Jump to content

16th Philly area hospital to stop delivering babies: Mercy Suburban in East Norriton

Posted

Specializes in Vents, Telemetry, Home Care, Home infusion. Has 44 years experience.

second hospital in my backyard that's closed ob this year... tough to be ob rn in this market. were down to only 10 hospitals with ob in 5 county philly area. i wouldn't be surprised if one more in delaware county closes too.

[color=#234b87]next hospital to stop delivering babies: mercy suburban in east norriton

over the past dozen years, the philadelphia region has experienced 16 maternity ward closings -- a trend hospitals blame on escalating malpractice insurance costs and a decline reimbursement rates during the time period.

are other areas of the counry seeing ob unit closures like were having in se pa???

Edited by NRSKarenRN

OC_An Khe

Specializes in Critical Care,Recovery, ED. Has 40 years experience.

We must remember that health care is a business and that income must equal costs in order for it to thrive. Even in highly socialized systems this is true.

We went thru this downsizing sometime ago in Western Pa. I think Magee and Mercy are the only ones doing deliveries around here. Correct me if I am wrong but I think that is the way it is.

jessiern, BSN, RN

Specializes in Med-Surg.

The facility I work at closed the OB depart almost 5 years ago due to basically the same thing. Women in our town have no choice but to drive at least 45 minutes to the nearest hospital that deliviers. Kinda a bummer, but the almighty dollar talks.

hope3456, ASN, RN

Specializes in LTC, Psych, M/S.

Am I the only one who has noticed ~ the large #'s of women havin babies on medicaid???? I often float to the OB/ PP and practically all my pts are on medicaid. I asked one of the regular RN's about this and she guessed 60-70%!!!

Personally I see this as a sign that our private ins system is not working for American women. However, as the article sites 'declining reimbursement' it is true that medicaid reimburses at very low rates and the hospital actually takes a loss.

Am I the only one who has noticed ~ the large #'s of women havin babies on medicaid???? I often float to the OB/ PP and practically all my pts are on medicaid. I asked one of the regular RN's about this and she guessed 60-70%!!!

Personally I see this as a sign that our private ins system is not working for American women. However, as the article sites 'declining reimbursement' it is true that medicaid reimburses at very low rates and the hospital actually takes a loss.

How on earth did you make that a shot at private insurance? 60-70% of their patients on medicaid is the reason that these wards are closing down and that those who pay for plans that actually pay reasonable prices get shafted and have less access to care.

Also, am I the only one that thinks people on medicaid(and more often then not, other forms of government assistance) probably need to prioritize becoming self sufficient over having babies?

jeckrn, BSN, RN

Specializes in EMT, ER, Homehealth, OR. Has 17 years experience.

Am I the only one who has noticed ~ the large #'s of women havin babies on medicaid???? I often float to the OB/ PP and practically all my pts are on medicaid. I asked one of the regular RN's about this and she guessed 60-70%!!!

Personally I see this as a sign that our private ins system is not working for American women. However, as the article sites 'declining reimbursement' it is true that medicaid reimburses at very low rates and the hospital actually takes a loss.

Is the percentage due to the part of the city is located in, or are mothers on medicaid having more babies then working mothers?

Is the percentage due to the part of the city is located in, or are mothers on medicaid having more babies then working mothers?

It averages about 37%, nationwide. Heres the list broken down by state (http://www.statemaster.com/graph/hea_as_per_of_sta_bir-births-financed-medicaid-percent-state)

Medicaid (Closest figures I could find are 2005. http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/8-29-06health-t1.jpg) 13% of all americans. Lets bump it up to 15% to accomidate any increase in the past couple years.

15% of the people are having 37% of the babies. That comes out to people on medicaid having 3 times as many children then otherwise covered mothers.

hope3456, ASN, RN

Specializes in LTC, Psych, M/S.

How on earth did you make that a shot at private insurance? 60-70% of their patients on medicaid is the reason that these wards are closing down and that those who pay for plans that actually pay reasonable prices get shafted and have less access to care.

Also, am I the only one that thinks people on medicaid(and more often then not, other forms of government assistance) probably need to prioritize becoming self sufficient over having babies?

The fact that such a large percentage of women do not have private health ins for the only event that many 'working age' women ever make a major health ins claim for really bothers me. Many of these medicaid PP pts I have taken care of aren't your typical unwed teenager but DO have meaningful employment.....just not health bennys. And to qualify for medicaid for pregnancy - the income limits vary by state but where I live they do not consider your assets and you can make up to 140% of poverty level, based on monthly income. Alot of jobs in my locale do not pay more than that and don't provide health ins.

The fact that such a large percentage of women do not have private health ins for the only event that many 'working age' women ever make a major health ins claim for really bothers me. Many of these medicaid PP pts I have taken care of aren't your typical unwed teenager but DO have meaningful employment.....just not health bennys. And to qualify for medicaid for pregnancy - the income limits vary by state but where I live they do not consider your assets and you can make up to 140% of poverty level, based on monthly income. Alot of jobs in my locale do not pay more than that and don't provide health ins.

Lets examine that, with a little help from the federal guidelines for poverty levels.

http://www.coverageforall.org/pdf/FHCE_FedPovertyLevel.pdf

As it states, a pregnant woman constitutes as a family of two for calculation purposes. Plus the father.

So 140% of poverty level is right around $25,000 as far as medicaid eligibility for two incomes. thats $12.5k a year each for the mother and father. 40 hours a week/52 weeks a year, they'd have to be making a whopping 6 dollars an hour each. But minimum wage is 7.50ish, so they'd only have to be working 32 hours a week. So you'd be hard pressed to make an argument that a mother making minimum wage part time a week is in any sort of financial situation to be choosing that time to bring a child into the world.

Also, am I the only one that thinks people on medicaid(and more often then not, other forms of government assistance) probably need to prioritize becoming self sufficient over having babies?

No, you're not the only person that thinks that and you know it.

There are plenty of people who go a step further and say that people on gov't assistance shouldn't be allowed to breed. Or that tere should be a license required to breed. When it comes down to it, I'd rather see people not making decisions that might not be in their or their family's best economic interests than government interference in reproductive choices.

In Pennsylvania, the limit is 185% *net* monthly income. So for a family of 3 (pregnant mom and dad), that's $2,823 net a month which is $33,876 net annually. Estimating 20% deductions for taxes, that's roughly $42,345 annually and a little over $10 an hour each for 40 hours a week for 52 weeks. The median household income in Pennsylvania is $43,714. If you assume no taxes that's a little over $8 an hour each. There are plenty of office jobs in Philadelphia going for $10 an hour- secretaries, legal assistants, etc.

what about someone who is a waitress- makes below mini wage, because of tips, self employed small business, family run business. there are employed people who fall through the cracks when it comes to their employers offering healthcare. I think very few employers offer healthcare anymore because of inflation, recession, small profit margins- the part of the population Obama keeps referencing. There are working nurses without health care- agency nurses (you have to WORK 40 hours/week to get offered healthcare through the agency- how much work is ther right now for agency?) signing up for SEASONAL nursing jobs( immunization clinics ) temporary nursing positions- to fill in for a busy event, some parttime nursing positions DO NOT offer health care benefits, some will if you want part of pay to go to insurance- personally I want my mortage paid and lights on, I'll worry about the illness part later. alot of us nurses( with no fulltime regular positions and no one hiring) are just struggling to pay monthly bills in this fiascko.

No, you're not the only person that thinks that and you know it.

There are plenty of people who go a step further and say that people on gov't assistance shouldn't be allowed to breed. Or that tere should be a license required to breed. When it comes down to it, I'd rather see people not making decisions that might not be in their or their family's best economic interests than government interference in reproductive choices.

No rational train of thought takes anyone down that path. It's essentially the ultimate infringement upon personal rights by the government, the regulation of life itself. Breeding liscences? Sterilization? Conspiracy theories.

Now, with that said...theres a fine line between prohibiting it and endorsing it. Just because it shouldn't be illegal, doesn't mean we should be financing it. Knowing that the government is going to step in and pick up the costs not only of the care involved, but also of raising the child, gives people a large incentive to act irresponsibly, because we're effectively removing the consequences. We're effectively paying people to bring children into the world where they have no chance whatsoever of offering that child a future, where they haven't even taken the time to invest in themselves let alone their children. So honestly, I see no reason to provide a financial incentive to what in my mind equates to child abuse. If we stop covering it, I guarantee you that there are a good number of people who won't want any part of a child when they realize they're going to have to cover the costs themselves.

No rational train of thought takes anyone down that path. It's essentially the ultimate infringement upon personal rights by the government, the regulation of life itself. Breeding liscences? Sterilization? Conspiracy theories.

That's just not true. There are plenty of rational people who think that and as recently as the 1970's people were being coerced in to sterilization in places like the Lynchburg Colony. Hardly a conspiracy theory that this happened and happened recently.

HeartsOpenWide, RN

Specializes in Ante-Intra-Postpartum, Post Gyne.

No rational train of thought takes anyone down that path. It's essentially the ultimate infringement upon personal rights by the government, the regulation of life itself. Breeding liscences? Sterilization? Conspiracy theories.

Now, with that said...theres a fine line between prohibiting it and endorsing it. Just because it shouldn't be illegal, doesn't mean we should be financing it. Knowing that the government is going to step in and pick up the costs not only of the care involved, but also of raising the child, gives people a large incentive to act irresponsibly, because we're effectively removing the consequences. We're effectively paying people to bring children into the world where they have no chance whatsoever of offering that child a future, where they haven't even taken the time to invest in themselves let alone their children. So honestly, I see no reason to provide a financial incentive to what in my mind equates to child abuse. If we stop covering it, I guarantee you that there are a good number of people who won't want any part of a child when they realize they're going to have to cover the costs themselves.

I hate to say it; but we are disrupting natural selection. I have been married for over nine years. I am new RN and my husband is a contractor. We just bought our first home. I have taken my birth control like it is an organized religion because I want to be financially comfortable before we make the big commitment of having a child. I get so frustrated when people on government assistants have child after child (especially when birth control is so easily available to this group) while I have waited for nearly a decade to make sure that I never have to sign up for those things that other people are taxing.

That being said, what then is going to happen if the government does not pay for the health-care of pregnant women who can not afford to pay? Increased E.R. visits which affect the cost to the hospital when nothing is paid? Inadequate pre-natal care? Should more money be spent on prevention when birth control is pretty much free to those on assistance already? I do not know what the answer is but what we are doing is not working.

VICEDRN, BSN, RN

Specializes in ER. Has 5 years experience.

I hate to say it; but we are disrupting natural selection. I have been married for over nine years. I am new RN and my husband is a contractor. We just bought our first home. I have taken my birth control like it is an organized religion because I want to be financially comfortable before we make the big commitment of having a child. I get so frustrated when people on government assistants have child after child (especially when birth control is so easily available to this group) while I have waited for nearly a decade to make sure that I never have to sign up for those things that other people are taxing.

That being said, what then is going to happen if the government does not pay for the health-care of pregnant women who can not afford to pay? Increased E.R. visits which affect the cost to the hospital when nothing is paid? Inadequate pre-natal care? Should more money be spent on prevention when birth control is pretty much free to those on assistance already? I do not know what the answer is but what we are doing is not working.

I wish you the best of luck with your family! I am the mother of two myself. For a long time, we had private insurance for all of us. My kids were insured since the day they were born. We got divorced, my daughter had ear tube surgery, my son went on ADHD meds and the premiums for the two of them alone hit $400/month. We fell behind and they cancelled us. My ex's business went south in the downturn and I have been looking for something to do as a nursing student since January 2009.

To make a long story short, my kids are on our state's CHIP program. If you think that this might never happen to you, then I have some bad news for you: responsible planning does not make you a better person or a better parent.

Either way, it doesn't change the kids' reality. Its really about them and not about the mom, isn't it?

I hate to say it; but we are disrupting natural selection. I have been married for over nine years. I am new RN and my husband is a contractor. We just bought our first home. I have taken my birth control like it is an organized religion because I want to be financially comfortable before we make the big commitment of having a child. I get so frustrated when people on government assistants have child after child (especially when birth control is so easily available to this group) while I have waited for nearly a decade to make sure that I never have to sign up for those things that other people are taxing.

I'm in the same boat. I'm -very- family oriented. I want at least 5+ children before I'm done, and I'd be perfectly happy with closer to 10. I'm 25 as it is, and I'm still preparing myself financially so i'll be in a place to support them. I'll be closer to 30 before I actually feel ready to start. And I wouldn't feel comfortable with less then a year off between pregnancies, so at 2 years each...I'll be pushing 40 before a fifth child is born. 45 before the seventh. That means i'll be 65 and still raising teenagers. Which doesn't seem feasible. I'm probably going to have to cut down, and that's a sacrifice I have to make in order to ensure that I'm doing what I need to be doing now.

Meanwhile, anyone who decides to throw preparation to the wind and say to hell with it can start at 18 or 15 or whenver and have their children fully provided for by the government. And yes, it absolutely is throwing off natural selection. You're dead on. In the end, we put off having our own children more and more to feel financially comfortable, and while we're doing that....we're paying for others to reproduce. It's actually the exact reverse of natural selection.

And it changes the dynamic of society and the country as a whole. These groups are increasing rapidly in numbers, while we support them. Meanwhile, those that share our drive, our work ethic, our responsibility, our dreams, are decreasing. And the more there are, the more they dictate the culture, the more they dictate the government and the laws, the more they dictate in everything. We're giving away our way of life. It's mind numbingly frustrating.

That being said, what then is going to happen if the government does not pay for the health-care of pregnant women who can not afford to pay? Increased E.R. visits which affect the cost to the hospital when nothing is paid? Inadequate pre-natal care? Should more money be spent on prevention when birth control is pretty much free to those on assistance already? I do not know what the answer is but what we are doing is not working.

As far as prenatal care/delivery, it's necessary. As much as I don't like it, as much as people abuse it, it's just heartless to remove access. I have no problem with tax dollars paying for it. But as far as raising the child, that should be on the parents themselves. No monthly checks to cover your expenses every month. Maybe, god forbid...you'll have to shoulder some responsibility and push past the 40 hr/wk mark.

Junebugfairy

Specializes in Gyn/STD clinic tech.

also, am i the only one that thinks people on medicaid(and more often then not, other forms of government assistance) probably need to prioritize becoming self sufficient over having babies?

no i totally agree! but god forbid you tell someone that maybe they should become self sufficient, go to college, and be financially stable before having kids. then you are called inhumane.

i will always maintain that if you cannot afford to have a baby, then you should wait to have a baby until you can..if that is never, then so be it.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.