CHICAGO -- Consumer representatives praised state insurance regulators for urging Congress to extend the enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies, and encouraged the regulators to keep up the pressure during a…
Blog
- Home
- >
- Mike King Posts
- >
- The Grady Controversy and...
By Mike King
The current controversy over closing Grady Memorial Hospital’s outpatient kidney dialysis clinic is indicative of more than just the struggling Atlanta hospital’s hard choices about what services it can afford to make available for the region’s poor and uninsured.
While much of the focus on the closing has centered on what to do about the illegal immigrants who depend on Grady’s dialysis unit, the pathology of the problem lies within flaws in the nation’s complicated and – at times nonsensical – policies for covering end-stage kidney disease.
To fully understand Grady’s dilemma, it helps to understand how we got here and why we’re stuck now.
Not long after Medicare was enacted, dialysis – then seen as a miracle of medical technology – became widely available. While the process of artificially filtering toxins from the bloodstream was a lifesaving process, it was also very expensive and labor intensive. Many patients need the treatment three or more times per week.
Still, with hundreds of thousands of patients standing to benefit from it, the demand to make the technology widely available to Americans – rich or poor, young or old – was impossible for Congress to ignore. That’s why the End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) program was created in 1973 under the auspices of Medicare – the first major expansion of Medicare and one that now costs $23 billion yearly.
Commercial insurers were more than happy to be relieved of the cost of providing this technology to the patients they covered. They still pay the bills for patients in the early or temporary stages of kidney failure, but once physicians certify that the patient’s kidneys are permanently unable to function, they become Medicare beneficiaries. The problem is that process sometimes takes months, or years, and until that point uninsured patients – and immigrants in the country illegally who don’t qualify for Medicaid – are on their own in finding dialysis centers willing to treat them.
That’s the gap Grady was filling with its traditional role as the provider of last resort for the poor and uninsured. Grady established an outpatient dialysis program years ago when private dialysis centers were lining up instead to take patients covered by the Medicare ESRD program. The outpatient clinic is now costing Grady about $2 million in losses each year.
Some of those for-profit dialysis clinics will indeed take uninsured patients – in anticipation of most of them eventually qualifying for Medicare reimbursement – but illegal immigrants can’t enroll in the program. (It takes legal immigrants five years to qualify.) That explains why the Grady dialysis clinic closing hits illegal immigrants in need of dialysis so hard. The plain fact of the matter is that unless they can find a private clinic willing to treat them for whatever they can pay, their only other option – short of returning to uncertain care in their home countries — is to forgo dialysis treatment.
And here’s where it gets crazy:
When they give up treatment and their kidneys fail, they go into toxic shock and wind up – you guessed it – in the emergency room needing acute care and several days of inpatient dialysis to save their lives. Ironically, because of the emergency nature of the treatment, there is a special Medicaid program that reimburses hospitals for inpatient treatment of this kind for illegal immigrants.
Unfortunately this isn’t the only penny-wise, pound-foolish provision of the federal government’s ESRD program. Virtually everyone agrees that kidney transplantation is more cost-effective and provides a higher quality of life for patients with permanent renal failure who are in need of a renal procedure, the problem is in finding and matching donors with recipients. There are simply not enough donor kidneys to supply the demand.
To save money on those lucky enough to get donor kidneys, federal law limits how much Medicare will pay for the drugs needed to suppress organ rejection in transplant patients – drugs that can cost $1,000 to $3,000 a month that must be taken for life. To make matters worse, Medicare will only pay for the drugs for 36 months after the transplant.
If patients don’t have some other form of insurance – impossible in the private market since they are, by definition, afflicted with a life-threatening disease – or if they can’t afford the drugs on their own, the transplanted kidney will fail. When that happens they have to return to dialysis treatment. The anti-rejection drugs cost $12,000 to $36,000 per year for each patient. Dialysis runs the ESRD program about $71,000 per year per patient. That’s not wise public policy, that’s just dumb.
All this leaves Grady having to make some hard choices. Unfortunately that’s what happens when Washington wants to try to do the right thing, but can’t muster the courage to pay for it.
Stay Connected
GHF In The News
Archive
- October 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- October 2023
- July 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- June 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- July 2014
- May 2014
- March 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009