Posts Tagged ‘children’s health’

Dental care for every community

Tuesday, December 8th, 2009

Last week, the New York Times reported on the dire need to improve health care on Native American Tribal Lands. Unfortunately, one of the major components of overall health and the health care system was overlooked as part of the article – oral health and access to dental care.

Today, Native American Indian children and adults are suffering disproportionally because of lack of access to dental care. Untreated dental decay is two to three times higher among Native Americans than in the general population.

For example, at the Pine Ridge Clinic in South Dakota, children ages three and four attending a Head Start program were recently given screening exams by a dentist near the village of Wounded Knee.  Of twenty kids who were screened, 18 of them were found to have severe dental problems that could only be treated in an operating room due to the extent of their dental problems. That means the children had severe decay deep into their teeth that was causing pain, multiple infections and made eating difficult. More than half of each of these children’s teeth were severely decayed because of lack of access to dental professionals and services.

The Indian Health Service dental clinic in Pine Ridge is understaffed, making it impossible to provide care to all the children on the reservation suffering from tooth decay.  In short, if children are able to get to the clinic, which is 17 miles away, dentists are so overwhelmed by the demand to provide more serious treatment that they are unable to provide preventive care or treat cavities or decay.

While a shortage of dental professionals is a major problem throughout the country, it is worse on tribal lands. The Indian Health Service (IHS) has a 34 percent vacancy rate for clinical dentists; in some areas, the vacancy rate is 50 percent. In fact, there is only one dentist per 4000 Indians, compared to one dentist per 1700 in the general population.

Fortunately, Alaska has found a solution to this critical need for dental professionals to serve Native American Indians and the general population, who lack access to quality, affordable dental care. There, the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) has added a dental therapist to the dental team to increase access to care.

Dental therapists are home-grown health professionals who serve their own communities. They fill a critical role in the dental partnership by providing complementary services to those dental hygienists and supporting the work of dentists. For nearly 100 years, dental therapists have been providing cleanings, sealants, fillings, and simple extractions to underserved urban and rural populations in countries with advanced dental care systems similar to the U.S., such as Canada, England, and New Zealand.

Before the program was implemented, some residents had access to dentists who only visited once a year. With the support of philanthropic organizations, dental therapists were trained, first in New Zealand and now by the University of Washington’s Medical School, and have returned to provide critical care to Alaskan natives.  Now, 11 dental therapists are providing care in nine dental shortage areas to more than 7,000 previously underserved Alaska Natives.  By 2012, there will be 32 dental therapists living in and providing culturally competent, high, quality dental care in dental professional shortage areas.

The quality of care offered by the dental therapists is well documented. Research and evidence from other countries where dental therapists have been part of the dental team since the 1920s shows that the preventive and basic dental repair services provided by dental therapists are safe, high quality, acceptable to the public and cost-effective.

Despite the successful use of dental therapists as part of the dental team,  the American Dental Association is trying to prevent dental therapists from joining dental teams on tribal lands in the lower 49. Thursday afternoon, ADA President Ron Tankersley testified that Native American Indian people should not receive care from dental therapists.

With 83 million Americans lacking access to dental care, now more than ever, we need to look at ways to improve the system. Dental therapists can benefit everyone, including dentists because they can provide critically important basic treatments to patients and allow dentists to focus on more serious services and surgeries.  We need to work together to provide all residents with access to quality, affordable, dental care – the dental therapist model is a proven solution for bringing care to every community.

–David Jordan, Dental Access Project director

Harry Reid’s Flying Circus

Monday, December 7th, 2009

Oops! Read the Public Option Post-Mortem and Dec. 14 Health Reform Insider here.

And now for something completely different, Senator McCain proclaims himself a defender of Medicare

The first week of Senate debate has seemed, at times, more like Monty Python satire than serious debate. Like when Sen. John McCain took the Senate floor to decry proposed Medicare savings in the bill. Apparently, McCain forgot his own proposal as a presidential candidate to make much deeper cuts. The Medicare debate highlights the extent to which the reform debate has become much less about health care and much more about partisan positioning. The main purpose of the McCain amendment appears to have been to afford Sen. McCain the opportunity to record a “robo-call” message casting Democratic politically vulnerable Senators as opponents of Medicare.

Perhaps as a sign of the significance Politico attaches to the floor proceedings, the Capitol Hill online news rag’s weekend health reform coverage focused more on President Obama’s meeting with the Democratic caucus and whether Sen. Baucus did something inappropriate by recommending his girlfriend for a job as a U.S. Attorney than on anything happening on the Senate floor.

Health Reform Punching Bag

It’s a good thing Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid is a former boxer. He’s going to need everything he learned in the ring to keep health reform from becoming a giant punching bag for opponents while he works to corral 60 votes. The Republican strategy seems to be to throw everything but the kitchen sink up against health reform and hope some of it sticks.

The Democrats’ counterstrategy is to file and debate their own “message amendments” meant to shape the news coverage and allow members, especially those facing difficult reelection fights, to champion popular causes. Examples include an amendment sponsored by Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) to ensure that there would be no cuts to Medicare benefits (passed 100-0), and an amendment by Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) to cap the tax deductibility of pay for insurance company executives (which fell short of passage by four votes, 56-42).

About those 60 votes

We’ll see a short break from these posturing and “message amendments” today as the Senate tackles abortion, one of the two main issues that appears to be hampering its ability to lock down 60 votes for reform (the other being the public option). Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) has said that he would not support reform legislation unless it included language restricting abortion similar to the language inserted in the House by Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak. But the Senate does not seem likely to approve an amendment that mirrors the House provision.

If Reid loses Nelson’s vote, he will need to rely on the pro-choice but anti-public option Republican Senators from Maine in order to get the 60 votes he needs. In the process, he could possibly pick up the vote of Sen. Lieberman, who has said he would support a filibuster if the public option was included in the Senate bill, but Reid risks losing support from progressives who feel that the “state opt-out” provision in the Reid bill is already too weak. A new public option proposal could emerge from negotiations between liberal supporters, conservative opponents and the White House sometime this week.

Two issues that divide the Democratic caucus but are not likely to get resolved in the Manager’s Amendment are: How far to push the drug industry for savings, and how best to structure health coverage for children.

On the drug issue, many Democrats believe that the deal Senate Finance Chair Max Baucus and the White House struck with PhRMA lets the industry off too easily. They want to wring additional savings from the drug companies and use the money to close the Medicare Part D “donut hole.” Other Democrats fear, though, that if they push the drug industry too hard, the major investment the industry has been making in supporting reform will flip to opposition and could sink the bill. Even if the Senate decides to continue the kid-glove treatment for the drug companies, they will have to wrestle with the issue again because the House takes a more aggressive approach.

The children’s issue mirrors the long-running debate on affordability in that it is not so much about principle as about cash. Both Senators Casey and Rockefeller plan to file amendments aimed at making sure that kids don’t lose benefits they have now. While the Senate supports enhancing coverage for children, the amendments have not yet been scored by CBO, and it is unclear if they are budget neutral or will require an additional revenue source.

As soon as Reid gets 60 votes worth of support on these two issues, watch for a rapid increase in the pace of Senate debate, with many of the Senate Democrats’ main concerns getting wrapped into a final Manager’s Amendment.

Assuming all goes according to plan…
The Senate will conclude their debate prior to Christmas, leaving the House, Senate and White House to work through the many differences in the respective versions. Here are the key ones to watch:

Financing
The House relies largely on progressive income taxes to finance health reform, while the Senate proposal taxes health benefits. Interestingly, this chasm may be the hardest one to bridge, though it hasn’t attracted nearly the press coverage of other tough issues.

Affordability
The House does much better for low-income people, while the Senate, at least on premiums, does better for moderate-income folks—though in general, the House provides better benefits. The obvious solution is to take the best of both worlds, but the challenge goes back to the financing debate: Where will the money come from?

Exchanges and Insurance Regulation
In most ways, the House bill establishes tighter oversight and more consumer-friendly regulation of the insurance industry, including less scope for discrimination against older subscribers, or opportunities for the back-door reintroduction of the practice of charging people more when they are sick. The House also gives the exchange more power to negotiate with insurers and exclude plans from the exchange if they do not offer good value.

Abortion
As of this writing, we don’t know the outcome of the Senate debate, but odds are against the Senate adopting the House language. The question for conferees is whether there is anything in the middle that both sides can live with.

Public Option
After the Senate gets through wrangling over the public option, members will have to take the matter up again in the House, where support for a public plan runs much deeper. A number of  progressive members of Congress are on record saying they won’t vote for a bill without a public option, and advocates are working to hold them to their word.

Employer Responsibility
The House includes a “pay or play” provision, while the Senate charges employers penalties only if their employees actually access subsidized coverage.

Undocumented immigrants
Though relatively few undocumented immigrants could actually afford to pay the full cost of an insurance policy, the Senate bill prohibits them from buying insurance through the exchange, even with their own funds. During the House debate, members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus told Speaker Pelosi that they would not vote for a bill that contained such a restriction. If the same holds true for a conference report, the Senate may have to back down.

–Michael Miller, director of strategic policy

Welcome to the Health Policy Hub!

Wednesday, September 9th, 2009

Today, Community Catalyst proudly launches our new blog, Health Policy Hub. While the word “policy” may sound a bit wonky to some, we hope to hit the wonk-life balance by providing interesting commentary on all things health care without coming off like policy geeks who spend our lunch hours ruminating over subtitle c of section 101(B) of Title I of the Acts of…Obviously, no one here does that.

We’ll bring you the insights, expertise and opinions of our Community Catalyst colleagues who have years of experience (we won’t say how many) and numerous successes working to improve health care at the local, state and national level. They’ve been on the ground organizing grass roots advocacy groups, at the table negotiating with insurers, hospitals and policymakers, and on their Blackberries working around the clock to ensure consumer interests are represented in our health care system. We’ll look at many issues – from health care reform to children’s health to making our hospitals more accountable to the communities they serve – through a consumer lens. We’ll also check in with our state and national partners on their efforts to make health care better, accessible and affordable.

Like any blog, Health Policy Hub’s success hinges on our ability to keep content fresh and interesting. We will work hard to make that happen. But we also need you readers to help out with the interesting part – sharing what you’ve heard and letting us know what you think. We welcome your comments, and hope this is the start of a lively and thought-provoking conversation.