Two Washington State Papers Criticize Proposed Budget’s Impact on Health Care

The budget proposed by the Washington state House would weaken the state's health care system at a time when greater support is needed, John Webster writes on behalf of the Spokane Spokesman-Review editorial board. While low reimbursement rates have prompted doctors to turn away Medicaid patients, Webster writes that the budget "proposes to cut several of those already-inadequate reimbursement rates." In addition, Webster says that the state Revenue Department has "reinterpreted state law" to allow the taxing of hospitals on funds they receive from state-funded programs to treat the poor and elderly. "This is nuts," he writes. Noting that lowering reimbursement rates shifts the burden of caring for Medicaid/uninsured populations to already struggling hospitals, Webster concludes, "What's lacking is an awareness that cuts in health care have adverse human and financial repercussions. It is tragedy, not efficiency, that occurs when hospitals close and doctors turn away sick people" (Webster, Spokane Spokesman-Review, 5/7).

'Dip Deeper' to Spare Health Care
Also addressing the proposed state House budget, a Seattle Times editorial criticizes a planned $103 million cut in the state-subsidized Basic Health Plan, which offers subsidized medical insurance and mostly covers childless couples and single men who don't qualify for Medicaid with incomes up to 200% of the federal poverty level. The editorial states that the budget would cap enrollment at 100,000, down from the current figure of 133,000. In addition, the budget would create a waiting list for the state's CHIP program, "cut payments to hospitals that cover the uninsured at emergency rooms" and "divert some federal money that was supposed to go to hospitals" to other purposes. The editorial states the cuts are being proposed to "accomodate" two voter-passed ballot initiatives to improve the quality of education. But, it adds, voters approved the initiatives on the condition that other services would not be harmed. Given this, the editorial calls for the state to reduce the proposed health cuts, possibly by giving state employees smaller raises or "dip[ping] deeper into reserves" (Seattle Times, 5/1).