Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Health & Wellness

That’ll Cost a Kidney: How a Little-Noticed Vote in Congress Could Raise Workers’ Healthcare Costs Even Higher

By Juan Basile, AlterNet. Posted November 17, 2007.


Congress is on the verge of letting corporate lobbyists change how a critical treatment is delivered, reducing access to affordable care just so two corporations can boost their bottom line.
Advertisement

For the past eight years, three times a week, I've had to go to a clinic for four and a half hours after work to get connected to a kidney dialysis machine to get my blood cleaned.

Like hundreds of thousands of Americans who are dealing with my kind of kidney disease, I rely on dialysis to keep my body functioning.

Thanks to a smart decision Congress made a generation ago, most kidney patients can count on affordable access to dialysis care when the need is most dire.

But now Congress is thinking about undoing that progress. Amazingly, Congress could be on the verge of letting corporate lobbyists change how kidney care is delivered, reducing access to affordable care so two corporations that dominate kidney dialysis can boost their bottom line.

Obviously, this change would affect kidney patients like me directly. But it would also ripple across the healthcare system and drive up costs for ordinary consumers like you. What Congress decides on this issue will say a lot about which way our healthcare system is headed.

Here is what's happening: two companies-DaVita and Fresenius-provide most of the kidney dialysis services in the U.S. They want Congress to force kidney patients to stay on private insurance for a longer period of time before they can qualify for Medicare.

Usually, patients need to be 65 years old before they qualify for Medicare. But in 1972, because the high cost of dialysis put care out of reach for all but the wealthiest patients, Congress made the historic decision to extend Medicare coverage to dialysis patients of all ages. But patients who need dialysis have to stay on private insurance for 30 months before they are eligible for Medicare. DaVita and Fresenius want to make patients wait longer-another year-before they can get access to the program.

It's not hard to figure out why DaVita and Fresenius want to keep kidney patients out of Medicare. These companies can typically charge private insurers-and ultimately employers and workers-nearly three times more than they can charge Medicare for the same services.

It's staggering how much money is at stake with this "small" change. It's estimated that dialysis providers like DaVita and Fresenius would cash in a $2 billion windfall over the next decade if they succeed in persuading Congress to make patients wait longer for affordable care.

Or course, that $2 billion would be paid by American employers and workers. We already know that skyrocketing healthcare costs are a serious headache for many working families. DaVita and Fresenius want Congress to make the problem even worse.

Unlike a lot of families who are struggling to keep up with healthcare and other costs, these companies aren't struggling. Both are profitable. And according to Forbes, Kent Thiry, the CEO of DaVita, was paid $27 million last year, making him the fourth highest compensated executive in the healthcare equipment and services industry.

Our healthcare system is in even worse shape than I imagined if Congress seriously considers making life easier for a multimillionaire like Kent Thiry while making things even harder for patients struggling with kidney disease.

The commercial media has paid little attention to this story, and that also says a lot about American healthcare. This is another example of how corporate special interests-not doctors, researchers, nurses, or patients-quietly use their influence to remake our healthcare system in a way that does not make sense for the vast majority of Americans.

America can and should do better. The good news is that this isn't a done deal: patient advocates like the American Association of Kidney Patients are speaking out. Major employers are on record as opposing this. Personally, I'm a former hospital technician and my union-SEIU Healthcare-is getting involved.

More and more Americans agree that we have got to find a better way to provide quality healthcare that's affordable for ordinary working people. If we keep doing things the old way-letting special interests make money not by improving services but by cutting deals in Washington, D.C.-it's hard to see how we are ever going to fix our broken system.

But who knows? If patients, healthcare workers, employers, and others can stand up to the special interests this time around, maybe we'll win a small but important victory for a new, better way.

Maybe, if we succeed in maintaining access to affordable dialysis care for every kidney patient, we will be able to point to an example of how America can provide quality, cost-effective care in a system that puts patients first.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: economy, healthcare, seiu, kidney dialysis

Juan Basile worked as a hospital technician for fifteen years before joining the staff of SEIU Healthcare. He lives in New York.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
WE ARE SO FORTUNATE.
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Nov 18, 2007 9:56 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our insurance companies have solved all of our health care problems. All we have to do is to keep turning it all over to them. See wasn't that easy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Da Vita...
Posted by: ellie on Nov 19, 2007 3:54 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for starters charges almost $60,000.00 per month for 3 times a week, 4 hours each that medicare pays, who knows what they bill...

I know someone who is using Da Vita (only game in this particular town that has room) and it's horrible... blood pressure cuffs stiff with other people's blood, no call buttons if someone is getting sick while on the machine, staff that hangs out in the lunch room instead of taking care of patients, infection control the pits, skin care (tape tears) causing horrible pain, not taking time NOT to tear through the walls of a fistula, the list goes on...

they open centers that are not used... down the street from me, there is an almost always empty center parking lot, seems to be just staff, never see medical transportation etc. there, the giveaway of an active center... yes, it is an open center, staffed because we checked through the windows one day... most people on dialysis use the large medical center just a mile away... safer and cleaner...

dialysis is a nasty business anyway... have spent too many hours caring for a relative day after day hour after hour on the machine...

we need more organ donors... what is the use of allowing your decent shape organs to rot in the ground when you are dead, you're not going to need them anymore... (personally, am on a recipient list looking for a low mileage, slightly used pancreas, not too beat up that some kind soul will donate when they are done with it, so I don't wind up on those hated dialysis machines)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We can do better
Posted by: Billp on Nov 25, 2007 9:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Juan we have similar backgrounds, I've been on dialysis 17 years and I've worked out of Seattle carpenters union, local 131 as a tradeshow specialist since 1/95 but I have to say your article misrepresented Medicare coverage for people on dialysis. I think this thread on the not for profit Home Dialysis Central (HDC) forum contains a more accurate and detailed description of the coverage subtleties that are a structural part of the US dialysis entitlement and it includes some criticism of your article. However, I would say overall our positions are the same with one exception.

In the HDC thread a Medicare payment expert (Beth) clarifies the program details and I (Bill) dispute your numbers - the anticipated windfall would be on the order five times greater. However, there is a scenario under which I support the MSP extension: if the extension pays for improvement in the dialysis entitlement (the Medicare ESRD program). This is why I support HR1291/S635. The bill's improvements are wholly justified on their own terms but these improvements would increase program costs at least on the Medicare Part B side. Current Congressional rules require that cost increases are paid for with program cuts - an MSP extension could pay for many things, so I say keep the resources in the dialysis program if we are going to generate Medicare savings by extending the MSP.

The HR1291/S635 improvements include: pre-dialysis modality education, stage 4 Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) outreach, national technician certification and a fix to the only Medicare program with reimbursement rates that do not change with inflation - the only Medicare program that does not fund annual cost of living updates to their reimbursement rates - that would the best use of the MSP savings. However, if it were up to me Congress would meet their obligations to people on dialysis with out any program cuts.

That promise Congress made in 1972 was to create a program that provided medical coverage that met the standards of our communities. After 35 years of cost shifting and inflation eroded reimbursement the US dialysis program lags far behind the care experienced people on dialysis in other industrialized countries. We are not providing the care our neighbors expect to be delivered.

The US Congress made a promised in 1972, Congress launched an experiment - the US government would not let people with stage 5 CKD would not die for lack of treatment - Congress made a promise. Congress promised that this chronic disease would be supported through Medicare; the federal government would pick up 80% of the cost of treating this disease.

We are not keeping this promise. The US dialysis program lacks a vision of a sustainable, humane, thoughtful program. A program that is an all cost efficient system of support for people on dialysis. A program that would achieve all cost efficiency through achieving world class clinical outcomes. It is possible to design such a system but not within the current program structure. HR1291/S635 would provide a bridge to true program improvements in three years. In the process we would get better data and I think a focused/thoughtful effort would yield results. Let's pass HR1291/S635 by increasing program costs and work to fulfill the promise of the 1972 legislation without extending MSP.

What would the program look like with no MSP? Why is 30 months the perfect MSP period?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

fscalzi
Posted by: hadashito on Nov 27, 2007 8:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I suppose it all depends on who in the Congress receives financial support from the corporations which provide dialysis. There can be no doubt that industry lobbyists have been dispensing generous "donations" to sympathetic members of the Congress, particularly most Republicans and the few Democratds who favor privitization of healthcare in the US. Given recent developments, one suspects that the only chance of such a measure failing to pass in the legislature is if those who oppose increased corporate control of healthcare have the courage and will to refuse the bribes, defeat the bill or at least stall it in the Congress, and hope that a different administration in the White House and a larger majority of no-privitization Democrats in the Congress in 2008 may then bury the effort to enrich the corporations further. Dare we hope that integrity might trump greed and power seeking ?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Healtcare costs are big sink-hole...
Posted by: Bearzerker on Nov 30, 2007 5:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...to employers and employees alike!

The only real solution that I see is the Medicare model currently in use...

Ignoring this fact will only cripple US industries in-country,
more now than what "normal market" tidal forces do now.

What does this tell you?
It tells me that the magical big bag of profits is being squeezed ever harder and harder...

which naturally leads me to the health care and profit debate... which is currently in need of revision

tyme to fyx the problyms NOW...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]