Are you sure rationed care is the best health care?
Although Canada has made considerable investments in its effort to address excessive wait times,9,10 it has been argued that long wait times are the necessary price for its universal, publicly funded health care system.11 Yet, Canada has been shown to spend more on health care than most high-income Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries with universal health care systems,12 and the Commonwealth Fund’s survey results show that other universal health care systems (eg, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany, Australia, and France) have much shorter wait times than Canada does.1 What these countries do differently than Canada is they allow the private sector to provide core health care insurance and services, require patients to share in the cost of treatment, and fund hospitals based on activity (rather than the global budgets that are the norm in Canada).13 In England and Scotland, a maximum wait of 18 weeks from referral by a general practitioner to start of specialty treatment for nonurgent conditions (including specialist consultations and diagnostic testing) is guaranteed in the English National Health Service Constitution.14 The guarantee is monitored by the Department of Health and Social Care, and any breach of these targets results in reduction of up to 5% of revenue for the relevant specialty in the month in which the breach occurs. Other countries with publicly funded health care systems have initiated benchmarking as a policy tool. For example, Sweden suggests 60 days and New Zealand 6 months as the maximum acceptable length of time between referral and first specialist assessment.15 In Canada, recommendations include a maximum 6-month wait time benchmark from a family doctor’s referral to the provision of any medically required service.16 Nonetheless, conflicting measurement methodologies leave the process open to criticism.17 The Canadian Medical Protective Association notes a lack of clarity as to “who is responsible for what,” resulting in a lack of comprehensive action to address the problem.17
Need a kidney? What, you're not black? Then try and get a dialysis appointment. We'll serve you right after all the illegal aliens have been treated...
As cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection increase, we must pause to consider a particularly vulnerable community: undocumented immigrants with kidney failure. According to estimates from 2019, there are between 5,500 and 8,857 undocumented immigrants with kidney failure in the United States.1 This group tends to be Latino and when compared with the US documented Latino community with kidney failure, they are younger, have fewer comorbid conditions, have a lower educational level, and are less likely to receive pre–kidney failure care.2 , 3 In many states, these patients do not have funding for standard outpatient dialysis care.4 , 5 They rely on emergency-only dialysis (dialysis only after presenting critically ill to an emergency department), which happens on average 6 times per month.3 This population is potentially at increased risk for complications and death if infected with COVID-19, but they risk potential exposure for themselves and their families every time they present for dialysis and occupy much needed emergency and inpatient resources....
...Emergency-only dialysis is associated with lower quality of life, high symptom burden, and significant anxiety about death.3 Compared with people receiving standard dialysis, this population’s 5-year mortality is 14-fold higher and they spend more time in the hospital and less time in the outpatient setting.3 Emergency-only dialysis is taxing on the health care system. Studies show that their providers experience emotional exhaustion and burnout from the perception of propagating unjust, unethical, and substandard medical care.4 It is also extremely costly: emergency-only dialysis costs $285,000 to $400,000 per person per year,6 compared with $76,177 to $90,971 per person per year for standard dialysis.7 Switching from emergency-only dialysis to outpatient dialysis is associated with a cost reduction of $5,768 per person per month.8
In 12 states, undocumented immigrants are able to receive outpatient dialysis. This was accomplished by changing the scope of each state’s Emergency Medicaid coverage to include outpatient dialysis. Federal law defines an emergency medical condition as “a medical condition (including emergency labor and delivery) manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in – (A) placing the patient’s health in serious jeopardy; (B) serious impairment to bodily functions, or (C) serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part (Social Security Act § 1903(v)(3)).” There is no stipulation that emergency medical conditions have to be treated in the inpatient setting, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services defer to states to determine what conditions qualify as emergencies.
As an example, Arizona’s Medicaid Policy Manual clearly defines outpatient dialysis as services that are covered by Emergency Medicaid. Undocumented immigrants may receive scheduled outpatient dialysis if the treating provider signs a monthly certification stating that the absence of thrice-weekly dialysis would place the individual’s health in serious jeopardy. Inclusion of outpatient dialysis in the state’s definition of an emergency medical condition allows the same funds to cover outpatient dialysis instead of inpatient admissions for emergency-only dialysis.4...
...We are only as healthy as the most vulnerable among us. Now more than ever, we must protect vulnerable populations and free up inpatient resources however possible. A transition from emergency-only dialysis to standard outpatient dialysis for undocumented immigrants should be a part of larger efforts to increase emergency services, inpatient facilities, and dialysis resources for patients with COVID-19 infection and help stop the spread of COVID-19 in our communities.
Reply to what? Minus FJ's comment about health care being rationed and that illegal immigrants go to the front of the line? I already called BS on that.
Google: Do illegal immigrants get healthcare?
Answer: No, unless a state has established a program for this purpose. Although the ACA provides benefits to U.S. citizens and lawfully present immigrants alike, it does not provide any benefits for undocumented immigrants.
29 comments:
republiturds? Yeah, they are why we can't have nice things. Like other countries that provide healthcare for everyone :(
Like Cuba? BWAH!
Yes. Cuba has lower costing excellent health care.
Woo-Hoo! Free Health Care!
These Are the 10 Countries With the Most Well-Developed Public Health Systems.
1. Sweden
2. Canada
3. Finland
4. Denmark
5. Norway
6. Switzerland
7. Germany
8. Australia
9. United Kingdom
10. Belgium
...with the only one worth a sh*t being Sweden, by ignoring the WHO Covid lockdown madness.
...by the way, what's the current wait time for an MRI in Canada and the U.K. these days?
https://www.cihi.ca/en/wait-times-for-priority-procedures-in-canada-2022
Are you sure rationed care is the best health care?
Although Canada has made considerable investments in its effort to address excessive wait times,9,10 it has been argued that long wait times are the necessary price for its universal, publicly funded health care system.11 Yet, Canada has been shown to spend more on health care than most high-income Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries with universal health care systems,12 and the Commonwealth Fund’s survey results show that other universal health care systems (eg, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany, Australia, and France) have much shorter wait times than Canada does.1 What these countries do differently than Canada is they allow the private sector to provide core health care insurance and services, require patients to share in the cost of treatment, and fund hospitals based on activity (rather than the global budgets that are the norm in Canada).13 In England and Scotland, a maximum wait of 18 weeks from referral by a general practitioner to start of specialty treatment for nonurgent conditions (including specialist consultations and diagnostic testing) is guaranteed in the English National Health Service Constitution.14 The guarantee is monitored by the Department of Health and Social Care, and any breach of these targets results in reduction of up to 5% of revenue for the relevant specialty in the month in which the breach occurs. Other countries with publicly funded health care systems have initiated benchmarking as a policy tool. For example, Sweden suggests 60 days and New Zealand 6 months as the maximum acceptable length of time between referral and first specialist assessment.15 In Canada, recommendations include a maximum 6-month wait time benchmark from a family doctor’s referral to the provision of any medically required service.16 Nonetheless, conflicting measurement methodologies leave the process open to criticism.17 The Canadian Medical Protective Association notes a lack of clarity as to “who is responsible for what,” resulting in a lack of comprehensive action to address the problem.17
\\Are you sure rationed care is the best health care?
Especially if that rationing will depend on political views? "Vote DEMN-rats, or else..."??? ;-P
...now race, too.
Need a kidney? What, you're not black? Then try and get a dialysis appointment. We'll serve you right after all the illegal aliens have been treated...
BS
Is it?
As cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection increase, we must pause to consider a particularly vulnerable community: undocumented immigrants with kidney failure. According to estimates from 2019, there are between 5,500 and 8,857 undocumented immigrants with kidney failure in the United States.1 This group tends to be Latino and when compared with the US documented Latino community with kidney failure, they are younger, have fewer comorbid conditions, have a lower educational level, and are less likely to receive pre–kidney failure care.2 , 3 In many states, these patients do not have funding for standard outpatient dialysis care.4 , 5 They rely on emergency-only dialysis (dialysis only after presenting critically ill to an emergency department), which happens on average 6 times per month.3 This population is potentially at increased risk for complications and death if infected with COVID-19, but they risk potential exposure for themselves and their families every time they present for dialysis and occupy much needed emergency and inpatient resources....
...Emergency-only dialysis is associated with lower quality of life, high symptom burden, and significant anxiety about death.3 Compared with people receiving standard dialysis, this population’s 5-year mortality is 14-fold higher and they spend more time in the hospital and less time in the outpatient setting.3 Emergency-only dialysis is taxing on the health care system. Studies show that their providers experience emotional exhaustion and burnout from the perception of propagating unjust, unethical, and substandard medical care.4 It is also extremely costly: emergency-only dialysis costs $285,000 to $400,000 per person per year,6 compared with $76,177 to $90,971 per person per year for standard dialysis.7 Switching from emergency-only dialysis to outpatient dialysis is associated with a cost reduction of $5,768 per person per month.8
In 12 states, undocumented immigrants are able to receive outpatient dialysis. This was accomplished by changing the scope of each state’s Emergency Medicaid coverage to include outpatient dialysis. Federal law defines an emergency medical condition as “a medical condition (including emergency labor and delivery) manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in – (A) placing the patient’s health in serious jeopardy; (B) serious impairment to bodily functions, or (C) serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part (Social Security Act § 1903(v)(3)).” There is no stipulation that emergency medical conditions have to be treated in the inpatient setting, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services defer to states to determine what conditions qualify as emergencies.
As an example, Arizona’s Medicaid Policy Manual clearly defines outpatient dialysis as services that are covered by Emergency Medicaid. Undocumented immigrants may receive scheduled outpatient dialysis if the treating provider signs a monthly certification stating that the absence of thrice-weekly dialysis would place the individual’s health in serious jeopardy. Inclusion of outpatient dialysis in the state’s definition of an emergency medical condition allows the same funds to cover outpatient dialysis instead of inpatient admissions for emergency-only dialysis.4...
...We are only as healthy as the most vulnerable among us. Now more than ever, we must protect vulnerable populations and free up inpatient resources however possible. A transition from emergency-only dialysis to standard outpatient dialysis for undocumented immigrants should be a part of larger efforts to increase emergency services, inpatient facilities, and dialysis resources for patients with COVID-19 infection and help stop the spread of COVID-19 in our communities.
🔺Says the butt sniffer Dervish "Z" Sanders.🔺
That coward Derpish refuses to reply back.
Reply to what? Minus FJ's comment about health care being rationed and that illegal immigrants go to the front of the line? I already called BS on that.
Google: Do illegal immigrants get healthcare?
Answer: No, unless a state has established a program for this purpose. Although the ACA provides benefits to U.S. citizens and lawfully present immigrants alike, it does not provide any benefits for undocumented immigrants.
What's with you calling people cowards? That seems to be your thing now. More projection, I think.
No, unless a state has established a program for this purpose.
12 have, and the other 38 treat them as an "emergency" (which mean they go to the front of the line).
So, everything I've stated is 100% the case.
Pft! :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Minus: So, everything I've stated is 100% the case.
No.
I see no proper refutation.
I see merely a lame assertion.
Bleh!
And you wanted for anything bigger???
Then lame cretin whimper. ;-P
Or...
you just do not get it.
That that was "Yes". In NewSpeakian. ;-P
Minus: I see merely a lame assertion.
Self referring talks. People don't get health care in the United States unless they can PAY. Your contrary to reality assertions are bigly lame.
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Post a Comment