Hospital funding change sparks problems

State takes away money for surgery

The state suddenly yanked funding for surgery for uninsured women at Woman’s Hospital, leaving a health care access problem as services end at LSU Earl K. Long Medical Center.

“My great fear is women who need what they call ‘elective’ surgery, not getting it in a timely manner and some will die,” said state Rep. Regina Barrow, D-Baton Rouge. She said she knows of at least one case that became “life-threatening” before surgery could be arranged.

Barrow said explanations from LSU about what transpired and why, have not been very clear. “The funding was there for this and then the money was taken away from Woman’s and reallocated,” she said.

State Sen. Sharon Broome said women who had been receiving health care at the Earl K. Long facility were supposed to get the same access or better access to care with the transition to Woman’s Hospital.

“Now we are finding the opposite,” said Broome, D-Baton Rouge.

LSU System Executive Vice President Frank Opelka disagreed with the characterization of how the problem developed.

Under a public-private partnership, Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center would become home to LSU patient care and medical education. But the Lake didn’t want to handle obstetrics and gynecological services, called OB-GYN, or prisoner care.

Woman’s agreed to take over OB-GYN services last April -—nearly 18 months ahead of the original late 2013 closure of the Earl K. Long facility. LSU recently pushed up the closure to mid-April

“It was a good faith attempt to respond to LSU’s needs. We agreed to take these patients sooner than expected based on there being bridge funding,” said Teri Fontenot, Woman’s Hospital chief executive officer.

“We were notified in late October the source of funding was being redirected,” Fontenot said. “That’s why we are not scheduling non-emergency surgeries ... If it was an emergency, we would be doing it. These are uninsured elective surgery cases through LSU residency.”

Broome said a lot of questions have gone unanswered surrounding the closure of the Earl K. Long facility, including access to health care, which have not been resolved.

“In the conversion process while we did not have everything in place there were some things we thought we had in place such as Woman’s taking over,” Broome said. “It becomes even more problematic if the things we had in place start unraveling. It causes alarm and concern.”

State Department of Health and Hospitals Secretary Bruce Greenstein said three-way discussions involving his agency, LSU and Woman’s began this week and are aimed at resolving the access problem.

“We are working on ways to finance it in a reasonable way,” said Greenstein. “We have some work to do to address this gap.”

“Every single case is extremely important and most of the time, time-sensitive,” Greenstein said. He said surgeries are non-emergency that must be scheduled such as hysterectomies for a variety of reasons.

Greenstein said the problem occurred as the state looked for new private sector partners to participate in the Low Income Needy Care Collaboration Agreement program, called LINCCA. Private hospitals sign agreements with state or local governmental entities to provide certain health care services.

“Instead of us not utilizing the capacity, I made the decision to take that extra capacity and bring it to Woman’s Hospital,” Greenstein said. “We had to move that back to where it needed to go, so that’s the reduction.”

Opelka said LSU has been working on individual cases as they crop up. He said he found out about the problems earlier this year as Broome and Barrow complained about the barrier to surgery their constituents have been running into.

“When it came to my attention I said ‘what’s going on?’” he said.

Opelka said Woman’s receives reimbursement for LSU programs under the major teaching hospital status, with OB-GYN residency programs located there. He said that translates into a higher Medicaid reimbursement for services. In addition, Opelka said there are LINCCA contracts under which Woman’s receive dollars to care for vulnerable patients.

Greenstein said there are women who are uninsured who have income above 200 percent of poverty and cannot qualify for Medicaid and for whatever reason have not taken advantage of insurance.

“Traditionally they went to Earl K. Long for access to care,” he said.

“We are now going to be working with them to get the right kind of financing for care and try to get women to get insurance,” Greenstein said.

In some cases, the women may qualify for Medicaid or premium assistance, he said.


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (15)


1) Comment by louisisanared - 09/02/2013

"Obama Care" and "Jindal Care" will be the death of a lot of patients that could have been saved. And over what? The almighty dollar and how the rich will be cured/ the poor dead.

2) Comment by yardeggs - 08/02/2013

@phil: This program WAS the solution for underinsured and uninsured women when EKL closes its doors. That's the big problem. The state created this program with Woman's Hospital to transfer location of service without leaving a gap, then one year later defunded the program they created, so the state effectively UNSOLVED the problem.

3) Comment by beabea - 08/02/2013

Phil, once the exchanges start in 2014 you will acquire the bargaining power of being part of a large group when you shop for your individual policy on the exchange where a number of private insurers offering a variety of insurance products will compete for your business. (Although here in Louisiana, thanks to Gov. Jindal, we'll have to use the federal Exchange since he refuses to set one up at the state level.) And I say "we" because I'm self- employed and I also buy my own health insurance so I'm following this stuff pretty closely. If the companies competing for your business on the exchange offer you only policies that you can't afford, you get a subsidy. And as to your rates (and mine) having gone up since Obamacare started, consider how much more they might have gone up were it not for the cost controls that Obamacare put in place. Your rates went up before Obamacare too, only then the insurance companies had a lot more leeway about how much they could jack them up. And they also weren't required to spend at least 80% of your premium dollar on actual healthcare like they must now do.

4) Comment by crazycajun - 08/02/2013

Phil as for when u might benefit from the Affordable Care Act has a lot to do with your age. Some things have already kicked in but there's a lot more being implemented starting next year. How much you have to pay will be decided on a sliding scale according to you income. If you make more you will pay more. If you make less you will pay less. Already in effect is the elimination of the drug"donut hole" for seniors on Medicare. Before this elimination if your drugs reached a certain amount you would have to pay full price until you reached a higher amount then Medicare would start paying again. The insurance companies had this donut provision passed by the republicans to get around the medicare payments they were receiving. To recoup some of their profits. Phil don't let anybody blow smoke in your ear.The cost of medicine in this country is complicated issue to reign in at best. There are so many areas to cover. The ACA mainly started with the insurance companies. You will see a dramatic difference once it's fully kicked in.

5) Comment by hadtobesaid - 08/02/2013

@duckyluve, just because someone's uninsured doesn't mean they are unemployed. You're so busy passing judgment, you're forgetting the obvious. @foldgers, you appear to have all the answers. So, please, explain to us how condoms will address issues with elective surgeries for things like hysterectomies. Oh, and for the record, just because you make assumptions and jump to conclusions doesn't mean we all do. You take ownership of your "-isms" and stop trying to include the rest of us in your narrow-mindedness.

6) Comment by phil - 08/02/2013

beabea - I agree, and I have already gone through that. Now I have to pay for my own expensive individual health insurance, and it looks like I will actually be FORCED to pay for my own insurance and also have to pay for other people's insurance through taxes in the future. By the way, my insurance has gone up a LOT in the last few years. So I will be a little greedy right now and ask - how has Obamacare helped me and how will it help me in the future? Right now all I see are increased costs for insurance to a point where I can hardly afford insurance. Maybe I will soon spend all of my money on insurance, become classified as poor, and qualify for Medicaid too?

7) Comment by beabea - 08/02/2013

And since quoting the 200% of poverty figure for a four-person household evidently leads to assumptions that we're talking about single mothers having lots of kids, let's look at that level for a two-person household of husband and wife: it's $31,000 per year. Again, try to find a decent individual health insurance policy at that income level If your employer doesn't offer health benefits, or if you lose your job with one that does. My point is, it is a lot easier to fall into these dire uninsured situations than a lot of the scolds here seem to realize.

8) Comment by beabea - 08/02/2013

Until Obamacare fully kicks in next year, every American is merely a job loss away from being uninsured (unless they're over age 65 and on Medicare of course). Some of the commenters here might want to think through the implications of that for their own lives before making disparaging assumptions about others.

9) Comment by Duckyluve - 08/02/2013

You mean somebody told people who refuse to work the word NO? Pull your hand back, go get a job and pay your own way

10) Comment by phil - 08/02/2013

What a mess that has been created! I believe that Obamacare will not work, and just increasing the number of people on Medicaid is a terrible way to solve any problems in the health care industry. However, how about fix ALL of these issues BEFORE EKL is closed down? I am fairly sure that nobody wants anyone to die as a result of bad decisions made by the government.

11) Comment by foldgers - 08/02/2013

If someone is making $46,000 a year and single, maybe they should invest in a few condoms before having 4 kids they can not support. And with that statement, I guess YOU and I are assuming these women with poverty level incomes are single moms?? No husbands who work? No ex husbands who pay child support? No boyfriends/baby daddies who work or pay child support? And no, I am NOT referring to only one race here, but ALL races. Seriously, if you make that amount of money, be smart and stop at one kid...maybe two, because apparently the dads don't help out. And don't tell me about there not being easy access to free abortions. That should not be a birth control option. It is sick to think of it as one. Even though I am pro choice, but still. BC pills and condoms can be found at or near $0. And I am not trying to dis the poor, but again, I find it inhumane to bring a child into poverty and then to also EXPECT the taxpayers to help you out on your lack of common sense.

12) Comment by crazycajun - 08/02/2013

This is just the beginning of the calamities that are sure to follow. Everything L'il booby has conjured up will wash away just like his famous "sand berms". Remember those? How many hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars washed away into the gulf with that episode. I'd hate to be the next repub running for governor next time. All the opposition has to ask is, "ya'll want more of the same". LOL

13) Comment by arin - 08/02/2013

She knows of a least one case. Wow!!

14) Comment by Pakistani - 07/02/2013

Pakistani boy and Mr. Green-jeans both wanna be doctors. Neither has a clue.

15) Comment by beabea - 07/02/2013

"Greenstein said there are women who are uninsured who have income above 200 percent of poverty and cannot qualify for Medicaid and for whatever reason have not taken advantage of insurance." 200% of poverty for a family of four, is about $46,000 per year. Try finding the money to purchase a decent individual health insurance policy at that income level if you're one of the many working people in this state whose employer does not provide health benefits. I guess with his quarter-million dollar taxpayer-provided salary (and benefits) it's easy for Mr. Greenstein to assume not having health insurance is simply a matter of "not taking advantage" of it.