I started dialysis. I know that many on dialysis would love to have a full-time job. Yet, the only three times a week of dialysis is not enough, more dialysis is the key to eliminating these health issues and problems. The issue is do you want to pay $17K per year or $70K-$80K per year? Golly Sarge!!! :)

jacquelinDCgirl · Jun 18, 2013

I guess bush had a great knowledge of economic policies, we were so lucky to have him hein ?

Chisca, RN · Jun 18, 2013

Fresenius employs lobbyists who actively engage in trying to reduce funding for kidney transplants. Talk about conflict of interest! 31 million people in the US are currently on dialysis and they vote so I think we will have to wait and see what the future holds.