CHENEY'S HEART AND THE NATIONS HEALTH?
BY JULIANNE MALVEAUX
Vice-President Dick Cheney is auditioning for Iron Man. One day, he is
smiling his way through a press conferences announcing that he will receive a
pacemaker, and a scant three days later, he is back on his job, with his boss
joking about doing jumping jacks for the press. To facilitate his work
schedule, his surgery took place on Saturday, but he made it to work by
Monday at 7:45 in the morning, to an agenda of policy briefings, radio
interviews, and photo opportunities. Presumably, these moves are designed to
reassure us that the Vice-President is capable of maintaining a full
schedule. With Congress out of session for its Fourth of July recess,
though, it is clear that Cheney’s full first-day-back schedule is more about
appearances than necessity.
For me, though, the Vice-President’s rushed heart surgery raises
questions about the quality of health care that he is getting, and the health
care that the rest of us get. It is certainly appropriate that those who
care for the second most powerful man in the world take a “money is no
object” approach to his care. Others with similar heart problems probably
have to undergo a battery of tests before getting a defibrillator. It is
likely that they will need two or three approvals (and have to wait several
months) before their health maintenance organization authorizes their
surgery. They may not get to choose their surgeon, or the hospital where
their surgery takes place. And, their HMO may try to cut corners by giving
them generic drugs instead of name-brand medicines. While the medical care
Mr. Cheney got was probably the best, too many Americans have to settle for
something less than that. According to the Washington, DC based Economic
Policy Institute, while 71.9 percent of all private sector workers had health
insurance coverage in 1980, that number had dropped to 63.1 percent by 1999.
The numbers were lower – 58 and 44 percent – for African American and
Hispanic workers, and below 30 percent for the nation’s poorest workers.
All told, more than 40 million Americans do not have health insurance
coverage.
I don’t begrudge Vice-President Cheney decent health care. I’ll even stifle
the temptation to make snide remarks, simply noting that perhaps a
defibrillator can pump some compassion into the heart of a man who voted
against Head Start. But I am concerned that the Bush administration sets up
a double standard when it offers the best care for insiders, but advocates
against the rest of us getting anything near the best. In particular, Mr.
Bush’s opposition to the Patient’s Bill of Rights that passed the Senate next
week is disappointing. While few patients look forward to suing their health
care provider, the ability to sue gives patients some leverage when health
maintenance organizations and insurers deny health care. Mr. Bush cites
cost as his concern. Would cost be a consideration if his care, that of his
family, or his Vice-President was at stake?
The Patient’s Bill of Rights ensures that all Americans with public or
private health insurance have access to emergency care, medical specialists
and clinical drug trials. In other words, it guarantees all patients some of
the benefits that Vice-President Cheney enjoyed. Passage of this legislation
has been the Democrats’ priority since they took over the Senate a month ago.
The bill’s authors, Senators Edward Kennedy (D-Ma), John Edwards (D-NC) and
John McCain (R-Arizona) had to accept some compromises to get the bill passed
59-36. They had to agree to limit class action lawsuits against HMOs, and to
force patients with legal concerns to wait at least a month before going to
court. Even with the compromises, though, the Patient’s Bill of Rights is an
improvement over the current status of health care access for many Americans.
It is likely to increase people’s peace of mind, and motivate health
maintenance organizations to be more careful before they deny care to
patients.
Many health insurance companies say they will have to boost their costs –
which they pass on to employers – in order to afford the increased costs of
the Patient’s Bill of rights. But in West Virginia, Texas, and Oklahoma,
states that provide patients with the right to sue their HMOs, court dockets
have not been filled with health-related cases. Instead, grievance
procedures have been developed so that patients can have more input into the
type of care they receive.
Our nation’s health care system will experience increased pressure as the
baby boom ages. While we all won’t be able to afford the quality of care the
Vice-President received, the president ought to have a heart, sign the
Patient’s Bill of Rights, to improve all of our health.