MLK

The decrease in public hospitals in the U.S. has resulted in diminished access to healthcare for vulnerable and low income populations and has overcrowded the remaining healthcare agencies that still exist. The U.S. already suffers from an under supply of physicians to care and treat the whole population. The decrease in public hospitals minimizes options for Medic-Aid, Medi-Care, and SCHIP patients to find care. Public hospitals serve the communities by providing primary medical care, specialty care such as OB/GYN, and pediatrics….without close, accessible public hospitals, many families will have to navigate further or find alternative modes of transportation to reach further healthcare hospitals or community clinics. I have spoken to one of the nurses at MCA where I work and she was a former nurse at MKL before they closed down. Parts of MLK are still open such as their internal medicine department. However, the OB/GYN and pediatrics units were shut down. In an attempt to save the maternal and peds units, the nursing staff compiled documents reporting the number of women and children they served and for what purposes. Their protest to save MLK were based on the grounds that the hospital was a vital resource for women and their families and by shutting down the hospital, these women would be left underserved. Unfortunately, they were defeated and MLK shut down and many families were left to seek healthcare elsewhere. They were forced to find healthcare outside of their living and working vicinity because of the scarcity of public hospitals in LA. Many may have even stopped seeking healthcare due to transportation limits.

Financial and.....

I worked at LAC+USC at the time when MLK was going through its initial closure. I'm not exactly sure the reasons for it's closure were purely financial. This leads me to question the reason why these other facilities have been closed. I did notice an added stress when this facility closed as more people were forced to seek other public instiutions for medical care. I wonder if this will cause a snowball effect with quality of medical care declining at other local public health faciliites due to the added stress of the additional population? Future plans need to accomodate for a growing population, something that was not addressed in the newly constructed LAC+USC.

Public Hospitals on the decline......

We definitely need to do something about the closing of Public Hospitals in a time when they are required most. Public hospitals serve the underserved and individuals who cannot afford healthcare. If these were to close down, where would these individuals go?
Especially in the current times of economic reccession more people are losing their jobs and the pool of uninsured is increasing. These individuals then depend on the Public hospitals to take care of their health care needs. There has been an increased burden on these hospitals to provide care. This overstretches the system and has pushed many of these hospitals into bankruptcy. The very fact that these hospitals are overworked is a witness to the fact that they are required. And the solution to that is not closing them down for financial reasons but rather the state stepping in to finance them. This will not only take care of the underserved , many of whom come for acute problems rather than chronic but also keep our uninsured with no health care pool from rising.

For some reason I can't reply directly on Harut's blog entry like I originally wanted to, so I'll post a new blog as a response to his comments:

I definitely agree with Harut that there is absolutely no time to spare and that this issue cannot take a backseat, especially with the current economic crisis that we are faced with in America. Even fewer families are able to afford healthcare now than before the collapse of the economy. I'm glad that we have a president who now sees this and has made healthcare reform a priority. There are a lot of things that President Obama said last night in his State of the Nation and I got the following from a CNN article and thought it was really interesting:

"Obama's prescription for health-care reform included making "the largest investment ever" in preventive care, rooting out Medicare fraud and investing in electronic health records and new technology in an effort to reduce errors, bring down costs, ensure privacy and save lives."

I think it is interesting that he puts preventive care so high on his to-do list, as this is a topic that we debated heavily just a few weeks ago. The link for the rest of the CNN article is:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/24/obama.health.care/index.html

Another Reason For Healthcare Reform...

It's quite simple, really. The number of uninsured people in the United States is growing in an extremely rapid pace. Simultaneously, the amount of public dollars available to keep these public hospitals going is on a decline like no other. These two factors don't match up favorably, and will lead to an unhealthier and more susceptible America. The first step - before restructuring and extra funding of public Hospitals - is getting GOOD health care reform legislation passed in Congress and signed by the President. This is an absolute must, and can not wait another year. Regardless of public perception of the current economic crisis (and its unyielding coverage by the media), health care lies upon us as a "bubble" just as large, ready to burst. Our public Hospitals are the foundations that keep health care in this country alive, and must stand strong. Allowing Universal Health Care will lead to public hospitals regaining their legs, and standing on their own two feet. The amount of families that loose their homes, declare bankruptcy, and essentially see their lives in "ruins" due to health care costs is tremendous. We can do this! We already spend the money needed - let's just get it right this time!

Public and Private Hospital Partnership

The increasing competiveness of the health care system has proven to threaten the survival of many public hospitals. Many have been forced to close down due to their inability to reduce their costs below the national average as well as inefficient administrative procedures. The closure of hospitals whether it is in rural or urban areas may have the potential to negatively impact the lives and health care of the more economically disadvantaged but at the same time it may be productive for the system as a whole. When public hospitals shutdown, the individuals that would normally use their services are faced to seek aid elsewhere (i.e. private hospitals) and many times the prices are generally higher at private hospitals than at public hospitals. Because the uninsured and underinsured are more likely to have limited education, and be economically disadvantaged they are more sensitive to these higher prices. However, as public hospitals are forced to shut down there seems to be the potential for public and private partnerships within the hospital systems. Many communities that have turned to this mixed model of ownership and financing have been successful in achieving their goals of maintaining the service mission of the public hospital while also attracting a mix of patients that would enhance financial stability. This has the potential to be a great fit for the system as it achieves efficiency, flexibility, integration and planning, proximity to the community in need, and the ability to support medical education needs. Co-operating and integrating together, putting the two resources together, you've got the ability to provide a better service overall to the community, by trying to avoid duplication, competition and sharing costs, rather than duplicating costs.

Are we sure it's money?

I was raised in Watts and born in ther MLK Hospital. I still don't understand why it was closed. It served the largest number of "underserved" individuals. Is it really a money issue or are there more social politics around inequalities and racial/class disparities revolving around it? ... I have yet to understand this issue....