Families endure health care ‘crucible of pain’

My 88-year-old mom, who fell and broke her arm some eight weeks ago, had to endure a two-pronged battle - with herself and with the health care system.

I suspect that her story, while not tragic, is more commonplace than generally recognized. But, as with other common experiences, it carried the potential for tragedy.

After less than a week in the hospital, she was sent home with her arm in a sling. No need for surgery. It was a clean break, the arm would heal on its own.

In her bed at my sister's home, where she's lived since her stroke more than four years ago, things went from bad to worse, and not just for my mom.

It was a nightmarish week for my sister, who had to get up three or four times in the middle of the night to help our mother: give her the pain medication at the prescribed intervals, get her out of bed, escort her to the bathroom, and then back to bed, readjust the pillows, and so on, and on...

I relieved my sister a couple of nights and rapidly joined her and the legions of other family members throughout the land turning into basket cases while caring for loved ones 24/7. Regular work attendance, family and social life - much less moments of reflection about the beauty in life - quickly go out the window.

On the seventh day, I heard my sister's frantic voice through my sleep. stumbled out of bed and into the room next door. There I found my sister on her knees beside our mother, both of them on the floor by the bed. Mom was breathing, snoring soundly, slouched over her good arm. "Should we put her back in bed? What if she's injured something else? Her head, maybe? Should we call 911? Yes ... no ... yes."

We opted for 911. In the ER later it was determined she had not injured any other part of her body. We surmised she must have rolled off the bed in her sleep, unconscious of what was transpiring. "Phew! That was a close one."

There was a silver lining in all this. It took a second fall, soon after the first, to convince the insurance company that our mother needed extended professional care until the arm healed. No amount of logic or medical correctness had persuaded the insurer to approve extended care in a medical facility after the first fall.

After several days in the hospital, we lost the fight to place our mom in the acute rehab center where she had made satisfactory progress four years earlier after her stroke and after a subsequent hip replacement. This, after the professional personnel at the rehab facility had determined she was a prime candidate for their intensive program. We discovered later that the cost of care there was too high for the insurance carrier.

But we did take solace when we defeated efforts by the insurer to rush our mother instead into a dingy skilled nursing facility. We played low and dirty with the poor overworked social worker: "How would you like for your own mother to be placed in a dump?" After that and no small amount of persistent prodding at various levels of the health care bureaucracy, our mom was admitted into a decent skilled nursing facility.

A few days into her stay at the skilled nursing facility, my sister and I noticed our mother had intervals when what she said made little sense. We worried that she was beginning to lose it. We arranged to have the resident psychologist see mom during her weekly visits.

It wasn't until several days later that it dawned on us to inquire about the pain medication. It turns out they were giving her a pill that contained morphine.

Morphine, commonly administered to patients in acute pain, sends my mother into a tizzy, including bouts of grouchiness and hallucination. So, the first thing out of our mouths any time our mom is transferred to a new health care facility is "Please, no morphine." We are assured by the discharging facility that her chart so states.

After four weeks at the skilled nursing facility, her arm was X-rayed. Things were healing nicely. Practically every day, my sister and her daughter, who has been a big help all along, pressed for an orthopedic doctor to examine our mom in order to determine whether she could start putting weight on her arm. The physical and occupational therapists were also pressing so they could start more aggressive treatment - the sooner that's done, the quicker the recuperation.

It wasn't until three weeks later - a day after our mom was discharged from the skilled nursing facility - that she was seen by an orthopedic doctor and certified capable of putting weight on the arm.

While at the skilled nursing facility, she regained her ability to walk on her own using a cane, for which we're thankful. But save for some limited non-weight-bearing exercises, she received no therapy on the arm for which she was placed in the facility in the first place.

Neither protestations at the facility and with the insurance company nor the subsequent appeal to a supposedly impartial arbitrator changed the original decision to send my mom home on the day set by the insurer.

In the course of this experience, we've learned that under public Medicare it is the health care professional who has the final say on the best remedy, including how long it is necessary for a patient to remain in a medical facility. It is not a clerk or even a health care professional on the payroll of a for-profit outfit whose job depends on how well he/she satisfies the company's profit line. Our family had initially opted for the private plan because it had a better prescription drug plan.

For folks our mother's age, it is bad enough to have to endure the pain - physical and emotional - that comes with a serious injury. Not to mention the prolonged confinement in the health care facility. Judging from the comments of several patients our mother befriended, their ordeal felt more like incarceration. More than once staff members rushed out the facility's front door to catch one patient who kept "escaping," as the other patients would say, half jokingly.

Under the present for-private-profit-dominated health care system, inferior treatment and often life-threatening ordeals are heaped on patients who must already bear the crucible of their personal pain and fears.

I shudder to think what becomes of patients who don't have family or friends to advocate for them.

Our mother is now recuperating at my niece's home where there are no stairs to climb. It is with admiration that I watch the tender, patient and yet firm hand with which my niece cares for her grandma. My wife and daughter had taken shifts at the health care facility. In the process of fighting for our loved one's welfare, the family has gotten closer and is more united than ever. As a result of this recent experience, our resolve to fight for health care reform has never been greater.

Deep inside, my heart cries out to do away now with this whole for-corporate-profit health care system and replace it with a democratically-run public system. But my better senses bring me back to reality. Let's take care to pass the best health care plan present conditions will allow and, like Social Security and other social programs, improve on them with continued struggle.

Health care and a democratically-run system of public social benefits are on the horizon. Let's keep our eyes on the prize.

 

Post your comment

Comments

  • Thank you, Juan, for sharing your family's story of pain and suffering. I'm glad to hear that your mother is recovering well.

    I took care of my own mother for many years in my own home; finally I was forced to put her in a nursing facility, where she died a couple of years later. She was not happy there, and I will always feel guilt for placing her there.

    Now, because of the economic downturn, I am unemployed, uninsured and will be forced to retire with a much diminished social security benefit. I do not want my children to be saddled with taking care of me in my old age, nor to be forced into the same decisions that I was with my mother.

    If it weren't for the loss of a public option, I might agree with your analysis that we should pass the "best health care plan present conditions will allow." However, loss of a public option, coupled with mandatory private medical insurance for everyone, creates a very difficult system to dismantle later. I believe it will be years before this unparellaled blow to individual freedom, to common decency, and to overall goodness can be corrected.

    Again, I thank you for sharing your experience; we are on the same side. However, I do not think we have seen the best health care plan that is possible. We may yet see it..... if our voices are bold enough, and if our leaders are bold enough to act.

    Posted by Karen L. Hancock, 01/28/2010 2:51pm (2 months ago)

  • Note: This item appears on pdaillinois. org: http://www.pdaillin ois.org/site/ ?q=content/ pda-illinois- statement- current-health- care-reform- bill

    And also on Daily Kos:
    http://www.dailykos .com/story/ 2010/1/22/ 23342/2647? new=true
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    PDA-Illinois Terms Current Health Bill, 'A National Error'


    PDA-Illinois Demands Truly Universal, Comprehensive, Cost-Effective, Equitable Quality Health Care For All



    WE OPPOSE PROFIT DRIVEN 'REFORM!'



    Under the proposed health insurance reform bills, the American people lose, the corporate world wins. The present bills if passed create a tax-payer supporter welfare program for the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries. How did this happen? Through campaign finance donations, lobbying, and revolving-door payoffs. Here is why we oppose the bills:



    1. The current bills will strengthen the most destructive and wasteful parts of America’s health care system: the profit-driven medical insurance industry. Even though they add no value to health care, insurance companies are guaranteed millions of new customers, and hundreds of billions of additional premium dollars through individual mandates. Despite Obama’s campaign promise of no mandates, with his approval, mandates are included in both the Senate and House versions. More premiums, more profit. (The mandates may be unconstitutional and are likely to be challenged in the courts.)



    2. The government will subsidize those who cannot afford the premiums. Those subsidies are inadequate and will leave many families having to pay 20% of their income toward health care. Moreover, our taxes, in form of the subsidies, will essentially reward a profit-driven industry. These additional profits will allow the insurance industries to further lobby against the people’s interests and any reforms included in the current bills.



    3. The bill would leave many millions of Americans with inadequate insurance – an “actuarial value” as low as 60 percent of actual health costs. Predictably, as health costs continue to grow, more families will face co-payments and deductibles so high that they preclude adequate access to care. Insurance ‘coverage’ does not equal access to care.



    4. Most of the provisions in the bills are scheduled to take place in 2013 or 2014. No explanation is given for this long delay. Medicare, which provided health insurance for millions, was implemented within a year after the legislation was signed into law—in a computer-less age!



    5. The bill is over 2,000 pages long and getting longer. Such a massive, convoluted document is likely to be read by only a few and understood by hardly anyone. Where’s the transparency? This is not only ridiculous, but suspicious as well; what motivations are at work here? HR 676, the Conyers/Kucinich bill that would implement “Expanded & Improved Medicare for All,” consists of just 30 pages. The Senate version, S 703, “The American Health Security Act of 2009,” contains only 172 pages.



    6. The current bills do not rescind the provision prohibiting Medicare from negotiating drug prices for its beneficiaries. --The Veterans Administration has such negotiating power and can purchase drugs at substantial savings.-- While the legislation does cover the “doughnut hole,” the coverage is inadequate. In addition, the new legislation will drain money from Medicare because some Medicare funds will be used to fund part of the new bill.



    7. The current legislation does force insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions, but various loopholes exist that cast doubt on the effectiveness of this provision. Insurance companies will be able to charge higher premiums, deductibles and co-pays, with no limits. As a result, people with pre-existing conditions may have insurance, but still be reluctant to seek medical attention due high deductibles and co-pays.



    8.The following dubious provisions are also part of the bills:


    •Permitting insurers and companies to more than double charges to employees who fail “wellness” programs because they have diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol readings, or other medical conditions.
    •If the Senate version prevails (which is likely), medical insurance will be sold through state-run exchanges. Insurers will be permitted to sell policies “across state lines,” exempting patient protections passed in other states. Insurers will thus set up in the least-regulated states in a race to the bottom, threatening public protections won by consumers in states with better regulations.

    •Insurers can charge up to four times more based on age, plus more for certain conditions, and to continue to use marketing techniques to cherry-pick healthier, less costly enrollees.

    •Insurers may continue to rescind policies for “fraud or intentional misrepresentation”—the main pretext insurance companies now use to cancel coverage.
    9. The government’s ability to prevent insurance companies from rescinding policies for people with serious illness is questionable. Loopholes are growing and serious oversight of the insurance industry is lacking now and will be more difficult after this complex legislation is passed.



    10. Too many will still be uninsured. The Senate bill would cover 31 million people, but at least 46 million are uninsured. Denying care to 15 million people is wrong.



    11. Women’s right to choose is severely curtailed. This is unacceptable. Abortions are a legal medical procedure. Catholic Bishops must not be allowed to dictate their demands in a national health care bill via surrogates in Congress.



    12. The excise tax on so-called “Cadillac” health care benefits is an additional, backdoor tax on the middle class, making health care less affordable for working people. By 2019, most middle class families will be affected by the tax. The notion that salaries will rise as a result is laughable. Keeping the Bush tax cuts for the rich while further taxing the middle class through the health care bill is unconscionable betrayal of the promises the President and Democrats made during the 2008 campaign to working and middle class voters. During his campaign, Obama harshly criticized John McCain for proposing just such a tax.



    13. The bill preserves insurance companies’ exemptions from the anti-trust laws and therefore from fair competition. Only insurance companies and Major League Baseball are exempt from anti-trust laws.



    14. This bill is likely to be a political disaster for the President and the Democratic Party. It will increase public cynicism about the role of government and its ability to solve social and economic problems. It is also likely to cause the Democratic Party and the President to lose much of the good will and support that led to their victories in 2008, thus opening the door to right-wing resurgence.

    This is not reform! This legislation is designed to benefit insurance and pharmaceutical companies, not the American people. Democrats should kill this bill and introduce a real reform like Improved Medicare for All, which provides truly universal, comprehensive, cost-effective and equitable health care for everyone.

    Your comments are welcome.

    Posted by A concerned Democrat, 01/25/2010 2:05pm (2 months ago)

  • yeah!!!!!!!

    there goes another stalinist

    Posted by Kamran Heiss, Junior, 01/25/2010 9:08am (2 months ago)

  • Wish I would have read this before I posted a comment on another article. Bert I'm with you. I have had it. No more rreading this site- no mere comments from me. What's the use.

    Posted by Suzy, 01/24/2010 1:14pm (2 months ago)

  • good

    go!

    Posted by Kamran Heiss, Junior, 01/23/2010 3:50pm (2 months ago)

  • I'm out of here. This kind of censorship has no place on a working class website. Maki had very good ideas. His response to Gary Hicks was right on. He is one of the few who have stood up and fought for the kind of healthcare reform working people need. I notice the discussions have already dropped. People believing in democracy and socialism should boycott this site. I am.

    Posted by Bert, 01/22/2010 3:32pm (2 months ago)

  • bert___

    maki is no longer allowed to post to our site by decision of the national board

    an explained will bee firthcumming from the editer

    good ridence

    Posted by Kamran Heiss, Junior, 01/22/2010 9:28am (2 months ago)

  • Nothing like censorship. What happened to the response to gary Hicks?

    Posted by Bert, 01/21/2010 9:20pm (2 months ago)

  • Dear Juan,
    This is a wonderful article. It shows how heartless the health care system truly is. I know why we fight for Socialism because we understand that life can be more fulfilling and humane. We will triumph in the struggle for health care reform, better schools, more jobs, social and economic justice and the end of wars of aggression . This I know. Much love and respect Mama Cassie

    Posted by mama cassie, 01/21/2010 5:55pm (2 months ago)

  • Great article Juan. I'm going to coment on facebook.

    Posted by Armando Ramirez, 01/21/2010 11:38am (2 months ago)

RSS feed for comments on this page | RSS feed for all comments