Health and Medical News and Resources

General interest items edited by Janice Flahiff

[News article] Little-known aspect of Medicaid now causing people to avoid coverage

From the 23 January 2014 Washington Post article

Add this to the scary but improbable things people are hearing could happen because of the new federal health-care law: After you die, the state could come after your house.

The concern arises from a long-standing but little-known aspect of Medicaid, the state-federal program that provides health coverage to millions of low-
income Americans. In certain cases, a state can recoup its medical costs by putting a claim on a deceased person’s assets.

after the Affordable Care Act made it mandatory for most people to carry health insurance, Oregon’s Medicaid office decided to change its approach because people scared about asset recovery were not signing up for coverage. New rules that took effect last year state that asset recovery now applies only to long-term care.

“We needed to take another look at heath insurance coverage from the point of view of it not being a public benefit that’s voluntary,” Mohr Peterson said.

Other states have taken a much more lax approach to asset recovery in the past, hesitant to target poor people whose only valuable asset might be the farm that has been in their family for generations. Experts say there are no good, recent national data on how asset recovery is applied, with states differing drastically and working on a case-by-case basis.

It wouldn’t make sense for a state to pursue a claim on the property of a new Medicaid recipient under the health-care law, said Matt Salo, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors.

“There’s no way any state is going to see it as cost-effective or politically sensible to do that,” he said. “It’s a scare tactic.”

Still, when it comes to something as central to middle-class identity as a home and what people can pass on to their heirs, it is perhaps not surprising that some people are not taking any chances.

..

after the Affordable Care Act made it mandatory for most people to carry health insurance, Oregon’s Medicaid office decided to change its approach because people scared about asset recovery were not signing up for coverage. New rules that took effect last year state that asset recovery now applies only to long-term care.

“We needed to take another look at heath insurance coverage from the point of view of it not being a public benefit that’s voluntary,” Mohr Peterson said.

Other states have taken a much more lax approach to asset recovery in the past, hesitant to target poor people whose only valuable asset might be the farm that has been in their family for generations. Experts say there are no good, recent national data on how asset recovery is applied, with states differing drastically and working on a case-by-case basis.

It wouldn’t make sense for a state to pursue a claim on the property of a new Medicaid recipient under the health-care law, said Matt Salo, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors.

“There’s no way any state is going to see it as cost-effective or politically sensible to do that,” he said. “It’s a scare tactic.”

Still, when it comes to something as central to middle-class identity as a home and what people can pass on to their heirs, it is perhaps not surprising that some people are not taking any chances.

,,,,

 

Read the entire article here

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

January 24, 2014 Posted by | health care | , , , , | Leave a comment

[Reblog] Social inequality: A blind spot for health reporters

Joe Rojas-Burke

Joe Rojas-Burke is AHCJ’s core topic leader on the social determinants of health. To help journalists broaden the frame of health coverage to include factors such as education, income, neighborhood and social network, Rojas-Burke will hunt for resources, highlight excellent work and moderate discussions with journalists and experts. Send questions or suggestions to joe@healthjournalism.org or tweet to @rojasburke.

Dozens of news stories over the past year have reported on the disturbing data showing that Americans are dying younger than people in other wealthy countries and falling behind in many other measures of population health.

But much of the reporting I’ve seen shies away from covering a crucial part of the story: How social inequality may be the most important reason why the health status of Americans is failing to keep up with progress elsewhere.

Being born into poverty, growing up with curtailed opportunities for education and employment, living in a disadvantaged neighborhood – these social determinants of health are like the cards you’re dealt in a game of poker. It’s hard to win if the deck is stacked against you.

Researchers in sociology and public health have developed a fair amount of evidence that social status (typically measured by income or education) may be the most significant shaper of health, disability and lifespan at the population level. In the picture that is emerging, social status acts through a complicated chain of cause-and-effect. Education equips people with knowledge and skills to adopt healthy behaviors. It improves the chances of securing a job with healthy working conditions, higher wages, and being able to afford housing in a neighborhood secure from violence and pollution. The job security and higher income that tend to come with more education provide a buffer from chronic stress – a corrosive force that undermines health among lesser educated, lower income people. Research consistently shows that more education gives people a greater sense of personal control. Positive beliefs about personal control have a profound impact on how people approach life, make decisions about risky behavior, and cope with illness.

Since 1980, virtually all gains in life expectancy in the U.S. have occurred among highly educated groups. In a revealing analysis published in 2008, researchers looked at long-term changes in infant mortality and adult deaths before age 65 and found a widening gap between haves and have-nots over the past 30 years. If all people in the U.S. population experienced the same health gains as the most advantaged, they found that 14 percent of the premature deaths among whites and 30 percent of premature deaths among people of color would have been prevented.

But news outlets seem almost afraid to dig into questions about social inequality. Take, for example, CNN’s coverage of the Institute Of Medicine’s “Shorter Lives, Poorer Health” report in January. The IOM experts examined many measures in which the United States is lagging behind gains in other nations: infant mortality, disabilities, homicides, teen pregnancy, drug-related deaths, obesity, prevalence of AIDS, and life expectancy.

When the CNN coverage got around to explaining likely causes, it tossed out a range of possibilities, most of them blaming individual behavior. Compared with other wealthy nations we eat too much, spend more time driving than walking, fail to use seat belts, abuse more drugs, and use guns to shoot each other more. In the middle of this laundry list, the CNN report makes a glancing reference to the social determinants of health: “Americans benefit much less from social programs that could negate the effects of poverty.”

In July, a headline-garnering paper in the Journal of the American Medical Association explained how the U.S. lapsed from 20th to 27th among wealthy nations in terms of life expectancy at birth, and from 18th to 27th in terms of premature deaths.

December 8, 2013 Posted by | Public Health | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

   

%d bloggers like this: