Posted on 06/15/2005 5:10:14 AM PDT by Born Conservative
Rally, meetings let legislators know how Gov. Rendell’s plans would impact nursing homes.
HARRISBURG – Ron Patti, administrator of Riverstreet Manor in Wilkes-Barre, sees no end to the rising demand for nursing home care in Pennsylvania, yet he fears he’ll soon have to turn away people who need help most.
A $219 million proposed cut in Pennsylvania’s Medicaid budget would have a crippling effect on nursing homes around the state, Patti said, forcing him and other administrators to make the same heart-wrenching decision: cut staff or cut services.
“Would we have to say no to some types of long-term residents?” asked Patti. “Right now we take all we can take . . . I would think providing health care to the most frail and vulnerable populations should be a priority.”
Patti and a few of his employees traveled to Harrisburg Tuesday for a rally in the sweltering 90-degree heat on the steps of the state Capitol, along with nearly 200 other nursing home caregivers from around the state.
The rally, organized by the Pennsylvania Health Care Association, was meant to urge lawmakers to reject Gov. Ed Rendell’s proposed Medicaid cuts for the 2005-06 state budget, which must be passed by June 30.
“Caregivers and providers throughout Pennsylvania are in Harrisburg today to let lawmakers know their elderly constituents are at risk and that local jobs are at stake due to the size and scope of Gov. Rendell’s Medicaid cuts,” said Alan G. Rosenbloom, president and chief executive officer of the PHCA.
The Rendell plan would shave the state’s Medicaid budget by $219 million – a 7 percent overall cut, according to Rosenbloom. That includes a 2 percent cap on Medicaid reimbursement increases for nursing homes, as well as a $79 million cut across the board, he said.
If state lawmakers approve the plan, the average nursing home in the state would be forced to cut 10 employees from its payroll.
That’s one reason Keith Moore made the trip from Wilkes-Barre.
“I’m concerned I could lose my job,” said Moore, an aide and central supply worker at Riverstreet Manor. “If they cut back, they could cut back jobs.”
Patti said that’s not something he wants to do, and said it’s more likely that he would cut back services and turn away patients who are severely ill and need long-term care.
Summit Health Care Center in Wilkes-Barre would be forced to make the same type of decisions, said Dawn Brostoski, the home’s administrator.
“The cuts really threaten access (to health care) for the most vulnerable – the frail and the elderly,” said Brostoski, who said several members of her staff attended the rally. “This could strongly discourage nursing homes from treating the sicker residents.”
The caregivers did more than rally. They also roamed the Capitol halls, knocking on doors and meeting with lawmakers.
It appeared to be an effective tactic, according to Patti.
He said he met with state Sen. Raphael Musto, D-Pittston, and state Reps. Kevin Blaum, D-Wilkes-Barre, and Thomas Tigue, D-Hughestown – all of whom said an unexpected surplus might help defray some of the planned Medicaid cuts.
Brostoski said it was important for nursing home officials to have their voices heard in the ongoing budget debate.
“Legislators are trying to make the best decisions,” she said.
“If we don’t lobby for ourselves, shame on us.”
This could blow up in fast eddie's face...but he is used to sticking others with the bills.
How much clearer does it need to be?
In the 50s and 60s, there were no wholesale crises of unnecessary deaths due to lack of medical care anywhere that I'm aware of, in the U.S.
"Health care" costs have skyrocketed since then as a result of a combination of the "welfare state" socialist nanny mentality, catering to the useless and the parasites of society and the limitless participation of the nanny purse, the working taxpayers.
There is only one solution; sooner or later.
Clean up government at all levels- town, state, and federal. Then I'll discuss how much of my income you are entitled to steal as a public "servant".
My mother is currently in a nursing home here in Pennsylvania. We've spent down her assets and are about to apply for Medicaid. I can't tell you how good the staff is to her and the level of care she has received has been excellent. Those in this line of work are angels on earth.
I am happy to see my tax dollars going to the level of care my mother is now receiving.
And to the poster who calls this 'welfare for the parasites of society', I hope you don't have to watch your mother go through this. My mother may be terminally ill but she is NO parasite. Good day.
It's only going to get worse. PA has the 2nd highest senior citizen population in the nation, the younger people are moving out. Jobs are plentiful in the nursing home field, for minimum wage.
I have a question:
When the Government in Washington D.C. was paying for Medicare, Fast Eddy didn't care how much it was, right?
But now that each state has to pay for medicare, Fast Eddy sees his high paying job isn't going to pay anymore than what it is?
Is this the problem?
Trial lawyers.
I don't think there's a person on this board who'd think your mother was a parasite. The old and terminally ill clearly cannot take care of themselves.
The question is, should the government be taking care of what is essentially a family obligation?
You are correct! That is the whole problem, second highest senior population, and not enough young workers to support them. It would probably help if businesses weren't taxed out of the commonwealth too.
There will be a snowball in hell before I hire anybody in my small business, between workmen's comp and FICA taxes, it's not worth it.
If something would happen where I could no longer take care of them, that is where Medicare should come in.
That is one argument. Unfortunately choices need to be made. It is an ugly reality that there are trade-offs in all things. Given enough money, we could keep most alive for a few years longer...but the cost would be even more enormous than it is now.
Nursing home workers keeping their jobs is obviously not a good justification. What we have to work out as a society is: How far past what people can arrange for themselves will be considered minimum care? Do you consider it appropriate that fifty people work for a year solely to support life-sustaining care, or even just social care, for your parents? Some people would. Many would not.
This needs to be worked out. Just blindly expecting the air to pay for it is not the answer.
Tip of the iceberg folks. The mass of people heading for this situation is enormous. The fastest growing demographic group in the US is octogenarians. Where and how are we going to be able to care for them?
That's when the system should kick in. But if the adult children love their parents and are able bodied, but still expect the nanny state to take care of their parents, then they're living off the generosity of the taxpayers. And I for one, resent it.
Too many people in this discussion are mixing medicare and medicaid up. Medicare is a federal program, medicaid is a state program.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.