Quantcast
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

sponsored by
News


Added Medicaid cuts raise concerns

UMC loss might hit $20 million

The medical services lost at University Medical Center in order to offset an $8 million Medicaid shortfall might seem relatively modest come January when Nevada Medicaid will cut what it reimburses hospitals for inpatient services by 14 percent.

That's nearly three times the 5 percent cut that resulted in this week's elimination of numerous services, including outpatient oncology and kidney dialysis programs. Once the new cuts go into effect, UMC's $8 million loss will swell to about $20 million this fiscal year, Brian Brannman, the hospital's chief operating officer said during a forum Thursday to discuss options for keeping the hospital's oncology services.


Most Popular Stories
  • Three suspects arrested in shooting death of police officer
  • Three suspects arrested in shooting death of police officer
  • FATAL SHOOTING: Police again mourn comrade
  • NORM: Biden finds rank has its privileges
  • Two of three suspects in slaying of officer could face death penalty
  • NORM: Walton: Coach deserved a punch
  • DEADLY HOME INVASION: Police suspect link to family
  • Station Casinos posts $455 million third-quarter loss
  • NORM: 'Girls Gone Wild' creator feels heat
  • Las Vegas police shoot at man fleeing after traffic stop
  • Las Vegas police shoot at man fleeing after traffic stop
  • Two suspects in officer's slaying could face death penalty




  • News of this latest wave of Medicaid cuts to offset the state's continual budget hemorrhages has nearly all hospital officials screaming for mercy.

    "We're witnessing the unwinding of a very thin safety net,'' said Larry Matheis, executive director of the Nevada State Medical Association. "The cuts in Medicaid payments for children, pregnant women and hospitals are just the start of what is going to become a serious crisis of access to care for our most frail and sick. The costs to the state are going to be greater than the savings; it's just a matter of the costs showing up a little later.''

    And because Nevada's Medicaid program receives matching funds from the federal government, Matheis said, the state loses an additional dollar for every dollar that's cut from the program.

    The additional Medicaid cuts could lead to closures of some rural hospitals, delays in care to the sick, emergency room overcrowding and the elimination or reduction in services at for-profit hospitals, said Bill Welch, executive director of the Nevada Hospital Association.

    "If we thought the hospital wait times a few years ago were bad, we haven't seen anything yet,'' said Welch, referring to a period in 2004 when a state of emergency was declared in Clark County because of emergency room overcrowding. At that time, one of every three emergency beds was being occupied by someone suffering from a mental illness.

    This new crisis would see these beds occupied by patients suffering from chronic illnesses. For example, a patient with a kidney-related illness might be admitted because he didn't have access to dialysis, or patients whose cancer has metastasized will be showing up in the emergency room.

    If that happens, Welch said Nevada's sickest and frailest citizens who depend on public support will die early while the costs of health care will shift to the taxpayer -- those with jobs and private health insurance. Taxpayers might face higher taxes as counties try to offset losses at public hospitals like UMC, he said.

    Hospitals in Nevada with more than 100 beds provided a combined $533 million in uncompensated care last year, Welch said. Most of that care was provided in Southern Nevada.

    Welch said only 34 percent of Nevadans are able to pay for provided medical care services. The other 66 percent cannot, he said.

    "The emergency room, regardless of whether it is an emergency or not, will become the safety net for health care in this state if people have no other place to go,'' he said. Hospitals have also been advised that unless there's a fix to the state's cash flow problem, Medicaid reimbursements might stop altogether by mid-March or early April until the next fiscal year, Welch said.

    Chuck Duarte, administrator of the Health Financing and Policy Division, said the division is expected to cut Medicaid reimbursements for inpatient hospital services by 10 percent in the 2010 fiscal year. But, that could all change depending on the state's budget.

    The Health Financing and Policy Division manages Nevada Medicaid and Nevada Checkup programs.

    "I know of hospitals right now in our rural communities that if those payments stop, those hospitals can't make payroll. ... This is reality.''

    Earlier this year the state's Department of Health and Human Services announced 5 percent "across the board" cuts for inpatient hospital services to offset the state's budget deficiencies. Because the 5 percent is an average, some services saw deeper cuts.

    For example, reimbursements for care provided in Level III neonatal intensive care units were cut by 24 percent. Obstetrics was cut by 11 percent, officials said.

    Nevada Medicaid also reduced rates for home-based, long-term care services and eliminated eyeglasses as a covered benefit for adults.

    Medicaid reimbursements in some pediatric sub-specialties such as heart, orthopedic, kidney, cancer and psychiatric, were cut by up to 41 percent.

    Some specialists, including nearly all pediatric orthopedic surgeons, have dropped Medicaid patients as a result, officials say.

    Though not directly pointing fingers at Nevada's leaders -- similar cuts are occurring throughout the nation -- both Welch and Matheis say the community should have had more involvement in the decision-making process.

    "This wasn't well thought out,'' Matheis said. "It is very questionable to make children and pregnant women bear the burden of the state's financial troubles. Those decisions have put public hospitals, such as UMC, at considerable risk of not being able to perform its mission.

    "If it (UMC) cannot be the safety net then people with cancer, children with special needs and women in need of prenatal care won't have a place to go. UMC is the last stop, otherwise it's an awfully long fall to a very hard surface.''

    Some health care providers agree with Welch and Matheis.

    In letters sent to the state's Division of Health Care Financing and Policy in early October, several pediatric surgeons asked the state to reconsider the cuts.

    In his letter, Dr. Mark Barry, a Las Vegas pediatric orthopedic surgeon, said he was troubled that he was not informed of the 41 percent reimbursement cut ahead of time "and did not get the chance to voice" an opinion.

    "I'm hearing from pediatric specialists who are finding it very hard to get doctors in Southern California to accept Nevada Medicaid patients. They can't afford to treat them,'' Matheis said. "We've got children who need follow-up for transplants, children who need orthopedic surgery. Kids fall down and break things and they're not going to stop that just because the state can't afford to treat them.''

    Dr. John Nowins, president of the Clark County OB/GYN Society, says he cannot comprehend why the state would cut Nevada Medicaid, which he said is already grossly underfunded.

    In its own budget presentation to the state's Legislative Committee on Health Care in January, the state's Department of Health and Human Services mentions that it is last in the nation in per capita spending for Medicaid. According to the report, which is based on 2005 figures, Nevada spends $490.26 per person versus the national average of $1,027.

    Nevada also ranks at the bottom for enrolling individuals into Medicaid and has historically provided the least amount of coverage to pregnant women, Nowins said.

    Because of the number of uninsured in Nevada, coupled with a rise in unemployment and housing foreclosures, and the nation's overall economy, Welch and Matheis say it is imperative the community is involved in future budget reduction discussions.

    Not all cuts have the same impact and some hurt far worse than others, Matheis said.

    "We all need to sit down at the time and have a discussion about some real solutions, not just go cut,'' he said.

    On Friday about 60 local and state health officials, community advocates, elected officials and stakeholders took a stab at some short-term solutions for salvaging UMC's outpatient oncology services, one of seven programs to be cut at the hospital.

    One short-term solution came from Nevada's oldest and largest oncology group -- Comprehensive Cancer Center of Nevada.

    James Kilber, the for-profit oncology group's executive officer, offered the services of its physicians at no cost to UMC as long as the state would be willing to pay for cancer drugs.

    Health officials have said the most expensive part of cancer care is the drugs, which can cost up to $12,000 per dose.

    "We're willing to step forward immediately,'' he said. "And we challenge every oncology group in this community to join us.''

    Clark County Commissioner Lawrence Weekly, who attended the two-hour forum, called the gesture a good first step. Another step would be to "take to the streets" and encourage the community to support UMC's oncology outpatient clinic.

    Weekly said it costs $2 million a year to keep UMC's outpatient oncology clinic's doors open.

    "I'm not trying to compare this crisis to that of 9/11 but I just remember when we faced that ordeal and how our economy was threatened. Everybody got together and we raised millions for families that were impacted,'' he said. "This would just be a short-term solution but at least if we raised funds we could possibly help keep UMC's outpatient unit open while our legislators figure out this budget crisis.''

    Another meeting will take place next week to further discuss solutions, Weekly said.

    Contact reporter Annette Wells at awells @reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0283.

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 10 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    The Real Problem wrote on November 24, 2008 01:59 AM: The real problem at the medical level is the massive overcharging by the big pharmaceutical companies for their drugs.

    At up to $12,000 per dose for chemotherapy drugs, for instance, the system is inherently doomed to fail.

    Big Pharma excuses this price tag by pointing to R&D costs, plus the cost of running the regulatory approval gauntlet.

    While there is more than a grain of truth to this, all one needs do is look to their annual bottom lines to see what the total truth is. To mention the word 'billions' here does not even begin to grasp what is really going on.

    Health care costs in America suck up one-seventh of our entire economy. We have a deca-trillion dollar economy in America.

    You do the math.

    Why is this allowed to happen? Well, Big Pharma funds the single greatest lobbying effort on Capitol Hill. Quite literally number one in terms of dollars spent on lobbying legislators for their 'favors'.

    It's difficult to over-estimate Big Pharma's power and influence. For one thing, they killed the last attempt at Universal Healthcare in the early 1990's.

    Then, too, Democrat's controlled the Senate, House, and Presidency. And still the effort was stopped, despite its being the raison d'etre for the President being elected.

    $12,000 per dose, Big Pharma charges us.

    The cost of dose manufacture?

    Roughly $1.

    Yes, that's one dollar, American.

    You do the math.


    Greg wrote on November 23, 2008 01:19 PM: The message from the State of NV and Clark County is we do not want you to be citizens of Nevada if you get chronic illness, disabling injury or disease, because we cannot afford you. You are encouraged to move to another state that can afford you. Another message from the past 8 years, trending since 1980, is corporations cannot do the work of government. Katrina is the biggest example. There must be a fair, smart and strategically targeted tax code to create jobs and revenue that will meet the demands for needed services, including healthcare and adequate and fair compensation for teachers. Where did all that record revenue during the boom go in Southern NV for 18 years (?)
    It went into the pockets of the few, and NV labor invested their lives in jobs and home equities that are no longer there. The recovery of home equity in the future is probably not an option NV and Clark County is sending the message it wants young people who have high school educations and are statistically not a healthcare risk to serve drinks and bus tables. That's the residency it is soliciting.
    The legacy of the boom is NV and Clark County needs leadership from people who worked their way up from the bottom, who did not start out life on third base or with a high dollar degree their parents paid for.


    Gary D wrote on November 23, 2008 01:11 AM: I think they should double my property taxes so that all the Illegals and their carriage babies can get better coverage along with their already free section 8 housing and free education (taught in Spanish). We deserve all the pain we get for not throwing all the guttless bleeding heart liberals out of office on election day.


    cat wrote on November 22, 2008 05:02 PM: Why don;t we just pass go not collect $200.00 and have the Council sign our Death Certificates. I thought only those in the Medical field had that right!I guess i was wrong again! No insurance no care !No Concience I guess health care only for the wealthy! Will the coroner drive with the ambulance? They already have enough holes in the desert.Talk about over stepping your boundaries!!How does our council sleep @ nite? This is pathetic that those most vulnerable are legally murdered!!!


    Greg wrote on November 22, 2008 12:45 PM: Clark County needs a branded referral hospital and clinic. The monopoly created by Sierra Healthcare's acquisition by United Health, one could argue Sierra already controlled Clark County, with gaming's full support, needs to be broken up, though a national plan from the new President may cure that malaise. Gaming Corporations need to be paying higher gaming tax rates, though certainly not as much as NJ and LA. As well, new taxes need to be introduced for other forms of business to level the tax base playing field on NV. Taxes that are targeted will sure growth and jobs in needed areas of infrastructure. Some of NV's leaders need to rethink investment to restore Clark County's quality of life, or retire and/or move to another state because Republican, supply side, "gated community" public policy and economics are dead in the US for at least 12 years. Continue to fix the downtown problems, which is where an urban project as large as City Center belonged, if anywhere. There is devastating need for new public leadership in NV that is educated, articule, on message and working for the common good of all Nevadans, from Clark County up to Reno. Right now, Southern NV is "too corporate", too "out of state", so that is not happening.


    Harris wrote on November 22, 2008 07:55 AM: Lets pull all our troops back to the USA. Have the terroist come here and fight, then we can have free medical from all the Mash unit hospitals that will be scattered through out the United States. Their will always be a war in this world get use to it and let the Military not congress fight them. KILL THEM ALL AND THEN ASK QUESTIONS. Have you ever noticed we spend more over seas too other countries than we do here. All that money goes into the pocket of the dictator not to the people. WAR WE NEED, NEED IS WAR Kill all who fight against us no question asks. LOVE THY BUSH


    forareason wrote on November 22, 2008 07:50 AM: They are doing this in hopes that the hospitals will start turning away illegals. Lets face it, the only people who go to UMC anymore are the very poor and the illegals. People at the top got smart and figured out if you cut medical funding then you cut illegal funding and Maybe, just maybe more illegals will go home.


    martin wrote on November 22, 2008 06:44 AM: Until we, as a country realize that health care is unable to function as a business designed to make a profit, the cycle of loss will continue. People should have access to health care without fear of financial ruin. If we can find the billions to fund continuing wars in the middle east and bailouts for irresponsible finincial institutions, then we can fund universal health care.


    Paul wrote on November 22, 2008 06:12 AM: Why don't we help out our own citizens-in-need, rather than pay out huge amounts of money to fight more wars in the Middle East for Israel?


    Furious wrote on November 22, 2008 05:50 AM: Medical services are the worst place to make cuts because they result in increased state expenditures. A friend of ours receives bi-monthly infusions at 10K a pop. Sure, it's expensive. But these infusions keep him from being hospitalized at the county's expense. Before he received them, the county was paying $20,000 a month to shift him from one hospital to another, with a constant deterioration in his quality of life.

    So in his case, a $10,000 savings will result in a $20,000 increase in county expenditures.

    Brilliant.