NVR Logo
A scary time in health care for kids
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Save and Share Share
Halloween is here. Time for trick-or-treating, costumes and scary creatures. This Halloween, however, is frightening on another level for California's children. Why? Because thousands of kids are in danger of losing their health insurance.

2007 was supposed to be the year of health care reform. For the past 10 months, we have urged elected officials to stop talking about the problem and get it done. We remain supportive of covering all kids as part of a broader health care reform package, but with each passing day, the risk to children grows. The ones who will suffer most from inaction in the special session are kids -- our most vulnerable population.
Unlike imaginary ghosts and goblins, being frightened about kids losing health coverage is all too real for thousands of families in California. Children's Health Initiatives (CHIs) in as many as 18 counties, including Napa, could be forced to drop kids from coverage beginning as early as February 2008. Up to 40 percent of children enrolled in local programs through CHIs may lose coverage by July 2008 and 66 percent could be without coverage by 2010. Nearly all of the CHIs have capped enrollment due to insufficient funding so children who need health insurance are being turned away in increasing numbers.

In addition, more than $30 million in recent budget cuts slashed outreach programs that would have enrolled as many as 94,000 eligible children in state and local health insurance programs. At the national level, re-authorization of the federal SCHIP program was recently vetoed by President Bush, jeopardizing coverage for more than 400,000 California children. Moreover, stricter eligibility requirements for SCHIP members were recently announced, effectively making thousands of children ineligible for the program. And yet, these regressive steps go against the values of the overwhelming majority of Californians -- 82 percent -- who support covering all California's kids. This isn't, or shouldn't be, a partisan issue, as Republican voters by a 2-1 margin also support covering kids.
Why such broad-based support? Because people recognize the importance of prevention. Kids with health insurance are more likely to get the care they need to ensure healthy development, immunizations to prevent diseases and basic check-ups with primary care physicians. Healthy kids also miss fewer school days and grow up to become more productive members of society. And when parents don't have to stay home and care for their sick children, they too miss fewer work days and are more productive.

At the Children's Health Initiative of Napa County, we work every day towards ensuring that all kids in Napa County have health insurance. There are 24 similar programs operating in counties throughout the state, providing comprehensive health insurance that includes not just medical coverage, but vision and dental care that is so vital to a child's healthy development and ability to learn. The CHIs have shown the way to covering all kids, but we need the state and federal governments as partners to enable every child in California to have a healthy future.
The window of opportunity to cover all of California's children is closing. Moreover, when that window closes, all or some of the progress we've made at the local level will begin to unravel and thousands of children will lose their health coverage. That's why, regardless of the outcome of the broader health care reform debate, the special legislative session must at least produce policy and funding that covers all California kids beginning in 2008. Anything less will be a colossal failure, haunting our elected officials and their constituents for years to come.

(Diel lives in Napa.)
5 comment(s)

napablogger wrote on Oct 31, 2007 11:17 PM:

" Children can already get their asthma medication, etc. Medical care is already available for those who can't pay. The thinking behind insuring everyone is that parents will take their kids more often. A lot of poor people don't want the hassle associated wtih getting free or reduced cost care. But if the government runs the insurance we will have the same thing. Here's the dilemma. Health care is so expensive that services have to be restricted, everyone can't do everything they want medically or it would cost more than we could even nearly afford. So somewhere someone has to decide that some people can't get some services. Now the insurance companies do it. After universal health care or single payer, then the government will do it. Who do you think will do a better job? at lower cost? One thing you will find with every other country that has socialized medicine is that access to care is restricted. The reason they want to do govt paid health care is to increase access to services, and it will never happen, it can't it would bankrupt the whole economy. What we have to do is make health care less expensive, and that will not happen by the government taking it over. "

Kevin wrote on Oct 31, 2007 12:26 PM:

" Diel, you need to send your letter to Pelosi and ask why she continues to politicize this issue instead of sending the President a SCHIPs bill that he can sign. Continuing to send the President bills that he has promised to veto is purely partisan posturing on her part. Many Democrats are beginning to realize that the Democrats in Congress are not accomplishing anything, have not kept the promises they made last November and are merely trying to play "prevent defense" to get through the elections of 2008. President Bush has promised to sign a SCHIPs bill with expanded coverage for children, that does not include adults, illegals and families making $62,000 per year. The Democrats should send him that bill and quit playing games. "

mikeb wrote on Oct 31, 2007 11:50 AM:

" Until the first step to enrollment is verification of legal residency I'm against any form of govenment run or funded health care. Our emergency rooms are already open to anyone in need of emergency care. That's reasonable. But we do not have the resources or even the responsibility to provide health insurance to every person who runs, digs or swims thier way accross our border. "

steph wrote on Oct 31, 2007 9:28 AM:

" I'm warming to this idea; if anyone knows how providing health care insurance to all California *children* under 18yo would severely adversely affect our California economy, I'm all ears. But I do hate the idea of children, who can't pick their parents, and some of whom have parents who are working poor, to go without their asthma medications, their vaccinations, the watchful eye of a pediatrician. I don't agree with a bond measure, I want budget cuts and I would even agree to increased taxes with strict oversight to ensure efficiency (quit laughing, I know...) But seriously, children can't do this for themselves. Can this be done economically? One point I'm having trouble with is WHY it takes $30 MILLION for outreach to POSSIBLY enroll 94,000 children (but not provide insurance?) Is this right? That's insane. There has to be a better, more efficient, less-costly way, such as allowing insurance companies (reputable, by invitation only) to enroll low-income children into their insurance plans that California pays the premiums for. This could be a win-win, since children tend to be, on the whole, lower utilizers of healthcare, and so their premium dollars help to offset the costs for older and/or sicker patients. I want children to have healthcare, but I really want there to be a smart way to provide it--I want the taxpayers to get good VALUE from the investment. I don't want our money going to a lazy inefficient bureaucracy or sheister insurance companies. (I'm not labeling all insurance companies as sheisters, mind you, just the sheisters. Most of the big names are getting the job done for most people.) "

Common Sense wrote on Oct 31, 2007 8:18 AM:

" We're paying some of the highest taxes in the nation already, and it is being spent very inefficiently! If they can't figure out a way to do it with what they've taken from us already, FORGET IT. "

Comment guidelines
All comments will be screened and may take several hours to be posted.
• Keep comments clear, concise and focused on the topic in the story.
• Comments exceeding 300 words will not be posted.
• Refrain from personal attacks, degrading comments or remarks that do not add to a constructive dialogue.
• Comments implying suspects in crime-related stories are guilty before they have been proven so in a court of law will be deleted.
• Do not post e-mail addresses or links except for pages on Napavalleyregister.com or government Web sites.
• Comments will not be edited - they will be approved or declined.
• Comments may be used in the print edition of the newspaper.
• If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact dross@napanews.com or bkennedy@napanews.com
For further information on the comment guidelines, click here.
Search:
Advanced searchWeb Search Powered By Yahoo! Search
Copyright © 2008 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy