Search Form
Now choose a category »

Public Statements

Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act Of 2009 - Motion To Proceed

Floor Speech

By:
Date:
Location: Washington, DC

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Corker.

I have had the distinct pleasure of delivering over 2,500 babies for Medicaid insurance and taking care of their children. These are wonderful folks. I didn't do any differential between Medicaid and private insurance in my practice, but most of my colleagues did.

The heartbreaking part about Medicaid is that when you have a sick child who needs a specialist, you cannot get one. You just cannot get one. You say: Why can't you? Do they not care? Yes, they care. But you know what. Because of the Medicaid reimbursement for pediatric subspecialities--pediatric cardiologists, pediatric oncologists, pediatric hematologists--there are not any.

We only have two pediatric cardiologists in the city of Tulsa serving 1.9 million people. Try to get an appointment for a Medicaid patient there. I can hardly get a regular one. How did that happen? The reason we have a shortage of pediatric subspecialities is directly related to the Medicaid system in this country because the reimbursement is so low that you cannot afford to have a high percentage of Medicaid patients in your practice and still pay your bills.

So what consequently has happened is doctors do not go into pediatrics, and then they do not go into the subspecialities of pediatrics. So I end up having 8-month-old children seen by adult cardiologists or adult hematologists because there is no available doctor to see them because we have created a system through the substandard reimbursement of Medicaid that has directed people coming out of medical school away from that speciality.

As a matter of fact, last year, if you take all the medical students who graduated from medical college, whether it is osteopaths or allopaths, M.D.s or D.O.s, 1 in 50 went into primary care. That is general internal medicine, family practice, or pediatrics, only 1 in 50.

We have 50 million baby boomers going to hit Medicare in the next 7 1/2 years, and we are not going to have the primary care doctors there to take care of them. The reason is because through government programs, we have incentivized doctors not to do primary care. Consequently, we don't get there.

The other point I will tell you is that if you look at perinatal mortality rates in our population across the country, it is, No. 1, directly related more to poverty than it is to anything else. But the second most important factor is that if you are in Medicaid, you are twice as likely to have a perinatal mortality event--in other words, your child dies after childbirth--than if you are in private insurance. It doesn't matter what your culture is. If you are poor, but you have private insurance, the likelihood your baby is going to do better is greater.

Think about that: a promise we are going to give you care, but the result of the care is going to be less good. We are going to give you care, but it is not as good care, and it is not available care. We are going to make you wait in line, but we are going to call it care.

Care delayed is care denied. Let me say that again. Care delayed is care denied. If, in fact, you have a problem that needs attention, and you cannot get what you need, it does not matter what Medicaid does if you cannot get treatment.

If you look at the subspecialities in Medicaid, 65 percent of them do not see Medicaid patients. We have about 40 percent in primary care who will not see a Medicaid patient. We have about 65 percent of the specialities, because there is such a shortage in the specialities, that what we are saying is we are going to have 60 million people in a system that says: You get care, but guess what. It is not available; you are on Medicaid.

Senator Wyden did offer a plan, I say to Senator Corker, that would put every Medicaid patient in this country, except dual eligibles, into private insurance. So did we with the Patients' Choice Act, the first bill introduced on our side of the aisle. We take the stigma off saying you have a low-paying plan, and we give them the same kind of insurance we have right here in this body. By doing it, we save the States $1 trillion over the next 10 years. Think about that.

But that isn't nearly as important as we have a major increase in the positive outcomes for Medicaid patients. You cannot talk about Medicaid without talking about Indian health care because as you add up Medicaid to Medicare to TRICARE to VA to Indian health care, when you add all that up, the government is running 61 percent of our health care right now. No wonder we are in trouble.

I do not deny there are big problems with the insurance industry. I do not
deny we need a Patients' Bill of Rights that protects people's rights and their interests. I do not deny we need transparency in the insurance industry both on price and quality. I do not deny anything.

The question we ought to ask is, if we are going to truly reform health care, are we going to allow everybody, when they say they have health care, no matter where they get it, to have an equal shot at getting equal care?

You see, this bill does not do that. This bill puts Medicaid patients in jail and says: If you happen to be lucky enough, the lucky 60 percent to get into the line, you will be OK. And if you need a subspecialty, if you happen to be part of the lucky 35 percent, you will be OK. But everybody else is in jail. You are in monopoly jail. We are promising--the government--to do that.

A final point--and then I will yield so others can talk--is the idea that my State--Texas is a big State. It is our southern neighbor. They sometimes have a better football team than we do. They certainly did this year. We are about one-eighth the size of Texas in terms of population. We cannot afford $2.8 billion over the next 10 years, I say to Senator Cornyn. We are going to say we are going to cover 15 million people and some of those will be in Oklahoma. We cannot afford it.

What we can afford is to insure them if we make true changes in care, if we truly change and incentivize preventive care, management of chronic disease--if we truly reform health care. These bills do not reform health care. What they do is grow government.

They are not going to change outcomes, other than except they are going to limit what you can and cannot do through cost-effective comparativeness.

As we look at this bill, what we need to do is think about those we are going to promise something we are not going to deliver. We are going to call it a system, but they are not going to have it available.

I thank Senator Corker for leading this discussion, and I yield.

Mr. CORKER. I thank Dr. Coburn. As I listen to him, I realize we have a health care reform bill before us where half the money, $460 billion, is taken from a program that is insolvent. Instead of making it more solvent--a program that would take $38.6 trillion in the bank today, earning Treasury rates to make it solvent--it is a pretty big number--we are taking $ 1/2 trillion out of that program to leverage a new entitlement. The reform we are getting out of that is we are moving half the folks into a program that not a person in this body would want to be a part of; is that correct?

Mr. COBURN. That is correct.

Mr. CORKER. That is not the kind of health care reform I thought we were going to be doing. I am shocked. As a matter of fact, as I said many times, I don't think there is a person on the other side of the aisle who would vote for this bill if you and I offered it; do you think that?

Mr. COBURN. Probably not. But the Senator sparks one question. Think about this, and I have experienced this as a physician.

I care for patients and they lose their job, they have a financial catastrophe, and all of a sudden they become dependent on Medicaid. We continue to see those patients. But do you know what normally happens? You lose your insurance, you loss your job, you come on hard times and go on Medicaid. You can't go back to the doctor you had before because they are not taking new Medicaid patients. So somebody you have been with for 15 years, all of a sudden you can't get back in because they are not going to pay enough for them to care for you. It is a discriminatory system that says we will send you down the line.

That doesn't mean there are not truly caring physicians in this country, but it has to be said, outside of pediatrics, if you want to look at quality parameters, the Medicaid population ends up going to the less-qualified, the less-experienced, the less-good-outcome physicians in this country.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT


Source:
Skip to top
Back to top