Prema Polit

Medicare Policy Keeps Door Shut on Disabled

When someone walks into the wheelchair clinic at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, Jenny Lieberman begins preparing to say that there is nothing she can do to help. A physical therapist, Lieberman oversees Mt. Sinai's wheelchair clinic and evaluates people with medical equipment needs. The health coverage that many of her clients have is Medicare, the federal health program for seniors and people of all ages with permanent physical disabilities.

But Medicare has strict policies on what durable medical equipment it will or will not cover, including power wheelchairs. Lieberman reads down the standard list of questions, searching for a way to get the equipment that she knows her client needs. Then she gets creative in trying to procure coverage for her patient, from Medicare or another health policy. In the end, though, it boils down to one question: Does the patient need a wheelchair inside the home?

Under Medicare policy, the needs of someone outside the home are negligible. If you can limp 10 feet to the bathroom, or move from the refrigerator to the sink to make dinner, then Medicare will not cover a power wheelchair, even if you can't walk down the block to the grocery store for the food in the first place. So chances are that if you are walking when you come into Lieberman's clinic, Medicare won't pay for your wheelchair. And it's those days that Jenny Lieberman hates her job.

Lieberman recalls a recent client, a young woman with multiple sclerosis who can walk short distances. She lives with her parents, who are in their 60s, and manages to navigate around the house, even on "bad days." But in order to go anywhere outside, including to medical appointments, she depends on her parents to push her manual wheelchair. Lieberman couldn't figure out a way to justify to Medicare the necessity of a wheelchair for "activities of daily living" inside the young woman's home.

This young woman and her family left the clinic resigned. But often people get upset when they find out that Medicare won't pay for medical equipment that they need. "Some people get angry at me," Lieberman says. "I've had people start crying. They feel helpless -- they can't get out of their homes."

Especially for seniors, this predicament can be disheartening and frustrating. "They've worked so hard all these years, but now can't get the equipment they need to keep living their lives," Lieberman says.

Few are in a better position to know the effect of Medicare's policy than the clinicians who see its problems day after day and struggle to find a solution. The Clinician Task Force, a 3-year-old organization, is a collaboration of experienced and respected clinicians, including physical therapists and assistive technology practitioners and suppliers, who are dedicated to changing the policy.

A co-chair of the Clinician Task Force, Barbara Crane has been a physical therapist for over 15 years, primarily in the area of wheelchairs and seating. "I work a lot with people who need wheelchairs and are covered under Medicare," she says. "I have seen people who I would certainly recommend a different device for, [but] we end up having to go with another one because Medicare won't cover it."

It seems like a no-brainer to many: Why only pay for a wheelchair intended for use inside the home? Isn't outside where someone would need a wheelchair the most? And why does nobody know about this?

Because this particular Medicare policy affects a smaller population than other issues such as prescription medications, it is not as much on the political radar of many advocates, legislators and beneficiaries. "In fact," Crane explains, "most people covered by Medicare are unaware of the problem until they get denied coverage for a mobility assistance device such as a power wheelchair."

For many years, Medicare only paid for wheelchairs if someone was nonambulatory, meaning unable to walk at all. While the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services revised the guidelines to include the inability to complete an "activity of daily living," the qualifier remained: "in the home."

"There is a group of people out there who are not getting what they need," Crane says.

Trapped inside

For many disability advocates, the right to live in one's home, within a community of one's choosing, instead of a large institution, was a heralded victory in disability rights. In the landmark case Olmstead vs. L.C., the Supreme Court ruled that people with disabilities had the right to live outside of institutions, to be supported in their own home, and that being forced to live in an institution was a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

But now home feels like a prison to some. The bars are invisible, but the virtual house arrest stands intact.

If it were not for employer-provided health insurance, Judi Rogers knows that she could easily be trapped inside her home. Rogers was born with hemiplegic cerebral palsy, which limits her mobility on the left side of her body. Even so, she was walking at the typical age of one, and did not have to depend on a wheelchair to get around. That changed when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. "The chemo just wiped me out," Rogers recalls.

Because she was lying down for such an extended period of time, her already challenged muscles knotted, and she could barely walk. Suddenly simple things became difficult. It was chancy going to the grocery store because if they didn't have a motorized cart available, she just had to turn around and go home. "Something like that basically stopped me from going about my life," says Rogers.

As a result of her battle with cancer, she ended up needing a wheelchair. Luckily, she had private health insurance that paid for the wheelchair; otherwise, she may have been in for a struggle. Now this power wheelchair is 10 years old. Rogers doesn't depend on it as much anymore, but she remembers how everyday tasks became long and tiring and now advocates for families who have to work around Medicare's draconian policy.

Last fall, Medicare made the guidelines even more rigid, categorizing people by types of diagnoses in order to decide what kind of wheelchair to cover.

"You really can't just group people with the same diagnosis," says Lois Tucker, an occupational therapist who works at a Rehabilitative Technology Supplier (RTS) in New York. "Two people with rheumatoid arthritis can be very different cases. One person could be basically paraplegic, but Medicare still would only cover a group two [lower functioning] wheelchair for them."

Worse yet, Medicare will not cover the highest functioning wheelchairs (groups four, five, and six) at all now.

Jenny Lieberman predicts that what seems like an attempt to save money will begin to require more and more funds as the long-term consequences of the stingy policy materialize.

"If someone cannot make it a couple blocks to the grocery store, then a home care worker may have to push a manual wheelchair down the street," she says. "Using improper or inadequate equipment can result in further injury, which then requires more assistive equipment and home care workers."

The shadow of fraud

Though the origin of the "in the home" clause is obscure, some advocates believe that it started out as a way to distinguish between equipment used in a hospital setting and equipment used in a personal home. Now it's being used as a way to save money.

The substantial cost of a power wheelchair (at least $1,200) became a magnet for perpetrators of fraud in the 1990s. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services tried to stop the fraudulent claims after they realized the excessive charges for power wheelchairs, but were hard-pressed to sort out what was real from what was false. As a result, requirements became more stringent as to who could receive a power wheelchair and required more paperwork to prove the validity of a claim.

"There's this shadow of fraud and abuse that's difficult to overcome," says Henry Claypool, policy director of Independence Care System, a nonprofit for managed long-term care in New York City. "As a result, people are very guarded about the Medicare program and its expenditures."

Lois Tucker offers an additional reason for the increase in power wheelchair claims in the mid- to late '90s: "Manufacturers were advertising directly to users."

As more people became aware of the possibility of power wheelchairs, they bought them and then tried to get reimbursed through Medicare, resulting in a striking rise in claims. That's not to say that fraud didn't happen, Tucker says, "It's just very unfortunate for everyone else who got stuck with the consequences."

CMS then tightened the qualifications for who could sell a chair and who could get a chair covered by Medicare. This has stabilized the volume of claims but has left power wheelchairs out of reach for many people with disabilities.

Setting the wheels in motion

Advocates see two main courses of action to pursue: legislation and a class-action suit. Because Medicare is a federal program, these would both need to happen on the federal level. This is a daunting task.

A bipartisan bill called the Medicare Independent Living Act of 2006 (Senate 3677 and House of Representatives 5983) got lost in the shuffle last year, never making it past committee. Although one of the co-sponsors of the Senate bill, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., remains and considers this a priority piece of legislation, the Republican co-sponsor Rick Santorum, R-Pa., was not reelected last fall. But there is a plan to reintroduce the bill this year, as soon as new co-sponsors can be found.

In regards to the likelihood of the bill passing this year, well, it is sailing into the wind, Claypool says. It is competing with a number of Medicare priorities, and because the number of people who would be affected is unknown, putting a price tag on the legislation is next to impossible.

"Since the Democratic majority especially is trying to govern with fiscal restraint, they are reluctant to pass anything that doesn't have a price tag or specify where the money is coming from," he says.

The second option, a class-action suit, would need to be filed on the behalf of a plaintiff that was harmed by the Medicare policy. On the surface this seems like it would be the easy part, but advocates have not found it so.

There are plenty of people out there who have been confined within the walls of their home, who struggle unnecessarily to move, whose injuries have been aggravated by inadequate medical equipment. Why no plaintiff?

Lois Tucker offers one possibility: "People with disabilities are often just trying to survive. They hear 'lawsuit,' and they get scared."

"Often I find myself just trying to meet immediate needs, find an immediate solution to the person's problem," Tucker adds. "What we need is a long-term effort."

Judi Rogers has had similar experiences when working on the possibility of a class-action lawsuit. But she has hope that in four years, when she turns 65 and is covered by Medicare, she may be able to be that missing plaintiff. Her power wheelchair would then be almost 15 years old, and under current policy, Medicare would not replace it.

Jenny Lieberman predicts that as the baby boomers enter their senior years, the "in the home" policy will become much more noticeable. "It's not too widespread right now, because the upcoming older population hasn't started to feel the effects. But in five years it will be horrible."

She hopes they don't have to wait that long for people to take notice.

Intolerance of gays divides Episcopal Church

On the eve of Lent, leaders of the Anglican Church issued a stern edict to the Episcopal branch of the church: stop blessing same-sex unions and ordaining homosexual bishops or face the consequences. Now the Episcopal Church must decide whether the unity of the Anglican Communion or the rights of gays and lesbians is more important.

To me this would be a no-brainer, but I'm not an Episcopalian. I do empathize with the need to preserve the family ties, so to speak -- to do something that you don't want to do because in order to maintain some sort of artificial peace, you must. It's a bit like staying silent over a holiday dinner when your bigoted uncle says something incredibly sexist because your mother is giving you the look that says, "I want to punch him, too, but for the sake of our sanity, please ..."

But this isn't an offhand remark by the Anglican Communion about the evils of homosexuality. The Anglican Church's communiqué ranks at about the point in the holiday dinner when you've ignored your mother's warning glance, challenged your uncle's views, and, unless you admit that you are wrong and promise to amend your ways, he is about to kick you and your immediate family out of his house. Oh, and disinherit you and never speak to you again, naturally.

When is standing up for what you believe in worth the price? Episcopalians must ask themselves this question and think hard and deeply about it. Although, according to the communiqué, the decision is up to the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops, the way that the Episcopal Church works gives more say to the smaller segments of the Church. So this becomes a much more individual process and choice.

Whatever decision the House of Bishops submits to the Anglican Communion will likely result in further fractures within the Episcopal Church, because they are by no means unified in their beliefs on homosexuality. Congregations in the U.S. have already tried splitting off because of disagreement. Church members are facing the conflict and having to make their own choices.

This struggle probably won't have a happy ending, whatever the Episcopal Church decides. But if the church truly supports gay rights, then they will pay the price.

Science fights back

During this long weekend, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the largest general science organization in the world, held their annual conference in San Francisco. Although the focus of this conference was on climate change, they couldn't ignore the unfortunate setback in a much more established arena of science: evolution.

In a presentation at the AAAS conference, Michigan State professor Jon Miller stated that only 40 percent of people in the United States believe in evolution. God save us. No, really. We could use some divine intervention in this one. The U.S. numbers contrast to the 80 percent of people in Denmark, Iceland, and Sweden who accept evolution.

Also featured in the conference was a workshop in how to run for school board, which seems a bit odd for a science gathering, but may be key to injecting some sense into the educational system. It's one of those times where facts do need to battle with blind faith.

Now, I'm all for debate and discussion in the classroom and life in general, for challenging norms and looking at things from a different perspective. But suffice to say, what belongs in a science classroom is debate based upon scientific evidence, not faith. Creationists and proponents of "intelligent design" try to fit evidence around a belief, rather than build a theory from evidence. And that's in their most scientific moments.

But somehow evolution, so widely accepted in the scientific realm, ends up battling with faith-based ideas for space in a science curriculum. This leaves the teachers on the front lines. Nine teachers and an activist were honored with the Scientific Freedom and Responsibility Award at the AAAS conference for their fight to keep the teaching of "intelligent design" out of the classroom.

I wish that so much political force was not necessary for science to hold its ground in the realm of education. Scientists should be free to pursue new frontiers in research rather than having to scramble through political muck. In the meanwhile, however, there can't be enough scientists on school boards around this nation, so take those papers out of the lab and onto the podium for a little while at least.

Important care options for disabled being ignored

Recently the Oakland Tribune ran an article by Michele Marcucci that rehashes the squabble about closing state institutions for people with developmental disabilities and wrongly implies that these large, outdated institutions can offer the essentials of care that only community services can give. Both community homes and large institutions are capable of caring for the medical and physical needs of residents, but only in the community setting can people with disabilities experience all that life has to offer.

"It's a battle that has been brewing for decades: community care versus institutional care," Marcucci writes.

True enough. But it's the wrong battle. The more energy, time and money that both sides of this fight expend on trying to win it, the less is devoted to the real needs of people with developmental disabilities.

My older brother is severely mentally retarded and has behavioral problems. When he was thirteen and becoming increasingly unmanageable, my parents despaired over how they would continue to care for him. Their case manager told them that if they could not continue to care for him at home, their only choice was a developmental center, a large state institution. But they had heard of an after-school program that he could attend, which would give them some precious hours for work and taking care of their two young daughters. They decided that they could keep him at home. Many families did not have that choice in the eighties.

Though growing up with my brother was not easy, I am grateful that my parents managed to keep him out of an institution. When I visited the Sonoma Developmental Center eight years ago and imagined him confined within those walls, I finally understood the great contrast between institution life and the life that my brother has been able to have.

He now attends a day program for adults with developmental disabilities. He is in a small group that travels around in a van and does activities ranging from exploring a park to learning work skills. My brother meets all sorts of people, he discovers new places and he indulges his love of music and airplanes.

Institutions in their basic nature limit the life experiences and choices of people with disabilities. Often, even very medically fragile and/or profoundly mentally retarded people can live fully, make personal connections to other human beings, and benefit from the diverse experiences that living in the community offers.

Now, providing services in the community is the general rule, and these services have been growing and improving. Yet some family members of people with developmental disabilities and workers in the developmental centers are clinging to a system that has no future -- nor should it.

BRAND NEW STORIES
@2025 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by fontsempire.com.