You Rock George!!!!!!

Confusion over health insurance leaves children sufferingSome mistakenly cut from the rolls as state makes program changes
By POLLY ROSS HUGHES
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau
AUSTIN - Three-year-old Ryla Woodard spent a weekend in the hospital earlier this year when she broke out in a rash, her fever spiked to 103 and doctors diagnosed her with mononucleosis.
Just days later she lost her government-sponsored health coverage, and her family can't afford a second follow-up blood test to see if she's still infected with the virus that can cause fatigue and swelling, or even rupturing, of the spleen.
"She's complaining of a sore throat. It lingers in your system a while," said Ryla's mother, Traci Woodard, from the East Texas town of Orange. "Today I cannot take her anywhere to see if she still tests positive for mono because I have no health insurance. I'm hitting walls and locked doors."
The Woodards aren't the only family complaining about confusion in the Children's Health Insurance Program as enrollments nose-dived the past three months with new rules and a new company screening applications.With Ryla's coverage mistakenly cut, her mother said Galveston County, two hours away, is the closest place to qualify for indigent health care.
Ryla and her sister Dara, 4, lost CHIP coverage for February and March, but that was the state's mistake, not theirs.
The Texas Health and Human Services Commission confirms the sisters got mistakenly caught up in confusion when an eligibility-screening contract switched Nov. 28 to a Midland call center headed by the private outsourcing firm Accenture.
"Clearly there are some learning-curve issues," commission spokeswoman Stephanie Goodman said of the new call center.
The Woodard sisters are among the young faces behind plummeting enrollment in the insurance program, which fell below 300,000 on March 1 for the first time since April 2001.
Enrollment has plunged by 28,000 children since December, when tougher proof-of-income rules kicked in just as the call-center contract switched to Accenture. The health commission is still trying to sort out rejections caused by mistakes in the screening process from cuts caused by the state's stricter eligibility rules.
Last spring, lawmakers restored vision, dental and mental health benefits to CHIP and budgeted for enrollments averaging nearly 350,000 — at least 50,000 more children than are on the rolls.
Meanwhile, the Texas Association of Health Plans calls a 73 percent denial rate for families attempting to renew last month "staggering," and appeals of those terminations have more than tripled since last year to nearly 2,500.
117,000 more could be cutIf current CHIP trends persist, about 117,000 more children could lose coverage by the end of June, the group warns.
"I think it's a crisis. We can't afford to lose any more children from the program," said Barbara Best, Texas executive director of the Children's Defense Fund, based in Houston. "Enrollments should be growing, not shrinking. It's the children who are suffering."
The two older Woodard sisters fell through the cracks switching from Medicaid for the very poor to CHIP for working families unable to afford private health insurance. Of children bumped from CHIP last month, only 13 percent lost coverage because their family income rose too high. More than half lost coverage because applications had "missing information" or renewal information was not received.
"Obviously the staff at the new call center is newer," said Goodman. "They've been through training, but they're overwhelmed. Sometimes if they can't provide immediate assistance, they tell (families) to file an appeal. That's kind of the last guidance they give them on the phone.
"One of our struggles right now is to sort out where there are trends, so it's not an isolated transition issue, but it's a symptom of a larger problem we need to go in and address," she added.
Two weeks ago, Accenture and the commission discovered they'd mistakenly canceled 6,000 children from CHIP for not paying a fee parents hadn't been told to pay. HHSC Commissioner Albert Hawkins ordered those children immediately restored to the rolls.
But other eligible children erroneously dropped, such as Ryla and Dara, are having to wait until April 1, left uncovered for two full months.
Traci Woodard, noting that all three of her daughters were supposed to automatically switch into CHIP when family income rose too high for Medicaid in November, said everything seemed to go wrong. With CHIP coverage not kicking in, Medicaid extended coverage for all three girls through the end of January. On Feb. 1, baby Tristia was enrolled in CHIP but not Ryla and Dara. Call-center employees even informed Woodard she'd have to pay a second enrollment fee for the older girls, even though the rule is one fee per family. "The state of Texas is trying to cut corners and everything. That's great, but we're suffering for it," said Woodard, who acknowledged losing her temper with one call-center worker who first refused to give her his name or ID number.
"Whoever the state has contracted to do this CHIP insurance, they have dropped the ball," she added. "It's one thing to mess with me, but you're messing with my kids."
Accenture spokesman Peter Soh said, "My understanding is the state is investigating each and every case that's brought to their attention to find out what's going on."
He said Friday the company thinks its call-center processes are now working, but other parents are complaining of snafus similar to Woodard's.
Debra Berg of Houston said the former private eligibility-screening contractor told her last November that she needed to send proof her daughters are U.S. citizens, a problem that Goodman said might have resulted when the contractor lost staff as it prepared to shift call centers to Accenture.
"I said, my kids cannot just switch countries. You have their birth certificates. What else do you need me to prove?" She said she thought the problem was cleared up after calling the new call center to explain.
Shocking discoveryShe assumed everything was fine until Feb. 1 when she took her 7-year-old daughter to the doctor for suspected whooping cough. "We were quite shocked when February came around and we didn't have insurance," Berg said. She also had to cancel an evening counseling session for an older daughter diagnosed with anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder. The next day, the Midland call center advised her to file an appeal. A psychiatrist agreed to see the older girl later that month, but still there was no insurance for medications that were running out. Jay Haevischer, a disabled father in Bellville, said 10-year-old Colby's CHIP coverage was suddenly terminated in late February. The only explanation? Missing information.
Haevischer said he had failed to sign the new CHIP renewal form when he first sent it in but quickly corrected the error when contacted by the call center. He then called to make sure his corrected form arrived and said he was told it did and not to worry. So the father said he was floored when a cancellation letter arrived a month later saying his son's longtime CHIP coverage was being terminated for lack of information.

1 Comments:
Well Georgie Shrub is quite the xtian,isn't he???
As we know, Christ came down to earth to instruct us in the ways in which we must limit our sexual expression. He may have said the Beatitudes one stray weekend between appearances at the Knights of Columbus, He may have said startling things like "love thy enemy," "turn the other cheek," and "resist not the evil doer" - but He either meant those as quirky but meaningless bromides, or perhaps they've been mistranslated, and He actually said "God is my co-pilot, and whenever you go to war, know that God is right beside you, killing people too."
But the Church has a seamless garment approach to sexuality - it isn't just homosexuality that is forbidden (though that admittedly is the most disgusting of sex's faces), it also forbids all touching of oneself (otherwise known as masturbation, and called "normal development" by demon psychologists), all heterosexual contact outside of marriage, and, of course, any sexual contact that uses birth control since the ONLY ALLOWABLE sex must always leave open the possibility of childbirth. God created sex for procreation, not recreation. He added pleasure to the sexual act as a little trick to keep the population growing. But we are not meant to enjoy the pleasure, or if we do by chance, that cannot be our primary purpose.
I was fortunate to be a child in the late 50s, and so learned the truths of my religion through the brilliantly conceived Baltimore Catechism, so named for Our Blessed Mother's famous appearance at a Baltimore automobile dealership, where she warned against Godless communism and Japanese imports.
The Baltimore catechism correctly focused on the Ten Commandments, since they were the main focus of Christ's teaching on earth.
We lucky school children learned early how "Honor thy parents" really meant obeying them. Obedience is one of the hallmarks of a good Catholic; thinking for yourself is actually a danger to good morality, as we know.
And, of course, we became very familiar with the sixth commandment, "thou shalt not commit adultery." This commandment, the catechism explained, forbade "all impurities in thought, word, or action, whether or alone or with others." Who knew the word "adultery" had such a vast and miscellaneous meaning?
But the Holy Fathers of the Church were undoubtedly inspired by Humpty Dumpty in "Alice in Wonderland," who said "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean."
It was great to be a 13 year old boy, and to worry and fret and use every ounce of one's conscious abilities to avoid masturbation. That truly was always Christ's core message: Stop touching yourselves!
And out of this profound and loving understanding of the inherent evilness of the body, the church came up with the idea of celibacy. Not only don't touch yourself as a child, but have no physical closeness with anyone for your entire life. That is surely what's best for grown men and women. Divorce yourself from your bodies.
As St. Paul, that holy mental case, wrote: "It is better to marry than to burn." Which means if you can't control your body, go ahead and marry, and thus avoid hellfire; but the implication is it's better to be unmarried and unsullied by the disgusting human flesh that God seemingly created as a sick joke. Plus you're only on earth a while, so you just have to put up with life and wait for your real lives in heaven. Plus, "the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit" - there, does that make it clearer why you should leave your bodies alone? You don't want to be grossing out the Holy Spirit, who may be traveling around your body like Raquel Welch and the scientists bopping around the blood stream in the movie Fantastic Voyage.
I so admire the Catholic Church for guarding and stressing what has been important in the teachings of Christ.
When I was 16 to 18, I was a very fervent believer, and it was during the anti-Vietnam war years; and I became involved with many of the anti-war Catholic leaders, including some of the younger priests at my monastery school. And I began to believe that Christ actually called us to be pacifists.
I didn't come to this belief that Christ called us to non-violence lightly. My Junior year in high school, a fellow student told me his beliefs on this topic, and I debated with him, telling him he was crazy, that war was inevitable, that one had to stand up to evil in the world militarily, and that furthermore the Catholic Church had always supported wars, and sent chaplains to be with the military, and never told people they couldn't fight in a war. They told people often and with great energy that they couldn't have sex outside of marriage, or use birth control, or masturbate, or have same sex relations. Don't, don't, don't, they said continually and with long, complicated reasonings. But killing people, the church has been very understanding about, as long as it's done in an organized way like in a war.
Oh, sure, they had the "just war" theory, but as far as I could see it applied to just about every western war that ever was. World War I, as I studied it in high school, was about the stupidest war ever, but I don't think there were any Catholic leaders telling people not to fight in it, were there? Or a pilot who drops a bomb that has vast "collateral damage" (meaning many women and children are burned up alive) - does the church say he should go to confession even? I've never heard it. Is it a sin to use the word "collateral damage" as a way of disguising what you're doing? I've never heard a church leader mention it.
The Church might tell people who considered voting for John Kerry that they should be blocked from receiving communion. But when did the Church ever say to young men and women: don't fight in a war, refuse, don't join up.
My senior year in high school I marched in the New York City peace march of 1967, protesting the Vietnam war. It was a beautiful spring day, and the march was joyful, and people leaned out of office buildings cheering the enormous crowd on. I thought surely this outpouring of citizen opposition would cause this war to end. And within a year Lyndon Johnson announced he would not run for president again - I felt we had won. And then a few months later, our choices suddenly boiled down to Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon - both committed to "staying the course," a phrase we hear a lot now.
This is supposed to be about sexuality and gayness, isn't it? But in truth I am in a place of enormous exhaustion and frustration with the Catholic Church - they've proclaimed themselves infallible (a very Alice in Wonderland-like way to win an argument, I must say); its bishops shuffled pedophile priests from parish to parish without even warning people, which seems positively certifiable; and it has energetically tried to block condom use in every country where there is burgeoning AIDS, using its philosophical stubbornness to insist that anyone who doesn't practice abstinence die - "you agree with me on abstinence, no sex is what I want you to do; and if you don't agree, then die die die, it's your fault."
What is the purpose of such a Church?
I feel sort of bad writing this. I assume most of the readers of Conscience still feel and believe in the direct line between Christ and His Church, no matter what idiocies and cruelties and stupidities are perpetrated by the fallible men who make up the Church's hierarchy. (And, boy, the birth control ban is just stupid, plain stupid.)
But I long ago stopped finding the Church a useful messenger of Christ. And I doubt Pope Ratzinger will change my mind. I've come to believe the "kingdom of heaven" is within - we're all part of the soul of God.
I believe that was declared a heresy long ago, right? Well, my apologies if this is too negative for the blog. I wish you all well. But I'm not very interested in the Church's opinion on anything anymore.
Post a Comment
<< Home