Health cuts: Will Washington end up a lot like Arizona on transplants?
Cutting the state's Basic Health Plan, as Gov. Gregoire suggests, might leave some potential transplant recipients in a position that wouldn't be all that different from Arizona's.
Sen. Bernie Sanders
It's hard to think of any political similarities between Washington’s Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire and Arizona's Republican Gov. Jan Brewer. But there is one. Both governors want to cut off funding that affects people needing transplant operations.
Brewer caused a national furor last month when she defended her state's budget-saving termination of Medicaid coverage for certain types of transplant operations, which has placed about 100 patients on transplant waiting lists at risk of imminent death. Critics have called it Brewercare, the real-life version of the bogus death panels dreamed up by foes of President Obama's health reform legislation. Even some Arizona Republicans — though not Brewer — have begun backing away from the transplant cuts.
Now, Gregoire, an advocate of universal health coverage, has proposed eliminating the state’s 17-year-old Basic Health Plan, an affordable health insurance program for working-poor families with incomes at 133-200 percent of the federal poverty level. Zeroing out the program as of March 1 would save $219 million over the next two years, as part of her proposal last week to slash nearly $4 billion in spending and close the state’s huge budget deficit.
The proposed termination of the Basic Health Plan (BHP) came as a shock to a man I’ll call Jim, a 34-year-old Spokane electrician and father of seven whose kidneys are failing. I’m not using his real name because his unemployment benefits could be jeopardized if the state learns he can't work due to poor health. Jim’s BHP coverage will end if the Legislature approves the governor’s plan, which appears likely. As a result, he may not receive the kidney transplant he’s waiting for at Providence Sacred Heart Medical Center. And his wife, who’s also on BHP, wouldn’t be able to afford the care involved in donating a kidney to him.
"Gregoire proposed that?” Jim said when I talked with him last month. "I don't even know why they would try to do something like that. It would leave a lot of people in a lot of hurt. I’m a union worker. I voted for her."
A kidney transplant costs tens of thousands of dollars for the operation and the anti-rejection drugs, which must be taken for years after the surgery. Like other transplant centers, Sacred Heart won’t perform transplant operations on patients who don’t have the means to pay for the operation and the drugs, because kidneys and other organs for transplant are scarce resources.
“Our purpose is providing patients access to life-saving transplants,” says Dr. Okechukwu Ojojho, the surgical and program director at Sacred Heart’s kidney transplant program. “But they have to be able to afford the medications which help keep the body from rejecting the new transplant. So financial issues will have to be a consideration in deciding whether to transplant (Jim).”
Jim is not the only Washington resident who may lose access to a transplant if Gregoire’s budget passes. BHP paid for eight transplant operations in 2009 — a kidney, a liver, two lungs, two bone marrow grafts, one heart, and a liver/intestinal transplant. While state officials couldn’t say how many BHP patients currently are waiting for transplants, Dr. Ojojho says Sacred Heart has at least a couple of other BHP patients waiting for kidneys. Another hospital official said Sacred Heart does four to five heart and kidney transplants each year on BHP patients.
State officials are well aware of the harsh impact that terminating the program would have on patients in need of transplants. And, of course, it also would have major consequences for the rest of the 66,000 BHP enrollees who may have serious if less critical health care needs —not to mention the 138,000 people on the program’s waiting list. “We understand and shared those impacts with the executive and the Legislature,” said Preston Cody, BHP’s director. “If the program is eliminated, we’ll make every effort to communicate with the entire population and send them information on other resources to see what their other options are.”
But the cold reality is that many of these patients have no other viable options. The BHP transplant patients are people who surely would be rejected by private insurers. They generally wouldn’t qualify for the state Medicaid program for the poor, have medical costs that are too high for the limited-benefit Washington Health state insurance program, and couldn’t afford the stiff premiums in the state high-risk insurance pool, said Jim Stevenson, a spokesman for the state Health Care Authority, which runs BHP.
Jim was diagnosed with Focal Segmental Glomerulosclerosis (FSGS), an unexplained scarring of the kidneys, six years ago. But he worked regularly as an electrician on construction projects until being laid off a year ago. He relied on BHP for years because his employers either didn’t offer coverage or made him wait six months for coverage after he started the job. He felt fortunate to have the state coverage, because he has needed a lot of expensive care related to his failing kidneys, including two recent fistula operations and lots of medications.
Two months ago, when his kidney function fell below 20 percent, Sacred Heart put him on the transplant waiting list. This past month, his wife, a nursing home aide, insisted she wanted to donate one of her kidneys to him. He had resisted the idea for months because he wants her to stay healthy to take care of their children, ages 4 to 17 (the older three are from his wife’s previous marriage). But if tests determine she’s a suitable donor, that would expedite his transplant operation.
Dr. Ojojho says if all goes well, Jim could undergo the operation within two months. He considers Jim a “great” candidate for transplantation. There’s a 50-70 percent chance he would experience no recurrence of FSGS, in which case he would have a very good long-term prognosis, particularly with a kidney from a living donor. Sacred Heart reports a three-year survival rate for kidney transplant patients of 92 percent, according to the
national Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients.
The alternative to the transplant would be for Jim to wait until he goes into kidney failure, then start receiving kidney dialysis three days a week for the rest of his life. That probably would be paid for by Medicare.
But Dr. Ojojho says a transplant is far preferable because Jim’s quality of life and functional status would be much better, and he may even be able to return to work. “We want to put medical necessity ahead of politics and balancing the budget,” the surgeon says. “His life would be incredibly enhanced by getting the transplant.”
Jim says the thought of dialysis three days a week, five hours a day, is “pretty grim.” He probably wouldn’t be able to work. “Once I get the transplant, I’m going back to work and paying taxes,” he says. “If I’m on dialysis, it’s very expensive and the government would be paying. Wouldn’t everyone would be better off with me having a kidney?”
Stevenson says that if BHP is terminated, there’s a chance — but no certainty — that Jim and his wife could qualify for state coverage under Medicaid’s Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program (their kids are already covered under the state’s Apple Health program). If they could wait until 2014, when the new health reform law’s insurance protections and subsidies begin, they would have no worries. But getting alternative coverage any time soon is a big if, and Jim won’t get his transplant unless he has guaranteed financing now.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!










Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Tue, Jan 4, 8:20 a.m. Inappropriate
Several years ago Oregon adopted for their state-funded medical aid, a system of priorities. Child health was near the top; organ transplants were near the bottom. What has been the outcome in Oregon?
Michael Cain
Posted Tue, Jan 4, 8:36 a.m. Inappropriate
Michael, this article by a respected health policy scholar says transplant coverage under the Oregon Health Plan actually became more generous.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC81116/
Posted Tue, Jan 4, 11:22 a.m. Inappropriate
Well, for people that want to get the government out of their health care, and everyone else's for that matter, here we go. I guess it's better for tax payers to save a few bucks than to help our neighbors in need. Is this the best that Washington can do? God help us.
Posted Tue, Jan 4, 11:29 a.m. Inappropriate
And here's a good new piece from the Spokesman-Review on how the Washington Medicaid cuts will impact dental care:
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/jan/04/dental-dilemma/
Posted Tue, Jan 4, 12:07 p.m. Inappropriate
Jim should contact Tim Eyman. I know Tim cares deeply for us all, that's why he does what he does. I bet with all the money he has saved with his tax cuts, paying for Jim's transplant should not be a problem at all.
Posted Tue, Jan 4, 3:44 p.m. Inappropriate
Tim hasn't done anything without the support of a majority of Washington's voters, Bob. If you wish to help with Jim's transplant, I'm sure the author can provide an address for you to send a donation.
Posted Tue, Jan 4, 10:43 p.m. Inappropriate
Recipients need to re-qualify for this program annually yet haven't, and eligibility needs to be tightened. For instance, where folks have decided not to get married so as to qualify for BHP, with one with employment that has health benefits, why should state taxpayers be picking up the tab instead? Under today's BHP, this is happening. It's too bad that things like this couldn't have been tight to begin with instead of everybody losing with perhaps the entire program being gutted. This seems to be typical for government, however.
Posted Tue, Jan 4, 11:30 p.m. Inappropriate
Loss of the Basic Health Plan isn't at all desirable, and I hope it doesn't happen.
As for Jim and his situation, please get it right.
Medicare WILL pay for both preliminary dialysis AND a transplant, not "probably"--and his doctor is either being dishonest (not outside the bounds of possibility, since there are differences in financial return to providers of care, depending on the source of payment) or simply ignorant of the facts. In the latter case, the good doctor should consult with his back-office staff, who I'm sure are VERY WELL INFORMED of the facts.
Health care benefits come from many sources, and it takes careful digging to uncover all of the facts in this complex industry.
For more on this issue, consult:
http://www.cms.gov/manuals/downloads/clm104c08.pdf
Posted Wed, Jan 5, 11:12 a.m. Inappropriate
Actually, Seneca, my article was correct that Medicare “probably” would pay for Jim’s dialysis. Medicare eligibility for an under-65 dialysis patient like Jim is not automatic. It depends on whether he has enough work credits or hours. Most patients do but some don’t, according to Todd Seiger, business manager for Sacred Heart’s transplant program.
If Jim qualifies for Medicare, Seneca is correct that the program would pay for his kidney transplant as well as dialysis. But here’s the kicker. Jim would need supplemental health insurance or other financing to cover the large out-of-pocket costs for the anti-rejection drugs and other care that Medicare doesn’t pay for. Sacred Heart, like other transplant centers, would put Jim on hold for a transplant until he was able to obtain the financing for those out-of-pocket costs, Seiger says. Perhaps Jim would qualify for Medicaid to fill in those Medicare coverage gaps. But at this point the financing is not certain. If the Basic Health Plan is terminated, there is no certainty about if and when Jim would be able to get his needed kidney transplant.
Beyond that, Seneca, the termination of BHP would clearly leave other types of transplant patients – heart, liver, bone marrow, etc. – out in the cold, because those patients would definitely not have the Medicare option that’s available only to kidney patients.
Bottom line, my article did get it right. Termination of BHP would leave Washington transplant patients and many other BHP members in severe straits.
BTW, my apologies, I misspelled the Sacred Heart transplant surgeon’s last name. It’s actually Dr. Okechukwu Ojogho.
Posted Wed, Jan 5, 6:14 p.m. Inappropriate
Based on your description of Jim (electrician, age 34), I made the assumption that he would easily have satisfied the minimal criteria for Medicare eligibility under the ESRD (end-stage renal disease) program, which does not limit eligibility by age. Given that assumption, my statement was correct (as is yours, given a different assumption).
As I said at the start of my comment, loss of the Basic Health Plan would be unfortunate, and I hope it doesn't happen; setting aside Jim's situation, there are indeed many other kinds of conditions for which BHP provides the only insurance coverage. A 'ray of hope' for salvaging at least part of the program is the quite recent federal approval of a Medicaid waiver submitted by the state of Washington. The feds are agreeing under that waiver to provide partial federal funding (known as the 'federal match') for the Basic Health Plan and the newly-named Disability Lifeline program. Both the BHP and DL have heretofore been totally state-funded, so the approval by Health and Human Services may influence the legislature to find a way (even in this gruesome budget environment) to come up with the state share of funding.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.