Each day, over 250 people visit the emergency room at Woodhull Medical
Center in Brooklyn. And each day the hospital loses more than $75,000
treating them -- adding up to more than $27 million a year. If Governor George Pataki and President George W. Bush have their way with the state and federal budgets, Woodhull will be losing even more -- and it and other New York hospitals might be sent over the edge.
Pataki's proposed budget for New York State, released in January,
contains sharp cuts for Medicaid. New York's program is the country's
largest, and Pataki argues that costs must be brought under control.
His proposals to do so, however, will cost New York City hospitals $341
million next year, according to the Healthcare Association of New
York State, a trade association for health care providers. The loss for Woodhull alone could be $15 million (on top of the $27 million.) The association says these costs would be devastating to a struggling industry in which eight hospitals already have been forced to close in the city since 2003.
Pataki's plans are not the only thing worrying health care advocates,
though, nor is Medicaid the only concern. Decisions about New York
City's public health insurance programs are made at the state and
federal levels (the city, while it does foot a portion of the bill, has
essentially no say over how these programs are run; its own budget will
not really affect them.) So it was another blow when President George
Bush laid out his budget for the forthcoming fiscal year earlier this
month: he called for significantly reduced funding for Medicare, the
country's other major public health insurance program.
"This year our concern is the governor's budget in relationship with
the president's budget," said William Van Slyke of the Healthcare
Association of New York State. "It's a one-two punch to hospitals."
THE STATE BUDGET
When he presented his budget, Governor George Pataki proclaimed his
dedication to health care:
"[New York] must continue to invest in a health care system that is
second to none," he said. "And as part of that endeavor, we have to
redouble our efforts to control the growth of Medicaid spending."
At an annual cost of $44.5 billion, New
York's Medicaid program
is the single most expensive item in the
state's budget. Unlike other states, New York's Medicaid program also
affects local governments, which Albany asks to share the costs. When
Mayor Bloomberg complains of uncontrollable items in the city's budget, Medicaid ranks high on the list.
The governor wants to continue a program he started last year that caps
the amount local governments contribute to Medicaid. He estimates that
this will save New York City $750 million this year alone.
Shifting costs from local to state government, however, does nothing to
address the overall cost of Medicaid. For that, Pataki hopes to cut
down on widespread fraud by
setting up an independent office where 600 people will work full time
investigating it. While establishing this office will cost $15 million,
Pataki thinks it will end up saving the state money.
The governor's budget also includes $1.3 billion in cuts to Medicaid,
and health care advocates are particularly concerned with his plan to
change the way that hospitals are reimbursed for providing care to
patients in the program.
For years, hospitals have argued that they are losing money each time a
Medicaid patient shows up in the emergency room, because it costs more
to treat him or her than the hospital is paid to do so. At Woodhull,
for instance, the average cost of an emergency room visit is $411. But
the maximum reimbursement the hospital can get for a Medicaid patient
is only $95. The governor's budget would make the problem even worse,
say health care advocates.
The Healthcare Association of New York State estimates that hospitals
in the state will lose $431 million if the proposed budget is approved.
New York City, which has a disproportionate amount of Medicaid
patients, will be hit hardest: the city's hospitals will have to absorb
80 percent of the statewide losses.
This comes at a time when hospitals are already struggling. "Statewide,
they have lost money for targeted investments in emergency room, outpatient, and long term care
services," he told
state lawmakers earlier this month.
A state commission is already looking at how to address the poor
financial performance of the industry, and will almost surely recommend
closing hospitals at the end of the year.
More cuts could cause some hospitals to cut back on services or shut down
THE FEDERAL BUDGET
President Bush seems even more concerned about the cost of public
health care programs than Pataki. His budget calls Medicare and
Medicaid (along with Social Security) "the greatest threat to our
fiscal health over the long term."
The proposed federal budget mixes spending cuts
with tax incentives that Bush hopes will help lead the country towards
a more market-based health care system.
The president's budget proposes $36 billion in savings to Medicare.
Joshua Bolton, his budget director, was careful to say that these savings will not be
cuts but a "reduction in the rate of growth." Still, the impact on
New York City hospitals is slated to be $356 million over the next five
years, according to the Healthcare Association of New York State.
This budget also hints at a more fundamental shift in the way the
government helps provide health insurance by including tax incentives
for health savings accounts. The White House estimates that these
incentives will cost the federal government $59 billion over the next
five years. But by allowing people to put money away tax-free to pay
for health care, the Bush administration argues, health savings
accounts will eventually lower overall health spending by encouraging
people to make smarter decisions about seeking health care. Critics,
however, believe that these savings come by encouraging people to skip
necessary health care.
NOW THE NEGOTIATIONS BEGIN
"If both these budgets were enacted as proposed," said Van Slyke of the
Healthcare Association of New York State, "we would absolutely lose
more hospitals. There is no doubt about it."
Of course, the chances that either budget will be enacted as proposed
are slim. The governor and the president have made their
opening volleys; they will now spend the next several months
negotiating with lawmakers about which provisions stay and which are
At both the federal and state levels, it doesn’t seem as if reductions
in health care costs will be easily approved. Pataki's proposals are
similar to those he has made in recent years, which the state legislature has
regularly rejected. Further, many are saying that the president will
also have a hard time trying to get Congress to agree to reduce
spending on popular programs. It is, after all, an election year.
The comments section is provided as a free service to our readers. Gotham Gazette's editors reserve the right to delete any comments. Some reasons why comments might get deleted: inappropriate or offensive content, off-topic remarks or spam.