HHSC: New Women's Health Program Has Enough Providers
The Health and Human Services Commission on Monday said a new survey it commissioned shows the Texas Women’s Health Program has a greater capacity to serve impoverished women than its predecessor, a joint state-federal program that ended after the state moved to exclude clinics affiliated with abortion providers.
The state's enforcement of the so-called Affiliate Ban Rule led the Obama administration to pull a $9-to-$1 federal match for the original Medicaid Women's Health Program on Dec. 31; in all, 51 Planned Parenthood clinics were forced out of the program. Though Planned Parenthood has filed multiple lawsuits ...
Comments (16)
Mike Openshaw via Texas Tribune on Facebook
You mean the feds actually get IN THE WAY of decent Health Care? Who woulda thunk it? (Namely, about any conservative.)
Frank Kenisky via Texas Tribune on Facebook
But under wat circumstances? They won't provide abortion consulting without some religious guilt.
Kristi Thibaut via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Now that is funny...
Samdavis
Mike, you conservative idiots will believe what Rick Perry tells you? Do you just hate all women or are you just too uninformed to care?
Mike Openshaw via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Samdavis, serving 37,513 more women is 'hating all women'? I think not. It shows Planned Parenthood is NOT the most efficient way to deliver services.
Alana Carpenter-Moore
The article says there are providers available, but how many of them accept Medicaid or will be willing to accept the state's contracts to provide women's services? These are the problems that other health care providers have- the state doesn't pay enough to cover costs, so the providers opt out of programs.
Beverly Nuckols
Alana Carpenter-Moore, the entire point of this article is to report the State's count of those docs and clinics who have agreed to accept TWHP patients and pay.
Beverly Nuckols via Texas Tribune on Facebook
The docs and clinics in the communities will provide comprehensive continuing medical care for women and their families. In fact, they (we) already do. TWHP has solidified the relationship and identified family Physicians, OB/Gyns, and pediatricians, as well as community clinics and FQHC clinics already in the community that agree to participate. These providers aren't concentrated in urban populations like the limited-services PP.
Dale Curry
HHSC commissioned a study. Unfortunately, that study did not address the thousands of women forced from their care at Planned Parenthood who will now be left scrambling for care. Nor did the "study" address the 73% (80k+) of women who had received their care through the previous program at PP. More Tparty rhetoric at the expense of healthcare for the underserved. In effect, HHSC commissioned a study, of questionable integrity, at unknown cost essentially justifying the actions of the State with a questionable claim of having more capacity. More Tparty smoke and mirrors to hide the truth.
And Mr. Openshaw, you can claim the Feds get in the way, but it just shows how much you do not know about healthcare in this country. Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) were a creation under the first Bush presidency. Since then, these organizations have done an exceptional job of providing care to the medically underserved. As to your claim that PP was "inefficient", this frivilous statement demonstrates either 1) a complete inability to grasp what the article/report addresses and/or 2) a propensity to misrepresent the facts to accommodate your narrative. Sorry, Mike we are not buying it! Perhaps you can interest us in some Death Panels?
Samdavis
I believe people like Mr. Openshaw that look for places to spout the party line, while neglecting to check the facts, are referred to as "trolls"
Michael B Openshaw
Dale, this study indicates that those supposed 'thousands scrambling' are covered by the tens of thousands MORE that can be served in the current model- which demonstrates that Planned parenthood is NOT the most efficient mechanism of delivering women's health care. You offer no 'facts' to contest this study.
Been dealing with the feds in medicine since the late 60s; they ARE appalling inefficient- and detract from actual patient care. ALL bureaucracies do, whether government or private; the fed is just the MOST inefficient.
As for being a 'troll', a common dismissal by a liberal who 1) doesn't have the facts to back up their view and 2) a complete inability to contemplate anything but their own 'party line'.
Dale Curry
Mr. Openshaw – Again, neither you nor this report offers any proof that PP is inefficient. All this report says, allegedly, is the state has created a system with more capacity than before. Allegedly is the key word. We will see. My expectations is this new system will be much less efficient, provide poorer quality care, and will represent much more additional costs for our state just to satisfy Tparty rhetoric and distortions.
As to offer any “facts”, since I have not read (nor you I would imagine) the report, my commentary is limited to what the Tribune has reported. So as to contesting the study, I have not. What I have expressed is a lack of credibility I have for this study. A study commissioned mainly to “justify” their actions. ;
As to scrambling, while you might not care, there are those of us who do care that suddenly, as of 2012, 80,127 patients are suddenly forced to provide a new provided. Why? Because it behooves the Tparty narrative that PP is primarily an abortion provider though that is NOT the truth.
As a Member of the Board of Directors for the nation’s 10th largest FQHC, I strongly disagree with your OPINION (claiming the FED is inefficient is not a FACT). Just more Tparty dogma and misinformation and distortions masquerading as FACTS. Clearly, you have difficulty distinguishing between facts and opinion.
As to being a troll, I have not called you such.
Dale Curry
Allow me to correct a typo:
As to scrambling, while you might not care, there are those of us who do care that suddenly, as of 2013, 80,127 patients are suddenly forced to find and schedule a new provider. Difficult in the best of circumstances in the best of times, now with 80,000+ patients now having to find a new provider, it will become even more challenging. And since it has fallen to me to remind you, what about all those women who are/were undergoing critical care for a chronic condition. What about the interruption to their treatment this change will represent? Why? Because it behooves the Tparty narrative that PP is primarily an abortion provider though that is NOT the truth.
Samdavis
Mike this study is published by a state that is trying to cover its butt. It's a sign of ignorance to claim otherwise.
Michael B Openshaw
As if Planned Parenthood- that is NOT independently audited for how it spends taxpayers money (such an audit would be 'offensive')- is a paragon of unbiased information.
Dale Curry
Mr Oppenshaw your comments are full of attacks against PP but with NO FACTS. Your attacks are full of misrepresentations about the extent of PP abortion related services, with your FALSE implication being PP receives Federal money to provide abortions. Again, not true. Whats next, more death panels or weapons of mass destruction?