Patient Power

Tough luck for the poor in Massachusetts

From the New York Times:

The difficulties in receiving care were severest among low-income residents, who have gained the most from expanded access under the state’s law, passed in 2006. It requires most residents to have health insurance and provides state-subsidized plans for the poor.  …

But the study, which was scheduled for publication Thursday in the journal Health Affairs, found that increased demand for care from the newly insured was confronting an insufficient supply of willing physicians. One in five adults said they had been told in the last 12 months that a doctor or clinic was not accepting new patients or would not see patients with their type of insurance. The rejection rates for low-income adults and those with public insurance were double the rates for higher-income residents and those with private coverage.

…

The authors concluded that the high rejection rates helped explain another important finding: that there has been little change in the use of emergency rooms for non-emergency treatment.

Surely this wouldn’t happen with a “public insurance” plan on a national level, would it?

I suspect low-income families would be better off if government repealed policies that make insurance so expensive, as I discuss here.

(via FIRM)

• Three health care proposals to oppose
• Australia’s government-run health care is “down under”
• Mandatory insurance: wrong for America
• NY Times: “Doctors Are Opting Out of Medicare”
• Senate health bill’s huge tax increases