Health

No Image

A Child's Suffering Drives A Mother To Seek Untested Treatments

Author Susannah Meadows sought alternative treatments for her son when traditional treatments failed.

Alberto Ruggieri/Illustration Works/Getty Images

Your child is diagnosed with a serious autoimmune disease and conventional treatments aren’t proving to be effective. Doctors prescribe powerful medications that don’t seem to work. Not only is your child not responding as hoped, he’s withering from the side effects. What do you do? Journalist Susannah Meadows found herself having to answer this question when her son, Shepherd, was diagnosed at age 3 with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, joint inflammation that can last a lifetime.

When the drugs didn’t work, Meadows was persuaded to look at his condition through a different prism and to consider the possibility that medications might not be the only answer. Meadows began speaking to parents who had sleuthed out alternative theories and tried things like radically changing their kids’ diets and giving them Chinese herbal medicines. Like many parents of sick children, Meadows grew increasingly willing to venture outside of the standard treatments.

Her experiences spurred her to seek other stories of people with illnesses ranging from multiple sclerosis to epilepsy to ADHD who pursued unproven methods of treating their diseases. Their stories, as well as an account of her son’s case, are compiled in The Other Side of Impossible: Ordinary People Who Faced Daunting Medical Challenges and Refused to Give Up, published Tuesday by Random House.

In addition to keeping him on the methotrexate, we took gluten, dairy and sugar out of his diet. We gave him high doses of omega-3s in fish oil and a probiotic. His arthritis started to get better six weeks to the day after we started the new diet, and we weaned him off the methotrexate. He’s now totally healthy, completely without pain, and has been off all arthritis medications for four years. It’s impossible to know what made him better, but there’s some science that suggests it could have been the diet.

Your book is a call to arms to think about diet and what we put in our bodies, whether you have serious illness or not. How did food play in the recovery of the people you wrote about?

Terry Wahls [had] multiple sclerosis and went from using a wheelchair to riding a bike again after she radically changed her diet to eat only nutritionally dense food. You can’t come away without thinking, if that can do that for her, what could it do for me?

The pioneers in your book weren’t the trained scientists or the doctors. They were the patients. What can you say about that?

Certainly doctors know more about disease than I ever will, but that doesn’t mean that their expertise is universal. Our own doctor was a good partner in our weighing things to try. We were able to have good conversations about risk, and what I liked about him was his openness — he made it clear to us that he didn’t have to understand it if it worked, which to me is a great quality in a doctor. The best doctors recognize that they don’t know everything.

Some key themes emerge in the book about the personality traits of those who seek different avenues of treatment. What are they?

One of the things that struck me about everybody in the book was extraordinary self-confidence, almost a stubbornness that they would find an answer. These people exhausted medicine’s answers and kept looking. Another thing was hope. I used to think of hope as being about the known possibility. You could have hope if even 1 out of 100 people got better. But what was amazing about these people was that they had hope even without an example of one. There was nothing to point to. A woman with multiple sclerosis who’s using a wheelchair, it’s unheard of to come back from that. And yet she believed she could find a solution for herself. And to me that’s extraordinary.

It seemed like many of the subjects of your book were financially comfortable, which gave them advantages such as moving across the country to be near a practitioner. How can people access experimental diets, supplements or interventions not covered by insurance?

To be sure, having resources helps, but one of the things that’s so exciting about food being a potential solution for some diseases is that it’s a lot cheaper than medication. Some medications for multiple sclerosis, for example, can be $80,000 a year. We have strong anecdotal evidence and in some cases, clinical evidence that food can improve symptoms for some chronic disease. The other virtue of food is that it’s open to all of us to experiment with. Until we have the data to say this diet will benefit this disease, we are free to see as individuals what might help us.

Finally, how has the experience of dealing with your son’s illness as well as meeting these other like-minded people changed you as a parent and as a person?

The biggest thing that I have learned is that when it seems as if there are no options, you can still look for them and maybe find them. That you have a choice to keep going when others say that you can’t. I don’t think I had that feeling when Shepherd was diagnosed, but I think his unlikely recovery taught me that.

Heather Won Tesoriero is a writer living in New York City. She’s currently working on a narrative nonfiction book. The Class will be published in 2018 by Ballantine Books.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

President Trump Promotes Revised Version Of GOP Health Care Bill

President Trump is promising great things from the revised version of the Republican health care bill. He said it would lower premiums, increase competition and protect people with pre-existing conditions “beautifully.”

ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST:

President Trump is promising great things from this health care bill. He said it would lower premiums, increase competition and protect people with preexisting conditions beautifully, as he put it. Well, joining us to talk about what exactly the bill would do is NPR health policy correspondent Alison Kodjak. Good to see you.

ALISON KODJAK, BYLINE: Good to see you, too, Robert.

SIEGEL: The president promised an awful lot here. Can he deliver?

KODJAK: Well, probably not with this bill as it stands now. The basics of the bill are very similar to what they were in March when they didn’t pass in the House. And at that time, the Congressional Budget Office, which determines how much the bill costs, said that it could end up with 24 million fewer people having insurance after 10 years than would under the Affordable Care Act. And in addition, the way this bill is written – people’s benefits could also deteriorate.

SIEGEL: This bill is an update of the American Health Care Act that was proposed by Speaker Ryan and the White House a few weeks ago. Remind us what’s in it.

KODJAK: Yeah, so the bill first of all gets rid of the individual mandate, which is the thing that most Republicans hate most about the – about Obamacare – is that it requires people to buy insurance or pay a fine. It replaces the income-based subsidies that Obamacare has in place to help people buy insurance with age-based tax credits. And that means that lower-income people might get a little less help buying insurance, and higher-income people may get a little bit more. It also requires people to keep their coverage constantly, and if they drop their coverage, they’ll have to pay a big penalty to buy into the insurance system again. That’s a way of keeping healthy people in.

SIEGEL: It’s awfully close to the individual mandate, actually.

KODJAK: Very similar, yes. And then the last thing it does is it rolls back the expansion of Medicaid over time so that people who now got Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act may lose it over the next few years.

SIEGEL: Well, if so much in the new bill is the same as in that bill, why is the White House more optimistic about the current bill’s chance of passage?

KODJAK: Well, in the old bill, no one was really happy because the conservatives – they thought it kept too much of Obamacare. The more moderate Republicans thought too many people would lose insurance. So this was a deal to try to bring them together. And so what it ended up doing was sort of splitting the baby.

It allows states to opt out of the federal regulations by getting a waiver and so that they can offer insurance plans with fewer benefits and also get rid of protections for people with preexisting conditions. It allows insurance companies to charge them more or not cover them. But if they were to do that, then the states would have to come up with another plan that would cover those people. Most people think that they would go with high-risk pools, which is a way for the state to backstop the cost of their higher-cost patients so that they get that their coverage.

SIEGEL: Using public tax funds, in effect…

KODJAK: Yeah.

SIEGEL: …To pick up where the insurance company can no longer pay. If this were to become law and states were permitted to opt out of federal regulations and not offer all of the services that Obamacare mandated, would companies in those states be able to sell health insurance across state lines? Would that be a back door to deregulating all health insurance?

KODJAK: No, they don’t have that specifically in this bill – the across state lines. What they do have is this ability to waive the essential health benefits. They don’t have to include as many benefits in the policy. And that they can also get rid of what’s called community rating, which means they can charge people more based on their health status rather than just charge them based on where they live and their age.

SIEGEL: During the earlier debate in March, a lot of lawmakers were worried about people who gained coverage under the Medicaid expansion as part of Obamacare losing it. Do any of the changes in this bill address Medicaid?

KODJAK: Not the newer changes. The bill pretty much stands as it did in March, which means that there’s going to be an eventual rollback of the expansion of Medicaid, and millions of people could lose their coverage – their Medicaid coverage, which has a lot of more moderate Republicans worried.

SIEGEL: NPR’s Alison Kodjak, Thanks.

KODJAK: Thank you.

(SOUNDBITE OF SHARON JONES AND THE DAP-KINGS SONG “LET THEM KNOCK”)

Copyright © 2017 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

The Call-In: Your Stories About Veterans Affairs

This week’s Call-In is about the Department of Veterans Affairs: stories from veterans about getting health care and ideas for reforming the whole agency.

LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST:

And this is the Call-In. Today we’re talking about veterans’ health care. In recent years, the VA has developed a reputation for red tape, long wait times and lapses in care. So we asked you to share your stories about getting the care you need from the VA.

MATT SIMMONS: Hey there, NPR. My name is Matt Simmons (ph), retired Army Sergeant.

CLAYTON MCARTHUR: This is Clayton McArthur (ph). I’m from Tuscaloosa, Ala.

CHRISTINA VERDAROSA: My name is Christina Verdarosa (ph).

UNIDENTIFIED MAN #1: I’m an Army veteran.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN #2: Marine Corps veteran with PTSD.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN #3: I’m a Vietnam veteran with three different service-connected disabilities.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN #1: We have some of the best doctors in the world. We just don’t have enough of them.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN #2: My care was so bad that they couldn’t even perform the necessary surgeries to save my life, and they had to outsource it.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN #4: Tell me, you don’t have a wait times when you set up something in the civilian world.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN #5: My experience with VA health care has been pretty good, actually. Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN #6: Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN #3: Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN #4: Bye.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: NPR’s Quil Lawrence reports on Veterans Affairs, and he joins us now. Hey, Quil.

QUIL LAWRENCE, BYLINE: Hi, Lulu.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I want to start with a pretty simple question. How many people get their care through the VA, and what determines how people qualify?

LAWRENCE: Sure. There are about 20 million vets in the United States, most of them from earlier eras – World War II, Vietnam – when there was a draft. About 9 million of them are enrolled in VA health care. About 6 million of those are sort of regular yearly users of VA health care.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: That’s a huge system.

LAWRENCE: Yeah it is. It’s the largest single-payer system in the country. Most vets can qualify for it if they have a service-connected injury. If they are five years after having served in the recent wars, they can make it. There’s also an income threshold. So the VA more or less says if you’re a vet, you should apply, and we’ll let you know if you’re eligible, but most – many vets are.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: All right, I want to have you listen to some of the calls that we got. We got a ton of messages like this one from Joyce Davenport (ph) of Ocklawaha, Fla. Let’s listen.

JOYCE DAVENPORT: I have been a patient of the VA since my discharge back in the 70s, and I have had only wonderful experiences with them. They have gotten me through some very rough times. I’ve received 100 percent of my medical care from them, and I cannot tell you how much I appreciate them being there.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I should say the vast majority of the people who called in were really happy with their VA care. Are vets mostly satisfied?

LAWRENCE: Yeah. And I can hear the surprise in your voice. And that’s, I suppose, partly due to the fact that negative headlines are what really run the media. So…

GARCIA-NAVARRO: No.

LAWRENCE: (Laughter) Yes, it’s true. I’m not surprised by that at all. Even people who are having problems say the bureaucracy of getting their care or getting a disability rating, getting things – sort of getting in the door – they will say, well, but my doc at the VA is wonderful. So VA, in studies, rates as good or better than in the private sector in most areas of health care. Although, the question really is, compared to what? What care would this veteran be getting in the private sector if the VA wasn’t there?

GARCIA-NAVARRO: OK, we’re going to come to that in a minute. But first, you mentioned something, which is that the VA has gotten a lot of negative press – long wait times, shortages of doctors, and we got calls about that, too. Listen.

MARK COYUS: My name is Mark Coyus (ph), and I am a Marine Corps veteran calling from Denver, Colo. I think that the VA is overworked, understaffed and underpaid. With the state of the world and how much our veterans sacrifice for us with so little in return, the status quo is unacceptable for both them and VA caregivers.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: OK, so what have been the biggest problems?

LAWRENCE: The VA is a massive bureaucracy. It’s got 360,000 employees. They literally invented the term red tape at VA, and there were horrible backlogs when a lot of recent vets were coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2014, a scandal kind of came to a head about senior managers who had been lying about their statistics – about how fast they were seeing veterans. And there were some somewhat misleading headlines about veterans who were dying while they were waiting for care. And that brought about calls for reform, which were quite genuine but also somewhat politically motivated, where VA health care, which is the largest example of government-run health care in the country, became kind of a proxy battle for people in Congress who love the idea of government health care against people who hate the idea of government-run health care.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: There’s been a lot of effort made to improve veterans’ care, and this is a bipartisan issue. Congress passed legislation a few years ago to make it easier for veterans to access that private care. Can you bring us up to speed on this? What does it mean for the VA system?

LAWRENCE: So again, in response to this scandal in 2014, Congress passed a law called the Veterans’ Choice Act. They wanted to get something set up quick but, as a result, it’s been a real mixed bag. It was a system so that veterans, if they had been waiting too long or if they lived too far from a VA, they could just go out to a private doctor get their care, and the VA would pay for it. The result in many cases was just another maddening layer of red tape.

Sometimes it took longer to get an appointment in the private sector than it would have originally at the VA. But the VA’s always done some referrals for private care. This month, President Trump signed an order extending the Veterans’ Choice program just as kind of a stopgap because it was about to expire in August. But we’re expecting Congress and the VA to work on a way to streamline this process. And they say they’re going to pass that sometime in the fall.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I want to play you this message we got from Anna Smith (ph) who’s worried about the VA’s future.

ANNA SMITH: I fear that some changes that people are proposing, such as privatizing parts of it and that sort of thing, is just going to ruin a good deal for those of us who are lucky enough to be able to use the services of the VA.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: So you’ve talked about this political football of people pro and against sort of socialized medicine, if you will. What kind of support is there for privatization?

LAWRENCE: So no one will say they want privatization. All of the veterans organizations say that they’re against it. The new secretary of the VA, Dr. David Shulkin, says he’s against privatization. Now, that doesn’t stop some people from claiming that there is sort of a Trojan horse here, where this Veterans’ Choice program of allowing vets to go into the private sector is an attempt to bleed resources away from the VA into private care, which is much more expensive, and that would sap the VA’s resources and make the care even worse and lead to this sort of spiral.

The VA is supposed to be this sort of holy vow to take care of veterans. Abraham Lincoln said that it was created for those who have borne the battle and their widow and their orphan. On the other side are people who say, well, the VA can be a lot leaner with strategic use of the private sector in remote places – in places where there’s too much demand on their clinics. This is a battle that we’re going to see continue to play itself out with a lot of people who sincerely studied VA health care and then a lot of people who have a political agenda, as well.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: All right, that’s NPR’s Quil Lawrence. Thanks so much.

LAWRENCE: Thanks, Lulu.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: And next week on the Call-In, we want to hear your stories and questions about airline travel. How has flying been recently? Do you have any tips or tricks for navigating airlines and airports? If you work for an airline, tell us about your job. What questions do you have about the airline industry and where it’s headed? Call in at 202-216-9217. Leave us a voicemail with your full name, where you’re from, and your experience, and we may use it on the air. That number again – 202-216-9217.

Copyright © 2017 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

American Medical Association President On GOP Health Care Plan

Republicans have revived efforts to overhaul health care. NPR’s Scott Simon asks American Medical Association President Andrew Gurman what he’d like to see in a health care bill.

SCOTT SIMON, HOST:

It’s President Trump’s 100th day in office. He’s still working on a day one promise – to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act that was the hallmark of the Obama administration. President Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan renewed their push this week. They hope to bridge the divide between hard-line conservatives and moderates in the House Republican caucus. One group that remains unconvinced is the American Medical Association. Dr. Andrew Gurman is the AMA’s president, and he joins us now from Omaha, where he’s traveling. Dr. Gurman, thanks so much for being with us.

ANDREW GURMAN: My pleasure. Thank you for having me.

SIMON: What makes you uncomfortable about the language so far that is being circulated on Capitol Hill that’s being proposed?

GURMAN: Well, we had a number of problems with the original bill, the AHCA, and we think that this proposed amendment just makes it worse.

SIMON: How so?

GURMAN: Well, what it does is it does away with the prohibition against rating on pre-existing conditions, meaning that if you have a pre-existing condition – and about a third of us do – that you could be charged a much higher rate for insurance. So let me give you an example. Somebody is working, they have insurance, and they have a catastrophic illness – cancer, some other calamity. They have to stop working because they need to get their condition taken care of. If they’re out for 60 days, they lose their insurance. And now, they have to pay whatever the insurance company decides is the premium because they are – now have a pre-existing condition. Somebody in that situation may never be able to accumulate enough money to pay the very high premiums and get back on the cycle of having continuous insurance coverage.

SIMON: Now, of course, Speaker Ryan looks forward to what are called now high-risk pools. These would be plans that are essentially devoted to try and accommodate people who have expensive and pre-existing conditions. You’re not convinced that would do it.

GURMAN: Well, I think that the problem with those is in the fine print. First of all, very often they are not adequately funded. And many of the high-risk pools have lifetime caps, lifetime limits.

SIMON: What kind of reforms would you like to make?

GURMAN: Well, we think that the individual insurance markets need to be stabilized. There needs to be certainty. Right now, the insurance companies are putting together their plans for rating the 2018 insurance products, and they have no certainty from Congress regarding the support for insurance premiums for lower income people. Without knowing those, they don’t know how to price their policies, and they’re going to price them very high. So the bit – that’s the biggest thing that needs to be addressed right now.

SIMON: Dr. Gurman, I move to ask you a question, both as a physician with a practice and the head of the AMA, how much time do you have to spend on matters that have nothing to do with medicine?

GURMAN: Well, unfortunately, a lot. We know from doing detailed studies where we actually follow doctors and minute to minute with a stopwatch find out what they’re doing. The doctors are spending less than half of their time actually taking care of patients. So it’s a big problem.

SIMON: And how would you reduce that bureaucracy, though? Because, you know, bureaucracies run on (laughter) run on a paper trail in a sense.

GURMAN: Well, yeah, I think that we have to work on the electronic health records, make some of these reporting requirements and some of the documentation requirements more seamless, things that will fit into the normal workflow of a physician practice. You know, medicine is one of the only industries where technology has not led to efficiencies and improvements. Technology has simply been a tremendous burden for a lot of practices.

SIMON: Yeah. Do I get what amounts to the bottom line of your advice correctly in that in the absence of a better idea, you and the AMA would be comfortable sticking with the Affordable Care Act?

GURMAN: There are lots of things in the Affordable Care Act that need to be improved, but we would be comfortable improving them rather than throwing the whole thing out, particularly since we have no indication of what it would be replaced with.

SIMON: Dr. Andrew Gurman is president of the American Medical Association. Doctor, thanks so much for being with us.

GURMAN: It’s an honor to talk to you. Thank you so much.

Copyright © 2017 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

For Some, Pre-Hospice Care Can Be A Good Alternative To Hospitals

Enlarge this image

At Gerald Chinchar’s home in San Diego, Calif., Nurse Sheri Juan (right) checks his arm for edema that might be a sign that his congestive heart failure is getting worse.

Heidi de Marco/Kaiser Health News

hide caption

toggle caption

Heidi de Marco/Kaiser Health News

Gerald Chinchar, a Navy veteran who loves TV Westerns, isn’t quite at the end of his life, but the end is probably not far away. The 77-year-old’s medications fill a dresser drawer, and congestive heart failure puts him at high risk of emergency room visits and long hospital stays. He fell twice last year, shattering his hip and femur, and now gets around his San Diego home in a wheelchair.

Above all, Chinchar hopes to avoid another long stint in the hospital. He still likes to go watch his grandchildren’s sporting events and play blackjack at the casino.

“If they told me I had six months to live, or [could instead] go to the hospital and last two years, I’d say leave me home,” he said. “That ain’t no trade for me.”

Most aging people would choose to stay home in their last years of life. But for many, it doesn’t work out: They go in and out of hospitals, getting treated for flare-ups of various chronic illnesses. It’s a massive problem that costs the health care system billions of dollars and has galvanized health providers, hospital administrators and policymakers to search for solutions.

Sharp HealthCare, the San Diego health system where Chinchar receives care, has devised a way to fulfill his wishes and reduce costs at the same time. It’s a pre-hospice program called Transitions, designed to give elderly patients the care they want at home and keep them out of the hospital.

Social workers and nurses from Sharp regularly visit patients in their homes to explain what they can expect in their final years, help them make end-of-life plans and teach them how to better manage their diseases. Physicians track their health and scrap unnecessary medications.

Enlarge this image

All the medicine Chinchar takes for his congestive heart failure and other ailments fills a kitchen drawer. “What we like to do as a palliative care program is streamline your medication list,” the nurse explained during a home visit. “They may be doing more harm than good.”

Heidi de Marco/Kaiser Health News

hide caption

toggle caption

Heidi de Marco/Kaiser Health News

Unlike hospice care, patients in this program don’t need to have a prognosis of six months or less to live, and they can continue getting treatment that is aimed at curing their illnesses, not just treating symptoms.

Before the Transitions program started, the only option for many patients in a health crisis was to call 911 and be rushed to the emergency room. Now, they can get round-the-clock access to nurses, one phone call away.

“Transitions is for just that point where people are starting to realize they can see the end of the road,” said Dr. Dan Hoefer, a San Diego palliative care and family practice physician, and one of the creators of the program. “We are trying to help them through that process,” he said, “so it’s not filled with chaos.”

The importance of programs like Transitions is likely to grow in coming years as 10,000 baby boomers — many with multiple chronic diseases — turn 65 every day. Transitions was among the first of its kind, but several such programs, formally known as home-based palliative care, have since opened around the country. They are part of a broader push to improve people’s health and reduce spending through better coordination of care and more treatment outside hospital walls.

But a huge barrier stands in the way of pre-hospice programs: There is no clear way to pay for them. Health providers typically get paid for office visits and procedures, and hospitals still get reimbursed for patients in their beds. The services provided by home-based palliative care don’t fit that model.

In recent years, however, pressure has mounted to continue moving away from traditional payment systems. The Affordable Care Act has established new rules and pilot programs that reward the quality of care, rather than the quantity. Those changes are helping to make home-based palliative care a more viable option.

In San Diego, Sharp’s palliative care program has a strong incentive to reduce the cost of caring for its patients, who are all in Medicare managed care. The nonprofit health organization receives a fixed amount of money per member each month, so it can pocket what it doesn’t spend on hospital stays and other costly medical interventions.

‘Something that works’

Palliative care focuses on relieving patients’ stress, pain and other symptoms as their health declines, and it helps them maintain their quality of life. It’s for people with serious illnesses, such as cancer, dementia and heart failure. The idea is for patients to get palliative care and then move into hospice care, but they don’t always make that transition.

The 2014 report “Dying in America,” by the Institute of Medicine, recommended that all people with serious advanced illness have access to palliative care. Many hospitals now have palliative care programs, delivered by teams of social workers, chaplains, doctors and nurses, for patients who aren’t yet ready for hospice. But until recently, few such efforts had opened beyond the confines of hospitals.

Kaiser Permanente set out to address this gap nearly 20 years ago, creating a home-based palliative care program that it tested in California and later in Hawaii and Colorado. Two studies by Kaiser and others found that participants were far more likely to be satisfied with their care and more likely to die at home than those not in the program. (Kaiser Health News is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.)

One of the studies, published in 2007, found that 36 percent of people receiving palliative care at home were hospitalized in their final months, compared with 59 percent of those getting standard care. The overall cost of care for those who participated in the program was a third less than for those who didn’t.

“We thought, ‘Wow. We have something that works,'” said Susan Enguidanos, an associate professor of gerontology at the University of Southern California’s Leonard Davis School of Gerontology, who worked on both studies. “Immediately we wanted to go and change the world.”

But Enguidanos knew that Kaiser Permanente was unlike most health organizations. It was responsible for both insuring and treating its patients, so it had a clear financial motivation to improve care and control costs. Enguidanos said she talked to medical providers around the nation about this type of palliative care, but the concept didn’t take off at the time. Providers kept asking the same question: How do you pay for it without charging patients or insurers?

“I liken it to paddling out too soon for the wave,” she said. “We were out there too soon. … But we didn’t have the right environment, the right incentive.”

A bold idea, rooted in experience

Hoefer is a former hospice and home health medical director and has spent years treating elderly patients. He learned an important lesson when seeing patients in his office: Despite the medical care they received, “they were far more likely to be admitted to the hospital than make it back to see me.”

Doctors, nurses and social workers meet bimonthly to discuss patient cases for the Sharp HealthCare Transitions program in San Diego.

Heidi de Marco/Kaiser Health News

hide caption

toggle caption

Heidi de Marco/Kaiser Health News

When his patients were hospitalized, many would decline quickly. Even if their immediate symptoms were treated successfully, they would sometimes leave the hospital less able to take care of themselves. They would get infections or suffer from delirium. Some would fall.

Hoefer’s colleague, Suzi Johnson, a nurse and administrator in Sharp’s hospice program, saw the opposite side of the equation. Patients admitted into hospice care would make surprising turnarounds once they stopped going to the hospital and started getting medical and social support at home, instead. Some lived longer than doctors had expected.

In 2005, the pair hatched a bold idea: What if they could design a home-based program for patients before they were eligible for hospice? Thus, Transitions was born. They modeled their new program in part on the Kaiser experiment, then set out to persuade doctors, medical directors and financial officers to try it. But they met resistance from physicians and hospital administrators who were used to getting paid for seeing patients.

“We were doing something that was really revolutionary, that really went against the culture of health care at the time,” Johnson said. “We were inspired by the broken system and the opportunity we saw to fix something.”

Despite the concerns, Sharp’s foundation board gave the pair a $180,000 grant to test out Transitions. And in 2007, they started with heart failure patients and later expanded the program to those with advanced cancer, dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and other progressive illnesses. They started to win over some doctors who appreciated having additional eyes on their patients, but they still encountered “some skepticism about whether it was really going to do any good for our patients,” said Dr. Jeremy Hogan, a neurologist with Sharp. “It wasn’t really clear to the group … what the purpose of providing a service like this was.”

Nevertheless, Hogan referred some of his dementia patients to the program and quickly realized that the extra support for them and their families meant fewer panicked calls and emergency room trips.

Hoefer said doctors started realizing home-based care made sense for these patients — many of whom were too frail to get to a doctor’s office regularly. “At this point in the patient’s life, we should be bringing health care to the patient, not the other way around,” he said.

Across the country, more doctors, hospitals and insurers are starting to see the value of home-based palliative care, said Kathleen Kerr, a health care consultant who researches palliative care.

“It is picking up steam,” she said. “You know you are going to take better care of this population, and you are absolutely going to have lower health care costs.”

Enlarge this image

Nurse Sheri Juan and social worker Mike Velasco, take health care to the Chinchars.

Heidi de Marco/Kaiser Health News

hide caption

toggle caption

Heidi de Marco/Kaiser Health News

Providers are motivated in part by a growing body of research. Two studies of Transitions in 2013 and 2016 reaffirmed that such programs save money. The second study, led by outside evaluators, showed it saved more than $4,200 per month on cancer patients and nearly $3,500 on those with heart failure.

The biggest differences occurred in the final two months of life, said one of the researchers, Brian Cassel, who is palliative care research director at the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine in Richmond.

A home visit tailored to each family

Nurse Sheri Juan and social worker Mike Velasco, who both work for Sharp, walked up a wooden ramp to the Chinchars’ front door one recent January morning. Juan rolled a small suitcase behind her containing a blood pressure cuff, a stethoscope, books, a laptop computer and a printer.

Late last year, Gerald Chinchar’s doctor recommended he enroll in Transitions, explaining that his health was in a “tenuous position.” Chinchar has nine grandchildren and four great-grandchildren. He has had breathing problems much of his life, suffering from asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease — ailments he partly attributes to the four decades he spent painting and sandblasting fuel tanks for work. Chinchar also recently learned he had heart failure.

“I never knew I had any heart trouble,” he said. “That was the only good thing I had going for me.”

Enlarge this image

Gerald Chinchar’s wife, Mary Jo (right), told the visiting nurse she especially appreciates getting the advice about what her husband should eat and drink. He doesn’t always listen to his wife, Mary Jo said. “It’s better to come from somebody else.”

Heidi de Marco/Kaiser Health New

hide caption

toggle caption

Heidi de Marco/Kaiser Health New

Now he’s trying to figure out how to keep it from getting worse: How much should he drink? What is he supposed to eat?

That’s where Juan comes in. Her job is to make sure the Chinchars understand Gerald’s disease so he doesn’t have a flare-up that could send him to the emergency room. She sat beside the couple in their living room and asked a series of questions: Any pain today? How is your breathing?

Juan checked his blood pressure and examined his feet and legs for signs of more swelling. She looked through his medications and told him which ones the doctor wanted him to stop taking.

“What we like to do as a palliative care program is streamline your medication list,” she told him. “They may be doing more harm than good.”

His wife, Mary Jo Chinchar, said she appreciates the visits, especially the advice about what Gerald should eat and drink. Her husband doesn’t always listen to her, she said. “It’s better to come from somebody else.”

Growing acceptance of palliative care

Chinchar (left) is now 77. He told nurse Sheri Juan he never expected to live into old age. In his family, he said, “you’re an old-timer if you make 60.”

Heidi de Marco/Kaiser Health News

hide caption

toggle caption

Heidi de Marco/Kaiser Health News

Outpatient palliative care programs are cropping up in various forms. Some new ones are run by insurers, others by health systems or hospice organizations. Others are for-profit, including Aspire Health, which was started by former senator Bill Frist in 2013.

Sutter Health operates a project called Advanced Illness Management to help patients manage symptoms and medications and plan for the future. The University of Southern California and Blue Shield of California recently received a $5 million grant to provide and study outpatient care. “The climate has changed for palliative care,” said Enguidanos, the lead investigator on the USC-Blue Shield project.

Ritchie said she expects even more home-based programs in the years to come. “My expectation is that much of what is being done in the hospital won’t need to be done in the hospital anymore and it can be done in people’s homes,” she said.

Challenges remain, however. Some doctors are unfamiliar with the approach, and patients may be reluctant, especially those who haven’t clearly been told they have a terminal diagnosis. Now, some palliative care providers and researchers worry about the impact of President Donald Trump’s plans to repeal the Affordable Care Act and revamp Medicare — efforts that seem to be back in play.

Gerald Chinchar, who grew up in Connecticut, said he never expected to live into old age. In his family, Chinchar said, “you’re an old-timer if you make 60.”

Chinchar said he gave up drinking and is trying to eat less of his favorite foods — steak sandwiches and fish and chips. He just turned 77, a milestone he credits partly to the pre-hospice program.

“If I make 80, I figured I did pretty good,” he said. “And if I make 80, I’ll shoot for 85.”

This story is part of NPR’s partnership with Kaiser Health News. KHN is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan health policy research and communication organization not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente. You can follow Anna Gorman on Twitter: @annagorman.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

New Health Care Bill Needs Moderate Republicans' Support — What Do They Want?

NPR’s Audie Cornish talks with moderate Republican Congressman Leonard Lance of New Jersey about what he’s looking for in the new health care bill.

AUDIE CORNISH, HOST:

As we mentioned, the GOP health care plan as it now stands would allow states to opt out of certain rules under Obamacare. States could choose not to require insurers to cover what’s known as essential health benefits, and they could get rid of the ban on charging higher premiums to people with pre-existing conditions. Now, for this latest version of the bill to go anywhere, it’ll have to get support from more moderate Republicans, and so far, not enough have signed on.

Leonard Lance, Republican congressman from New Jersey, is one who remains opposed. He joins the program now. Congressman, welcome to the program.

LEONARD LANCE: Thank you, Audie, for having me.

CORNISH: Now, the amendment put forth yesterday was negotiated in part by your fellow New Jersey congressman Tom MacArthur, a self-described moderate. Can you talk about why you can’t get on board with it?

LANCE: I favor legislation that reduces premiums for the American people and certainly continuation of no denial of coverage based upon a pre-existing condition. And I don’t think the legislation, either in the form in which it existed before the Easter recess or in the current form, is good enough in either of those areas. And that is why I continue to oppose it.

CORNISH: So you flagged particularly that issue of states being allowed to say, hey, we want to be able to let insurers charge higher premiums in our state for people who have so-called pre-existing conditions.

LANCE: Yes, and New Jersey has the state legislation that would prohibit that, but I don’t think this should be something that is different state to state. Health care insurance should be both accessible and affordable.

That doesn’t mean that there aren’t challenges with the ACA. I see significant challenges, particularly regarding the exchanges. And I challenge our Democratic colleagues to come to the table because I do think that we need to reform the ACA, and I hope that we can do that in a bipartisan way.

CORNISH: To your point earlier, you know, House Speaker Paul Ryan said today that this would all give states greater flexibility, that a cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all health system doesn’t work for America. I mean, what’s your response to that? I mean, why shouldn’t you be able to decide in New Jersey what you want and someone else in Mississippi or Kentucky decide something else?

LANCE: I don’t favor a cookie-cutter approach, and I agree with the speaker to the extent that the states should have the ability to be innovative. I do think there is a responsibility, however, to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can purchase policies at an affordable rate.

The whole concept of insurance is to spread the risk, and spreading the risk means that those with pre-existing conditions will have to pay for coverage, but the payments should not be so great that, in fact, there is not accessibility.

CORNISH: Now, the head of the conservative advocacy group Club for Growth, David McIntosh, has said that, quote, “many GOP moderates who stand in the way at this point are proving that they simply don’t want to keep their campaign promises to get rid of Obamacare.” What’s your response to that?

LANCE: I have campaigned repeatedly on what is known as repeal and replace, not simply repeal. This is documented. And I’ve also campaigned repeatedly on making sure that there’s no denial of coverage based upon a pre-existing condition. I have always stated that, and I continue to state that.

CORNISH: You mentioned earlier about hoping Democrats would come aboard. But, you know, I think a Democrat watching this would see what kind of trouble moderates (laughter) Republican moderates are going through right now, the kind of pressure and focus, and it doesn’t look like there’s a lot of room for negotiation. I mean, what do you see?

LANCE: I hope there is always room for negotiation. And the fact that in one-third of the counties in this country, not one-third of the population, but one-third of the counties, largely in rural America, there is only one insurer in the exchanges is very concerning to me.

In New Jersey, we originally had five insurers for the exchange. We’re now down to two. And that is why I hope that at some point – and I would hope at some point soon – the Democrats might come to the table on this issue.

CORNISH: Republican Congressman Leonard Lance of New Jersey, thank you for speaking with ALL THINGS CONSIDERED.

LANCE: Thank you very much, Audie.

(SOUNDBITE OF DR. DRE SONG, “XXPLOSIVE – INSTRUMENTAL VERSION”)

Copyright © 2017 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Overlooked Drug Could Save Thousands Of Moms After Childbirth

Enlarge this image

Postpartum hemorrhage is the leading cause of maternal deaths around the world.

Thomas Fredberg/Getty Images/Science Photo Library

hide caption

toggle caption

Thomas Fredberg/Getty Images/Science Photo Library

Back in the 1960s, a woman doctor in Japan created a powerful drug to help mothers who hemorrhage after childbirth.

The medicine is inexpensive to make. Safe to use. And stops bleeding quickly by helping keep naturally forming blood clots intact.

The drug’s inventor, Utako Okamoto, hoped the drug called tranexamic acid would be used to help save moms’ lives.

Every year about 100,000 women around the world die of blood loss soon after a baby is born. It’s the biggest cause of maternal death worldwide.

“It was Okamoto’s dream to save women,” says Haleema Shakur, who directs clinical trials at London School of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. “But she couldn’t convince doctors to test the drug on postpartum hemorrhaging.”

And so tranexamic acid has gone largely unused in maternity wards for decades.

Until now.

In a massive international trial, Shakur and her collaborators have shown that tranexamic acid decreased the risk of death from blood loss associated with childbirth by about a third. (Previous studies have looked at the drug’s use in reducing bleeding deaths after traumatic injuries.)

In the study, women who were diagnosed with heavy bleeding, or postpartum hemorrhage, after a vaginal birth or cesarean sectionreceived either the drug or a placebo.

About 1.2 percent of women who got tranexamic acid within three hours of a hemorrhage died, compared with 1.7 percent of the women who got the placebo.

Side effects weren’t a serious problem. The medicine didn’t increase the risk of dying of other causes during the procedure, Shakur and her colleagues report in The Lancet journal.

The study included 20,000 women, in nearly 200 hospitals, across 21 countries, including rich ones, like the U.K., and poorer ones, like Pakistan and Nigeria.

The medicine is inexpensive. It cost about $3 in the U.K., and a quarter of that in Pakistan, for instance.

“If you can save a life for approximately $3, then I believe that’s worth doing,” Shakur says.

It’s rare to have a new tool for helping women during childbirth, says Felicia Lester, an OB-GYN at the University of California, San Francisco, who also works in Uganda and Kenya.

“I think the study is exciting,” she says. “I’m usually cautious in saying that. But it looks like tranexamic acid has the potential to save lives.”

The drug even helped women when doctors used it along with other common medications, such as oxytocin, says Margaret Kruk, a global health researcher at Harvard University.

“Tranexamic acid offers an additional benefit above and beyond what is being done for women already,” she says.

Now, though, the big question is how to make sure this drug is available for women who need it the most — women in the poor, remote areas of the world, where maternal mortality is the highest.

That’s, I think, the million dollar question,” Kruk says. “We in global health have a number of tools that seem very effective in large clinical trials. But then when it comes time to use them for all women, we see very large gaps in implementation.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Changes To Federal Insurance Plans Could Hurt Families Of Chronically Ill Kids

Enlarge this image

Roughly 2 million of the kids covered by the Children’s Health Insurance Program have a chronic health condition, such as asthma.

LSOphoto/Getty Images/iStockphoto

hide caption

toggle caption

LSOphoto/Getty Images/iStockphoto

Kids with chronic conditions are especially vulnerable to health insurance changes, relying as they often do on specialists and medications that may not be covered if they switch plans. A recent study finds that these transitions can leave kids and their families financially vulnerable as well.

The research, published in the April issue of Health Affairs, examines the spending impact of shifting chronically ill kids from the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) to policies offered on the marketplaces established under the federal health law. The out-of-pocket costs to these children’s families would likely rise — in some cases dramatically — following a change to marketplace coverage, the study finds.

The research comes at a time when health insurance issues are on the front burner in Congress. Republican lawmakers are pushing for fundamental changes to the marketplaces and to the Medicaid program. At the same time, Congress must soon decide whether to extend CHIP when its funding ends in September.

Together the state-federal Medicaid and CHIP programs insure 46 million low-income children. CHIP covers kids whose family income is low, but too high to qualify for Medicaid.

The eligibility levels vary by state. Half of states set the upper income eligibility limit at 255 percent of the federal poverty level or higher (about $52,000 for a family of three). Both programs provide comprehensive coverage for children with little or no out-of-pocket cost to families.

Since passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, some policy analysts have advocated moving children who are enrolled in CHIP into marketplace plans and dismantling the CHIP program. But earlier evaluations found, as does this study, that CHIP coverage is better and cheaper than marketplace coverage, said Joan Alker, executive director of the Georgetown Center for Children and Families.

CHIP is much smaller than Medicaid, with more than 8 million children enrolled. Roughly 2 million have one of six chronic health conditions, including asthma, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, diabetes, epilepsy, mood disorders and developmental disorders such as autism, according to the study.

Using data compiled from state CHIP programs and marketplace plans for 2016 and health care use data from the federal Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys from 2008 to 2013, researchers simulated the annual out-of-pocket costs for children with these six chronic conditions if they were enrolled in CHIP versus one of the plans sold on the marketplaces operated by the federal government.

The spending differences were stark. For every chronic condition and at every income level, cost sharing was higher for children enrolled in marketplace plans than for those in CHIP.

Take the case of asthma, the most common condition that researchers modeled. For a child with asthma, whose family income was between 100 and 150 percent of the federal poverty level (about $20,000 to $30,000 for a family of three), annual out-of-pocket spending on deductibles and copays would be $284 in a marketplace plan, compared with $27 in CHIP — a difference of $257.

At higher incomes, the out-of-pocket spending differences were greater. Families with incomes between 251 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level (about $51,000 to $81,000 for a family of three) would pay $1,227 out-of-pocket annually if they were enrolled in a marketplace plan but just $84 in the CHIP program — a difference of $1,143 for the year.

“The lowest income families were relatively well protected by cost-sharing reductions” in marketplace plans, said Amy Davidoff, who is a senior research scientist in the Department of Health Policy and Management at the Yale School of Public Health and one of the study’s co-authors.

Those cost-sharing subsidies (which reduce a plan’s deductible, copayments and coinsurance) are available to marketplace customers with incomes up to 250 percent of the federal poverty level (about $51,000 for three people).

These Obamacare subsidies are now the subject of a lawsuit, however, and their fate is unclear.

As family income rises, the gap between the out-of-pocket costs for the two different types of coverage increases and becomes quite substantial, Davidoff said. “For these families, it would be huge barrier,” she said.

The deductible — the amount that people have to pay on their own before insurance covers most services — was a significant factor in the cost differences. The average deductible in marketplace plans for families with incomes between 251 and 400 percent of poverty was $3,126. None of the CHIP programs for families at that income level had deductibles, the study found.

Noting that CHIP has a history of strong bipartisan support, Alker said she is hopeful that federal lawmakers will extend the program.

“I think it would be very hard for Congress to let CHIP expire,” she said, “and put those children into the marketplace, when according to their leaders it’s about to fold.”

Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent news service that is part of the nonpartisan Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. You’ll find Michelle Andrews on Twitter @mandrews110.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Is It Time For Hearing Aids To Be Sold Over The Counter?

Companies are trying to make hearing aids more chic and less cumbersome.
Enlarge this image

Kristen Uroda for NPR

Four out of five older Americans with hearing loss just ignore it, in part because a hearing aid is an unwelcome sign of aging. But what if hearing aids looked like stylish fashion accessories and could be bought at your local pharmacy like reading glasses?

That’s the vision of Kristen “KR” Liu, who’s the director of accessibility and advocacy for Doppler Labs, a company marketing one of these devices. She thinks a hearing aid could be “something that’s hip and cool and people have multiple pairs and it’s fashionable.”

Liu, who has severe hearing loss herself, helped design a device designed to let people with hearing loss blend in. One person may be using the technology to stream music or take a phone call, she says. Another may be wearing it to amplify speech and hear the conversation. “And no one is going to know the difference,” Liu says. “So you’re wearing technology in your ear, proudly.”

The device is a small circular instrument that fits snugly in the ear. It can be adjusted to individual hearing using a smartphone app to control volume, cut out background noise or turn up the sound in a theater. “It’s pretty much a hearing aid,” says Liu, except the company isn’t allowed to call it that.

That’s because the Food and Drug Administration, which regulates medical devices, doesn’t allow hearing aids to be sold over the counter. So devices sold directly to consumers are marketed as “personal sound amplification products,” or PSAPs. They range in price from about $250 to $350 and are considerably cheaper than hearing aids, which can cost up to $6,000 and are typically not covered by Medicare or most private insurance companies. Hearing aids are customized by a hearing specialist such as an audiologist, following a hearing test.

PSAPs can only be marketed as sound amplifiers for people with normal hearing who want to make things louder, like music or the sounds of birds chirping. Hearing loss advocates believe this means people with mild to moderate hearing loss who could benefit from the devices don’t know about them. There are dozens of the devices on the market, but their quality varies wildly, as an analysis of 11 of them last year for hearing care professionals shows. And there’s no easy way for potential purchasers to figure out which work best.

The Hearing Loss Association of America, a consumer group, wants Congress to create a new category of aids for people with mild to moderate hearing loss by passing the Over-the-Counter Hearing Aid Act of 2017. (People with severe hearing loss would still need to be seen by a medical professional.) The bill would direct the FDA to come up with safety and effectiveness standards for these new hearing aids.

The FDA is already moving in that direction, and in December said it would no longer require adults to be medically evaluated before buying a hearing aid. Proponents of direct-to-consumer sales hope congressional action would get the FDA moving faster. A 2016 report from the National Academies of Sciences also endorsed allowing over-the-counter sales.

This could be life-changing for people with hearing loss, says Richard Einhorn, a composer of modern classical music who is on the board of the Hearing Loss Association of America.

Early one morning in 2010, he woke up with his ears ringing — a loud, piercing hiss. “I hit the panic button,” Einhorn says. “I jumped out of bed and immediately fell over onto the floor.”

An inner ear infection, likely a virus, had caused him to lose his balance. He went deaf in his right ear. He already had some hearing loss in his left ear. His hearing aids cost $5,000 and were not covered by insurance.

Enlarge this image

Composer Richard Einhorn, who says paying for hearing aids was a struggle on a musician’s income, supports efforts to gain FDA approval for cheaper devices.

Kevin Rivoli/AP

hide caption

toggle caption

Kevin Rivoli/AP

“I’m a composer, for goodness sake,” Einhorn says. “This is not an easy purchase to scrounge up the money for.”

Opening up the hearing aid market would foster competition and drive prices down, says Einhorn.

It would also encourage companies to come up with new and better products, says Liu. She envisions a future that solves one of the biggest problems for many people — hearing in a noisy environment, like a party or a busy restaurant. She wants a hearing aid that would automatically adjust to different sound environments, so she could hear the person talking to her and not the background distraction.

“Nothing like that exists today,” Liu says. “But I very much see something like that down the road.”

Some audio specialists support rolling back regulations, while others are skeptical.

Hearing loss is complex, says Neil DiSarno, chief staff officer for audiology at the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. This makes it difficult for consumers to “self-evaluate, self-treat and self-monitor,” he says. If people buy their hearing aids directly over the counter, they’ll miss out on all the skills audiologists can teach them, like how to lip read and how to distinguish high frequency sounds, he says.

The market for over-the-counter hearing aids could be huge. More than 35 million Americans have some degree of hearing loss. And for older Americans, not dealing with the problem can have a big impact on age-related cognitive decline, says Dr. Frank Lin, associate professor of otolaryngology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Lin has done studies looking at the link between hearing loss and cognitive decline.

“The greater the hearing loss, the greater the risk of loss of thinking and memory abilities over time,” he says, which can lead to feelings of insecurity and social isolation — a known risk factor for dementia.

Lin says his findings should serve as a “wake-up call” for policymakers. If people have easier access to more affordable hearing aids, he says, that could lead to benefits that go far beyond hearing.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Rep. Dan Donovan On The New GOP Health Care Overhaul Effort

House Republicans failed to coalesce around a health care overhaul in March. NPR’s Mary Louise Kelly asks Rep. Dan Donovan, R-N.Y., if the party’s conservative and moderate wings can compromise.

MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST:

We begin this hour with rumblings that a health care bill may be back on the table. You’ll recall that didn’t go so well back in March. Last month, Republicans tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act. That would be President Obama’s signature health care law. But conservative Freedom Caucus Republicans could not reach a compromise with their more moderate colleagues, so might this new push fare better? Republican Congressman Dan Donovan is on the line. He represents Staten Island and parts of Brooklyn. And he opposed the March bill, saying it wouldn’t negatively affect his constituents. Congressman, good morning.

DAN DONOVAN: Good morning, Mary Louise. Thanks for having me on today.

KELLY: We are glad to have you on today. Have you seen this new health care proposal? Is it clear to you what’s different?

DONOVAN: We haven’t seen all of it. There was an amendment that was dropped by a member of the Freedom Caucus and a member of the more moderate Tuesday Group on Thursday. But I am sure there’s other modifications, tweaks, amendments that the staff has been working on to try to get this to a 216 vote.

KELLY: OK, so the 216 that would be needed to get it out of the House. Well, from what you have seen, has it changed enough from the March version to win your vote?

DONOVAN: It hasn’t, Mary Louise. It maybe…

KELLY: It has not.

DONOVAN: There may be other people who these modifications help get them from a no vote to a yes vote, but for the people I represent – I’m the only Republican member of New York City. This is a very harmful bill to New York City. It’s going to add tax burdens to city residents without receiving any further benefits. What it was going to do to seniors – allowing insurance companies to charge seniors five times as much as they charge a young healthy person. Right now, the law’s three times as much, so – at a time when seniors are working, living on a more moderate and limited income at a time in their lives when they probably need the health care more than they need in their early years. I think this is going to be harmful to them.

KELLY: So those are – and these are the same concerns that you were expressing back in March – that you thought this would be harmful to your constituents. Based on the parts you’ve seen, does this new version address some of the concerns that the Freedom Caucus Republicans had?

DONOVAN: It may have. I think it’s going to give states some more freedoms to waive out of allowing companies to give affordable and essential health care benefits. They’re going to need more wiggle room for the states to decide what’s best for people in their states. And essential benefits was one of the sticking points, so now states can opt out of covering those. I think some of the folks who were no votes may become yes votes just for that one issue.

KELLY: It sounds like this newest plan to overhaul health care is very much a moving target. Like, you’re going to have an interesting week coming up.

DONOVAN: I believe so. We also have to deal with this – the federal – the continuing resolution that’s keeping the federal government running.

KELLY: This is…

DONOVAN: We return to Congress on Tuesday and that expires on Friday, so I suspect that’s going to be the first thing on the plate to continue our government running after Friday. But the president has an ambitious agenda. He wants to do health care. He wants to do tax reform. He wants to get the infrastructure, which I’m sure is a priority of his. And so we’re going to go back to work. And I’m sure Congress could do more than one thing at a time, but I just want to get it right rather than getting it passed.

KELLY: And as you mentioned, you’ve got four days next week – these two huge things looming on the horizon – trying to keep the federal government from running out of money and putting a health care plan back on the table – which prompts the question – why try this health care overhaul again now?

DONOVAN: I think, Mary Louise, that to get to some of the other items, we’ve been told that you have to do health care first. There’s tax ramifications and any kind of repeal of the Affordable Care Act – eliminating the individual mandate and that employer mandate that’s going to have tax implications, so you have to do health care before you get to tax reform.

And I also think that when you look at a congressional year, when you look at a Congress, you really have two years to get things done. The entire House will be up for re-election next year. A third of Senate will be up next year. And although I’ve only been there for two years now, I suspect more work gets done during the first year than the second year in a Congress. And so I think the president realizes this and wants to get these three huge items done. And we really don’t have time to delay any of them.

KELLY: In just a few seconds, cynics might wonder whether part of getting health care back on the table is that the president’s 100-day mark is coming up. Is this – is this, in some way, a push to get a big, visible win out on the table in advance of that?

DONOVAN: That may be a part of it. Every president in recent history’s been measuring their accomplishments in their first hundred days. I think the president really wants to get this done with. He has three things to do in one calendar year. He knows how difficult that is. And so I think part of it may be the hundred-day review of his successes so far. But I really think you must get these three things done before we start to – we get these done in this calendar year.

KELLY: That’s Congressman Dan Donovan. He represents part of New York City, and, Congressmen – in Congress. Congressman, thanks so much.

DONOVAN: Thank you.

Copyright © 2017 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)