Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Me belief is that it has to do with the quality of the care they are receiving.
It's not always about turn-around. How many patients they process every day/night.
Crappy care results in readmission.
The same thing happens to Medicaid patients. Why haven't the same restrictions and limits been placed on their medical care?
Because Obama is targeting a specific demographic: those who have already paid into the system for years.
I already did provide a link. There is no mention of cutting Medicaid patients' access to readmission after illness or surgery. Obamacare only screws Medicare seniors.
I meant a link for this "extremely high" medicaid readmission rate.
Fining a hospital for Medicare readmissions will cut off access to readmissions for Medicare patients.
Then why aren't the same penalties, limits, and restrictions applied to Medicaid patients? Federal tax dollars pay for 50% of Medicaid.
It's bad when it targets only a certain demographic who has already paid for years to receive medical care after retirement.
Target Medicaid. Medicaid recipients aren't required to pay anything at all for the medical benefits they receive, unlike Medicare seniors.
Clearly we will have to agree to disagree.
However, a few details that everyone should be aware of since it seems so important to make this about Medicaid vs. Medicare:
"Medicare, which pays for medical services for people over 65, does not cover nursing home care. Most private long-term care policies do, but only about 3 percent of adults carry such coverage. Thus, Medicaid remains the nation's number one funding source for long-term care, paying for more than 40 percent of nursing home services, according to Boston College researchers.
...
With nursing home costs running as much as $80,000 a year, many middle-class people apply for Medicaid after they essentially bankrupt themselves paying for care. Others use provisions in the law that allow them to place assets in a trust so they can qualify for Medicaid."
"Medicaid is often associated with low-income children and adults. Seventy-five percent of Medicaid beneficiaries fall into those categories. But Medicaid also pays for Medicare costs and long-term care for about 6 million seniors who can no longer afford it themselves.
Providing good care to seniors in Medicaid is often quite expensive. While seniors are only 10 percent of Medicaid beneficiaries, they accounted for 23 percent of Medicaid spending last year. Medicaid spends more than five times as much for the average senior receiving long-term care as it does for the care of the average low-income child."
If this truly were a care-improving, cost-cutting policy instead of an outright attack once again on the productive and contributing members of society, Medicaid would have been hit with the same fines, limits, and restrictions.
Since it's not, we know that Obama and his supporters are yet again attacking those productive and contributing members of society who have already paid their way.
If this truly were a care-improving, cost-cutting policy instead of an outright attack once again on the productive and contributing members of society, Medicaid would have been hit with the same fines, limits, and restrictions.
Since it's not, we know that Obama and his supporters are yet again attacking those productive and contributing members of society who have already paid their way.
Again, as Medicaid is administered by the states, it is up to the states to enact those policies, as, for example, MA did last year:
And again, you keep insisting that everyone on Medicaid is not a productive, contributing member of society, somehow completely ignoring the fact that many people old enough to receive Medicare also receive Medicaid.
Why is that?
If this truly were a care-improving, cost-cutting policy instead of an outright attack once again on the productive and contributing members of society, Medicaid would have been hit with the same fines, limits, and restrictions.
Since it's not, we know that Obama and his supporters are yet again attacking those productive and contributing members of society who have already paid their way.
Is it really your assertion (and the assertion of every republican on this board) that concern over potentially preventable Medicare readmissions is the brainchild of President Obama and only this current administration?
Again, as Medicaid is administered by the states, it is up to the states to enact those policies
No. Congress may pass legislation to change the Medicaid statute and has program oversight responsibilities. Since Medicaid’s enactment in 1965, Congress has made numerous statutory changes to the Medicaid program.The federal government pays for 50% of Medicaid AND sets policies and statutes.
Quote:
And again, you keep insisting that everyone on Medicaid is not a productive, contributing member of society, somehow completely ignoring the fact that many people old enough to receive Medicare also receive Medicaid. Why is that?
Think really hard about why the source I posted cut the Medicaid stats off after age 64 and all of the patients age 65+ are listed under Medicare.
Is it really your assertion (and the assertion of every republican on this board) that concern over potentially preventable Medicare readmissions is the brainchild of President Obama and only this current administration?
Stop acting like this is a brand-new subject with regard to quality of care and cost containment.
It's not a new subject, but Obama has targeted only a specific group for cuts in access to necessary medical care.
I've already shown that non-maternal Medicaid recipients age 18-64 have higher readmission rates, but Obamacare doesn't limit or restrict their access to necessary medical care.
No. Congress may pass legislation to change the Medicaid statute and has program oversight responsibilities. Since Medicaid’s enactment in 1965, Congress has made numerous statutory changes to the Medicaid program.The federal government pays for 50% of Medicaid AND sets policies and statutes.
Think really hard about why the source I posted cut the Medicaid stats off after age 64 and all of the patients age 65+ are listed under Medicare.
Because Medicare is the default?
Again:
"Medicaid is the primary payer for an estimated 63.6 percent of all nursing home residents. In all states but one, Medicaid is the primary payer for more than 50 percent of nursing home residents.
In seven states and the District of Columbia, Medicaid is the primary payer for more than 70 percent of all nursing home residents. Those states are the District of Columbia (80.1%), Mississippi (74.7%), Alaska (73.8%), Louisiana (73.0%), New York (72.3%), West Virginia (72.2%), Georgia (71.9%), and Hawaii (70.1%)."
Yes. When Medicaid recipients turn 65, they enroll in Medicare.
Quote:
"Medicaid is the primary payer for an estimated 63.6 percent of all nursing home residents. In all states but one, Medicaid is the primary payer for more than 50 percent of nursing home residents.
None of that means Medicaid recipients ever paid into the system.
And it has nothing to do with the fact that Obama is limiting and restricting readmissions for Medicare patients, but NOT for Medicaid 18-64 year-olds who actually have HIGHER readmission rates than Medicare patients.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
