Medicaid Drug Screening

[TWR]

Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin announced today that medicaid recipients will have to have drug screening to be eligible.  Will this effect practices where medicaid is taken?  Do you think it is right to do this?  Left of center is calling it racism Is it?  Will this significantly lower medicaid enrollment? 

[Guest UVAPAC]

Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin announced today that medicaid recipients will have to have drug screening to be eligible.  Will this effect practices where medicaid is taken?  Do you think it is right to do this?  Left of center is calling it racism Is it?  Will this significantly lower medicaid enrollment? 

 

I personally don't see how this has anything to do with race.  (Are only one race of people on medicaid?)

 

There are certainly a lot of people in this country who take advantage of welfare and medicaid.  

 

I would be very curious if they invoked a random drug testing policy resulting in forfeiture of benefits what the ultimate outcome would be.  If you can't afford groceries or healthcare... but you can afford illegal drugs... I find that to be a problem.

 

Either way with the national deficit rising by the day, and the number of people reliant upon these benefits, coupled with our ever-growing population... it is simply not sustainable.  

[UGoLong]

A few things to remember: other countries find ways to cover medical care and each of us is just one personal disaster away from needing help.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[sas5814]

Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin announced today that medicaid recipients will have to have drug screening to be eligible.  Will this effect practices where medicaid is taken?  Do you think it is right to do this?  Left of center is calling it racism Is it?  Will this significantly lower medicaid enrollment? 

I would need clarification. If my kids are on Medicaid am I subject to drug testing? If my kids will lose coverage because I'm using drugs that bothers me. If they are talking about adult recipients of Medicaid being drug tested that doesn't bother me too much. If you take the check...you take the rules.

[SedRate]

I would need clarification. If my kids are on Medicaid am I subject to drug testing? If my kids will lose coverage because I'm using drugs that bothers me.

Perhaps they should drug test parents since the parents are the ones managing the health care of the child and cashing the welfare checks in order to care for the child. Is a parent who uses/abuses drugs capable of caring for a child? Drug use would have more implications than just loss of coverage and welfare checks, such as involvement of CPS. Would this actually be better for the child than continuing to be cared for by a drug user? There's a lot to think about.

[EMEDPA]

how about drug testing CEOs and executive boards of companies that get bailouts? If they are spending money on drugs, do they really need the American taxpayer to help their failing business.....:)

[rev ronin]

The biggest problem with medicaid isn't that people abuse it, it's that it abuses providers by imposing onerous paperwork burdens and inferior and late reimbursement.  Thus, anyone who has a choice doesn't take it, and thus it becomes "coverage without access".

[ndpa09]

how about drug testing CEOs and executive boards of companies that get bailouts? If they are spending money on drugs, do they really need the American taxpayer to help their failing business.....:)

 

Exactly this. I would also suggest testing all the college students who are receiving government grant and subsidized loans...... I can't imagine that would go over too well with middle to upper class families though. 

 

But no, let's continue to pick on the poor. I also see people trying to cite the national deficit as a legit reason for such a policy..but there have been countless reports that the cost of testing is actually a waste with the low yield of positive screens. 

[ventana]

I would say one step further

 

1) drug test all folks >= 18 on Medicaid

2) provide them a shovel or rack and put them to work - if we are going to be paying them they should work (unless they already are employed > 30 hours a week)

3) if they fail the drug test - the only remaining coverage they have is substance abuse treatment

4) if they no show for work - they get no benefits

 

I am seeing the 4th generation of patients whom don't know anything else but living off the system. I am a die hard democrat but we as a society MUST work towards not enaabling generations of folks to simply take and never give to society.

 

 

I vote - test them, make them work, and if they family the drug test they get drug rehab treatment......... stop the cycle.....

[RuralER/Ortho]

I would say one step further

 

1) drug test all folks >= 18 on Medicaid

2) provide them a shovel or rack and put them to work - if we are going to be paying them they should work (unless they already are employed > 30 hours a week)

3) if they fail the drug test - the only remaining coverage they have is substance abuse treatment

4) if they no show for work - they get no benefits

 

I am seeing the 4th generation of patients whom don't know anything else but living off the system. I am a die hard democrat but we as a society MUST work towards not enaabling generations of folks to simply take and never give to society.

 

 

I vote - test them, make them work, and if they family the drug test they get drug rehab treatment......... stop the cycle.....

Yes!! Living on government benefits should not be a 'retirement' plan for a perfectly capable 25 year old

[MA11]

Why are we assuming that everyone on Medicaid isn't working?  Take a look at Wal-Mart and fast food workers and see how many of them receive some sort of public assistance.  Stop assuming that poverty is caused by laziness. 

[RuralER/Ortho]

Why are we assuming that everyone on Medicaid isn't working? Take a look at Wal-Mart and fast food workers and see how many of them receive some sort of public assistance. Stop assuming that poverty is caused by laziness.

See #2 from Ventana. No problem providing some short term support to those who are struggling and working to change their situation. I do have a problem providing funds to those who have no intention of ever contributing to society and will leech benefits for decades.

[rev ronin]

Why are we assuming that everyone on Medicaid isn't working?  Take a look at Wal-Mart and fast food workers and see how many of them receive some sort of public assistance.  Stop assuming that poverty is caused by laziness. 

To be honest, I used to. I come from a middle-class background, parents both employed by the government, and never knew anyone without insurance.

 

Now, I treat injured workers, I treat small business owners, I treat clergy, each of whom have no access to the kind of insurance I took for granted growing up.  Sure, there are clearly some undeserving people on medicaid, but that's not what breaks my heart: it's the people who are stuck without access to care, who very desperately need it.

[Badgers]

Similar to what ndpa said, I thought the jury was already back in with a verdict on this type of testing? It's a waste of money targetting a problem that isn't nearly as pandemic as everyone likes to say it is. 

 

What drugs does this include? Marijuana? That would be an even sadder waste of resources. 

 

Sure, kick a drug user off of Medicaid. There will be no health savings in the end. They'll use the ER as their physician. The hospital will end up only charging $20.00 after writing off the rest as bad debt (according to the New England Journal of Medicine). And then they'll charge an insured patient $870.00 for some sutures, or maybe have their OB/GYNs encourage earlier delivery to increase visits to the NICU to recoup their costs. Perverse incentives abound. It might end up saving the government some money, but not the taxpayer. 

 

Regarding Wisconsin specifically, I believe many in Wisconsin see it as racism (tangentially) because it very clearly targets and affects those in Milwaukee, as have many of the republican policies in the state. Redistricting, amending the way our chief supreme court justice is chosen, removing residency requirements, pushing charter school nonsense,etc. See our governor's latest decision to freeze our interstate projects in Milwaukee County and divert the funding to the benefit of the 11 people that live in northern Wisconsin. 

 

It's actually quite comical in rural Wisconsin - their disdain for people from the Milwaukee area. A young 20-something recently died in a car accident on a freeway and newspapers in rural areas were OBSESSED with the fact that the kid was from Milwaukee (he wasn't actually, he was from a very white and well-to-do suburb in Milwaukee County). You should have seen the comments on the stories. "No wonder... the kid was from Milwaukee". "Probably was a kid on drugs". "This is why I don't let my kids go down to Milwaukee". The kid wasn't impaired, wasn't distracted (as far as we know), wasn't speeding (as far as we know). It seems he just hit an uneven and unfinished patch of road due to construction. Absolutely disgusting. But they're very small minded up there... what can you do?

 

Sorry - that was off topic. But Scott Walker has always had a very contentious relationship with Milwaukee County (after not finishing his undergraduate degree and serving as the county executive) and Milwaukee's mayor (after he ran against Walker in his recall election). I think that's why many Democrats in the state feel this a policy meant to target the inner city. 

[Guest Paula]

"But they're very small minded up there... what can you do?"

 

​You can elect the small minded PA from up there to be your WI Academy of PA president and get farther down the road to PA freedom than hiring the Madison/Milwaukee crowd who kept us in chains.   

[Guest Paula]

Republicans on the Joint Finance Committee approved a wide-ranging 

omnibus motion

 Thursday night that, among other things, inserts legislative oversight over Gov. Scott Walker's plan to impose work requirements for Medicaid, nearly doubles payments to hospitals that serve a large share of low-income individuals and expands Family Care Partnership statewide.

"We've done a lot in this package," said Co-Chair Sen. Alberta Darling, R-River Hills. Many of

 the proposals were based on feedback lawmakers heard at committee hearings, including increased funding for long-term care workers and ending waiting lists for children with disabilities, according to Darling.

 

Democratic concerns centered around the motion's impact on the state's most vulnerable, especially new

 

work 

requirements for childless adults on Medicaid.

 

Republicans on the committee signed off on the Department of Health Services submitting a waiver for the requirements, but want the department to get final approval from the committee before implementing the proposal. They also held off on funding staff for the program until that happens. 

 

Rep. Gordon Hintz, D-Oshkosh, who joined the panel's other three Democrats in voting against the motion, said similar programs in other states have been expensive and ineffective. 

 

"You are clearly not doing it for any productive means," Hintz said.

Rep. Amy Loudenbeck, R-Clinton, defended the proposal as a balanced approach.

"This is not punitive," she said. "We want to provide opportunities to people. This is one way of doing it."

 

The committee also voted to do the following:

• Increase state spending on Disproportionate Share Hospital payments from $15 million a year to $27.5 million and increasing the maximum a single hospital can receive from $2.5 million in state and federal funds to $4.6 million. The motion also provides $500,000 in state funds over the biennium for rural hospitals that would otherwise meet the criteria for Disproportionate Share Hospitals but do not provide obstetric services;
• Expand Family Care Partnership statewide;

Provide $2.3 million for hospitals and health systems for intensive care coordination services for frequent Medicaid users of their emergency department;

Provide more than $400,000 in state funds to eliminate a waiting list for children with developmental and physical disabilities;

Increase reimbursement rates for nursing homes and personal care workers by 2 percent a year;

Preserve an assessment on ambulatory surgical centers that Walker had proposed repealing;

Provide $2.7 million in state funding for dementia care specialists;

Provide $25 million in state funding for direct care workers in the Family Care program;

Provide $1.5 million for graduate medical training programs;

Provide $1 million for the child psychiatry consultation program;

Provide $1 million for training allied health professionals;

Provide $1 million in grants for hospitals and clinics that provide new training opportunities for "advanced practice clinicians;"

Provide $1 million for local health departments to control and prevent communicable diseases;

Require DHS to develop a proposal for a "physical medicine" pilot program;

Allow a nursing home to add 18 beds as long as it meets certain criteria including: a licensed bed capacity of no more than 30; located in a county with a population of at least 27,000 with a county seat of no more than 9,200 and the home county is adjacent to a county with a population of at least 20,000.