Harming health care

Published September 7, 2014

Editorial by Greenville Daily Reflector, September 6, 2014.

Turning back the clock on four decades of advances in health care for rural, underserved communities is no way to lessen state budget demands or protest a bad federal law. The unfortunate result of the budget approved this year by the North Carolina General Assembly, however — as well as the state’s refusal to accept Medicaid expansion dollars — is to slow and further threaten the Brody School of Medicine’s mission of improving health care in the east.

Administrators at ECU and its hospital partner, Vidant Health System, have spent much of this year lobbying state legislators to maintain revenue sources and debt-collection policies that help fund the medical school and the health care services it provides through clinical services. While their efforts won a positive measure of success, funding levels for Brody have continued the downward slide of recent years.

Rick Niswander, ECU vice chancellor for administration and finance, told The Daily Reflector last month that Brody’s clinical operations were established to both help the school support its mission, and to provide medical services to the underserved region.

Niswander said the funding formula is essential since the school was never intended to receive enough support from the state to fulfill its mission. In a story published Wednesday, ECU Chancellor Steve Ballard said that 20 years ago the state funded the medical school’s operations at nearly 40 percent.

“Today, it’s only 20 percent,” Ballard said, “so 80 cents of every dollar must come from other sources.”

The school’s medical practice, ECU Physicians, provides the main source of income, but legislative changes in the way the school can collect payments will cost the school about $2 million this year, according to Ballard.

That shortfall adds to more than $12 million lost by ECU physicians through lower reimbursements in the 2013-14 fiscal year. Administrators still do not know the extent of negative financial effects ECU, Brody and Vidant will face if lawmakers do not decide to accept Medicaid expansion when the Legislature reconvenes in January.

An analysis reported last week by the News & Observer in Raleigh projects that without Medicaid expansion in North Carolina, state taxpayers will spend more than $10 billion over the next eight years to provide health care services to residents of states that have accepted expansion.

Such a redistribution of wealth, perpetuated by our GOP-led state government, would be a disservice to all North Carolina taxpayers.

The Affordable Care Act is a deeply flawed law that our state leaders are right to oppose, but not to the avoidable detriment of the premier health care system the taxpayers of this state have spent decades and billions of dollars establishing.

September 8, 2014 at 8:23 pm
Norm Kelly says:

Quoting from a post is the best way to insure that no one claims I am taking anything out of context. So, 'Such a redistribution of wealth, perpetuated by our GOP-led state government, would be a disservice to all North Carolina taxpayers'. Except the FACT is that such a redistribution of wealth was perpetuated upon us by the DEMONCRAT PARTY in WASHINGTON! The Central Planners in the Demoncrat Party, what should now be called the Socialist Party of the US, gave states a choice to participate in budget-busting expansions of medicare or to do what they could to stem the expense of participating. Ours was ONE OF MANY states that chose NOT to participate in an unknown; not knowing how much the expansion of medicare will cost is NOT a wise decision to make. Just because the central planners offered a bribe to the states, paying a promised 90% of the actual cost when the program is up & running, doesn't mean much when the state must pay the other 10% when our budget is already out of control. What is the most recent estimate of the states unfunded liabilities? Has our states unfunded liability reached the TRILLION mark yet or is it only measured in BILLIONS still? Adding the outrageous and ever-rising cost of medicare expansion to our already unmanageable unfunded liabilities, while sounding good, is actually quite foolish.

And if one of the most recent Obamacancer lawsuits is successful, the medicare expansion issue may NOT be a problem. The recent suit I reference is the one where the LAW says that states who set up their OWN exchanges are eligible for premium subsidies. But those states, like NC, that chose to use the central planner version of an exchange are NOT eligible for their residents to have federally funded premium subsidies. So, does the law mean what it says? Or is this another time when this administration will IGNORE the law and CHOOSE TO DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO?! At what point will the LAW mean anything once again? Will the law matter to demons only AFTER a Republican once again occupies the White House? Cuz it's certain that the law is meaningless to the current occupier!

Once again, let's quote the editorial: 'The Affordable Care Act is a deeply flawed law that our state leaders are right to oppose'. And that is exactly where that statement should end. The law is stup1d to the extreme. Socialized medicine has proven a failure every where in the world it's been tried. So, why wouldn't our legislature oppose participating as much as they are allowed by the law? Not just sorta, kinda, maybe in some small way oppose the law. But in EVERY way imaginable, in EVERY way that counts, and our state should also participate in EVERY lawsuit that is filed against the central planners when it concerns Obamacancer! We DON'T NEED wishy-washy, wannabe, sometimes opposition to socialized medicine. We don't need Roy Cooper kind of opposition. We need real opposition. It doesn't matter if we are the last hold-outs when it comes to opposing socialized medicine. Cuz no matter how much it p_sses off some lib somewhere, doing the RIGHT thing is still doing the RIGHT thing!

'That shortfall adds to more than $12 million lost by ECU physicians through lower reimbursements in the 2013-14 fiscal year'. Who is responsible for lower reimbursements? The same people who forced socialized medicine upon us: the central planners. So, the complaint is that some $2million could be lost because of 'legislative changes'. Which is bigger? 2Million or 12Million? Come on libs, even you know that 12Million is MORE than 2Million. So while the editorial whines about 2Million lost because of legislative changes, which one has to assume means the state legislature, yet seems to slide over the 12Million lost because of central planner changes. Shouldn't the editorial be MORE upset with the central planners than our legislature? Well, yes, of course, that would be common sense. But we are talking socialists wanting to appear to support their socialist allies at the same time they slam their opposition, the Republican legislature. Never blame your allies, the demons, when you can mislead your readers by blaming your opposition. The smaller the hit the more responsible the opposition is. It's not the size of the cut that counts, it's the source of the cuts that count. Demon cuts, ignored. (just like government monopoly school budget cuts!) Republican increases, ignored because the increase wasn't as big as the libs wanted.

Libs are SO predictable! And shameful!