Thursday, April 25, 2013

Philadelphia Case Exposes Deep Rift In Abortion Debate

More From Shots - Health News HealthGut Bacteria's Belch May Play A Role In Heart DiseaseHealthPhiladelphia Case Exposes Deep Rift In Abortion DebateHealthThe DEA Wants Your Old Meds, No Questions AskedHealthFirst Case Of New Bird Flu Found Outside China

More From Shots - Health News

Comments   You must be signed in to leave a comment. Sign In / Register

Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the NPR.org Community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated prior to posting. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

Please enable Javascript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Scammers Find Fertile Ground In Health Law

More From Shots - Health News HealthThe Warts That Bind Your Family And FriendsHealthAs Injuries Rise, More Calls To Refuse The 'Cinnamon Challenge'HealthYoung Adults With Autism Can Thrive In High-Tech JobsHealthScammers Find Fertile Ground In Health Law

More From Shots - Health News

Comments   You must be signed in to leave a comment. Sign In / Register

Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the NPR.org Community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated prior to posting. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

Please enable Javascript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Pretending To Be A 'Good Nurse,' Serial Killer Targeted Patients

April 15, 2013

Listen to the Story 30 min 40 sec Playlist Download Transcript   The Good Nurse

A True Story of Medicine, Madness, and Murder

by Charles Graeber

Hardcover, 307 pages | purchase

close Purchase Featured Books The Good Nurse A True Story of Medicine, Madness, and Murder Charles Graeber Amazon » iBookstore » Independent Booksellers » Your purchase helps support NPR Programming. How? Nonfiction Mysteries, Thrillers & Crime

More on this book:

NPR reviews, interviews and more Read an excerpt

In 2003, police in Somerset County, N.J., arrested a hospital nurse named Charlie Cullen who was suspected of injecting patients with lethal doses of a variety of medications. Cullen would turn out to be one of the nation's most prolific serial killers, murdering dozens, perhaps hundreds of people in nine hospitals over a 16-year period.

Journalist Charles Graeber spent six years investigating the Cullen case, and is the only reporter to have spoken with Cullen in prison. In his new book, The Good Nurse, Graeber pieces together the elements of Cullen's story.

"We'll never know how many people Charlie Cullen ultimately killed," Graeber tells Fresh Air's Dave Davies. "Charlie Cullen doesn't know how many people he killed. He initially could recall 40 and also said there was a large part of his life that was a fog during which he would have no ability to recall. But during that fog � those fogs lasted years � he said there were probably multiples a week."

Graeber � who has written for Wired, GQ and New York Magazine, among other publications � focuses not only on Cullen's tortured life and crimes, but on why Cullen wasn't stopped for so long, despite plenty of evidence he was harming patients. In case after case, Graeber writes, hospital staff believed Cullen was harming patients and pressured him to leave, but failed to alert state regulators or take other steps that might have ended his killing spree. Graeber has his suspicions of why the hospitals failed to report Cullen to the police, but stops short of directly pointing fingers.

He says that in writing the book he has tried "[to lay] it out so that a reader can see the facts laid side by side and decide for themselves the culpability of the hospitals, what they knew, when they knew, what they should have done; and certainly laws have changed in the wake of this."

One of the reasons that Cullen's crimes were so difficult to pinpoint is that human error and death are simply part of the hospital experience.

"Other incidents such as medication errors that are more routine, he had a lot of those as well," says Graeber, "and it's again difficult to sort out which ones were legitimate mistakes and which were simply the M.O. of murder. And more of those should have been reported; very few were, and the question time after time is, 'Should more have been reported?' Yes, absolutely. And you have to go hospital-by-hospital, case-by-case and really look at which incidents should have been reported."

Interview Highlights

On the actions of the hospitals

"The first actions you see time and time again at these hospitals is a legal action rather than an effective investigative reaction. And oftentimes, you'll find that what becomes � certainly in retrospect � to be a real burden of evidence against one guy ... when it starts to really look like this guy is dirty, that's the time he gets moved on one way or the other. He's pushed out or pressured out. So do the hospitals know? That's a question a reader needs to ask, and I think I provide enough evidence that they'll be able to draw that conclusion. But certainly he should have been stopped before he was, and because he wasn't, he killed a lot more people."

Medical student turned journalist Charles Graeber has written about science, crime and business for The New Yorker, Wired and New York Magazine, among other publications.

Gabrielle V. Allen/Twelve Books

On Cullen's troubled childhood, possible sexual abuse and his first attempt at murder

"When asked directly about abuse of that sort in the house he gets very angry. He has gotten very angry with family members, with ex-wives, when they've tried to get him to seek counseling, when they've tried to take him aside, because the pattern � it certainly seems to fit the pattern. He won't say, but he felt unsafe. There were strange men in and out of that house. He had a brother-in-law that came to live with one of his sisters when his sister was pregnant. There was a lot of domestic abuse surrounding that. Exactly what happened to the child is not clear. Eventually the sister ran away, but the brother-in-law stayed, and he and Charlie had a tortured relationship that Charlie had reported to at least one � if not two � of his later lovers that he'd tried to poison that brother's drink. He'd put lighter fluid in the vodka, which is sort of an early example of what would become his pattern for life: a way of passively dealing with things."

On Cullen's narcissism

"His thinking is circular, narcissistic and then the question is how far does that narcissism go? Is it sociopathic? And the answer to that lies somewhere in, well, you have to ask yourself, 'What sort of a person can kill someone and be there as they die and not have it seem to really affect their day at all, or in fact affect their future behavior in any negative fashion for 16 years?'"

On Cullen's hero complex

"Sometimes that's what worked for him. He knew what was wrong with a patient when no one else did. He could be the first to go in there. The other residents remember him jumping on the chest of a patient in just � the sort of � the most dramatic fashion. They appreciated his enthusiasm and his passion, but it seemed a little over the top. But the truth was he did what others could not do, and he did receive praise for that. It did elevate his status, and so there was absolutely an element of ego in the murders."

Read an excerpt of The Good Nurse

Share 804Facebook 5Twitter Google+ Email Comment More From Author Interviews Author InterviewsFollowing The Yellow Brick Road Back To The Origins Of 'Oz'Author InterviewsKenyan Author Ngugi wa Thiong'o Shares WisdomAuthor InterviewsPretending To Be A 'Good Nurse,' Serial Killer Targeted PatientsBooksTall Glass Of Rock Star-Ness: A Q&A With Questlove

More From Author Interviews

Comments   You must be signed in to leave a comment. Sign In / Register

Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the NPR.org Community rules and Terms of Use. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

Please enable Javascript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Government insiders misappropriate funds to Medicare Advantage insurers

U.S. to boost rather than cut payments to health insurers

By Sandhya Somashekhar
The Washington Post, April 1, 2013

The Obama administration reversed itself Monday, scrapping plans to cut by 2.2 percent the rates paid to health insurers that take part in the Medicare Advantage program.

The insurance industry and more than 100 members of Congress had objected to the cut in the per capita growth rate, which was proposed in February. The insurers mounted a vigorous campaign, using television ads and phone banks, to persuade lawmakers to oppose the reduction.

On Monday, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced that it was changing its method of calculating reimbursement rates. Instead of cutting payments for Medicare Advantage plans, it will increase them by 3.3 percent.

�The policies announced today further the agency�s goal of improving payment accuracy in all our programs, while at the same time ensuring program stability and preserving beneficiary choice,� Jonathan Blum, the CMS�s acting principal deputy administrator, said in a statement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/us-to-boost-rather…

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

The private Medicare Advantage plans, offered as options to the traditional government-run Medicare program, were to have their egregious overpayments reduced by provisions of the Affordable Care Act. This year they were to have a 2.2 percent reduction in their rates, but instead received a 3.3 percent increase. That is a rate 5.5 percent higher than scheduled, which increases the payments to the Medicare Advantage plans by over $5 billion! What happened?

It is easier to understand why when you realize that the program was established as an effort to privatize Medicare. The previous effort – private Medicare + Choice plans – didn’t work since the insurers were unable to provide profitable plans at a cost comparable to the traditional Medicare program.

Recognizing that, Congress established the Medicare Advantage program, authorizing payments averaging 14 percent over the costs of traditional Medicare. This would allow the private plans to offer a more attractive option with greater benefits and lower our-of-pocket costs. Once enough people were enrolled in the private plans then they could start to make the traditional Medicare program even less attractive through greater cost sharing, through means testing that chases away the more affluent beneficiaries, and through reducing payment rates causing a further decline in the number of willing providers.

Originally, the private Medicare + Choice plans were successful in enrolling healthier, lower cost patients. With time, many of those patients required more care, and the insurers started dropping out of markets in which they experienced losses. So the next phase – Medicare Advantage.

With Medicare Advantage, risk adjustment was used to transfer funds from insurers that cornered healthier patients to insurers that enrolled more patients with greater needs. Soon it was evident that the insurers became masters at enrolling patients who were not very ill but who could be coded as having expensive problems. Although efforts have been made to further refine the risk adjustments, our government’s payment accuracy website reveals that the insurers are still able to game the system, such that 14 percent of payments remain improper – over $13 billion.

Another one of the methods used to improve payments – but not reduce payments since the proposal was to be revenue neutral – was to retain some of the funds for the Medicare Advantage plans and then use them to reward plans with higher quality ratings, 4 or 5 star. Well, when they were ready to start reducing the overpayments, as required by the Affordable Care Act, the insurers protested that they couldn’t afford the reductions. So the administration revised the quality awards to include 3 star plans, thus assuring that 80 percent of Medicare Advantage plans would have their required reductions largely offset with the quality awards. But this was not revenue neutral. No problem. The administration declared these expanded awards to be a “demonstration,” and thus drew funds from their demonstration project kitty (our tax funds). That diversion of funds will continue through 2014.

So now we’re down to this year, and, of course, the insurance industry said that they would not be able to tolerate the scheduled reductions of 2.2 percent. They called out the forces. They even had more than 160 Representatives and Senators of both parties lobbying the administration to reverse these cuts. Yesterday, it became evident that they were successful – increasing payments 5.5 percent over the scheduled 2.2 percent cut – a $5 billion bonanza. How did they do it?

The sustainable growth rate (SGR) was a formula designed to slow the growth of spending on physician care down to sustainable levels. In response, physicians adjusted the frequency and intensity of their services to make up for what they perceived to be a reduction in their reimbursement rates. The formula would require a reduction in rates that would especially impact primary care physicians. Congress has deferred the reductions for fear of losing too many physicians from the program, but that has resulted in a 25 percent deficit for which Congress needs to enact a “doc fix.” Here’s where the shell game comes in.

In violation of the standards of the Office of the Actuary, CMS decided that Congress inevitably would enact a doc fix, which then they could say represents an increase in the cost of providing care to all Medicare beneficiaries. Thus the phantom increase has been applied to the new Medicare Advantage rates. Little does it matter that there was no increase since Congress has continued to authorize the suspension of the SGR reductions. It is specious for CMS to claim that payments went up this year because of the not-yet-enacted doc fix when they have been up the whole time. Also it seems not to matter that the doc fix which they used in their calculations has not been fixed, and the money will have to come from somewhere… but certainly not from the $5 billion bonus they just gave the Medicare Advantage plans – money that never existed but will have to be drawn from Medicare payroll taxes, from general funds for Part B, and from increases in Part B Medicare premiums that will be paid by Medicare beneficiaries in the traditional plan who are not receiving any of the extra benefits that enrollees in the Medicare Advantage plans are receiving. Unfair.

But it’s worse than this. Not only is the administration bending over backwards to take good care of the private Medicare Advantage insurers, they are now engaged behind the scenes to further impair the traditional Medicare program – a strategy to further push privatization.

The Ryan/Wyden and Frist/Breaux/Thomas premium support voucherization of Medicare has proven to be too hot for the privatizers, considering the backlash that they have experienced. So premium support is off the table during the Obama administration’s negotiations with Congress over the next manufactured fiscal crisis. So what has replaced the vouchers?

It has been leaked, presumably deliberately, that Obama is proposing to combine the Part A (hospital) and Part B (physician) deductibles into one deductible for Parts A & B combined. The intent is twofold – to reduce the amount that the federal government is paying for Medicare, and to increase the sensitivity of Medicare beneficiaries to prices paid for Medicare benefits – making them empowered health care shoppers. This increase in out-of-pocket spending will especially impact the majority who do not require hospitalization and thus have lower total costs. This strategy will make those who have fewer health care needs wonder why they are paying so much more than they thought they would once they were on Medicare.

Bu that’s not all. About 90 percent of Medicare beneficiaries are protected from excessive cost sharing through Medigap plans or through employer-sponsored retirement health benefit programs. The consumer-directed camp has long wanted to bash the Medigap plans so patients would be exposed more directly to the costs. Obama’s team is proposing just that. They want to prohibit the Medigap plans from providing protection for the deductible – removing it, or at least reducing it, as a Medigap benefit. Another option that they are considering is to assess a 15 percent tax on Medigap premiums which would have a similar net financial impact as prohibiting coverage of the deductible.

So what is a person to do? You can accept the traditional Medicare program, but you will face higher deductibles, perhaps a Medigap tax, an even higher Part B Medicare premium, and perhaps means-tested premiums and benefits which will gradually shift down to middle-income individuals. This will not be pleasing to the majority who have only modest health care needs. The other option? You can enroll in a Medicare Advantage plan with greatly reduced cost sharing plus expanded benefits, and perhaps not even a plan premium, all thanks to Congress and the administration who are using our tax funds to provide very generous subsidies to the private Medicare Advantage plans.

A crummy traditional Medicare program with high out-of-pocket costs, or a slick private plan with most costs prepaid, by the government no less? It is presumed that the majority will rush over to the private plans, especially when they see what extra bennies they get.

What then? Congress can then continue to ratchet down government spending on the traditional program, causing an exodus of willing providers – stripping the program down to worse-than-Medicaid. After the private plans have become the standard and Medicare is in the tank, then what? Premium support vouchers! The government gradually pares down the support for the premium you select, so you are now really an empowered shopper – empowered to buy whatever meager benefits you can afford with your measly premium subsidy.

Excuse the length of today’s message, but I hope you understand why. It’s not that I’m a soothsayer… but maybe I am.

Administration Hits Pause On Health Exchanges For Small Businesses

More From Shots - Health News HealthCompanies On The Move Look For Healthy WorkersHealthHow A Spring Birthday Could Pose A Risk For Multiple SclerosisHealthGenetically Modified Rat Is Promising Model For Alzheimer'sHealthState Laws Could Muddle Same-Sex Marriage Benefits

More From Shots - Health News

Comments   You must be signed in to leave a comment. Sign In / Register

Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the NPR.org Community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated prior to posting. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

Please enable Javascript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Lawyers Join Doctors To Ease Patients' Legal Anxieties

Enlarge image i

Lawyer Meredith Watts (left) visits client/patient Shirley Kimbrough at her apartment in north Akron, Ohio. Kimbrough is being helped by a program under which lawyers partner up with health providers to supply patients with legal advice.

Jeff St. Clair/WKSU

Lawyer Meredith Watts (left) visits client/patient Shirley Kimbrough at her apartment in north Akron, Ohio. Kimbrough is being helped by a program under which lawyers partner up with health providers to supply patients with legal advice.

Jeff St. Clair/WKSU

Two professions that have traditionally had a rocky relationship � doctors and lawyers � are finding some common ground in clinics and hospitals across the country.

In Akron, Ohio, for instance, doctors are studying how adding a lawyer to the health care team can help improve a patient's health.

As a TV drones in the background, about a dozen women and children wait for their names to be called at the Summa women's clinic in Akron.

In the clinic's conference room, Meredith Watts is awaiting her next case. She's not a doctor or a nurse. She's a lawyer who specializes in housing and consumer work.

Legal Advice To Help Health Patients

Watts works for Community Legal Aid, a nonprofit that gives free legal help to low-income people in eight Ohio counties. Her firm is housed in a downtown office tower. But Watts prefers working out of the clinic.

"So if somebody comes in to the clinic and they get sent to me and it's a housing problem and I'm here, I can give them advice directly on site," she says.

Watts' role on the team is to help solve issues that might affect a patient's health but are outside a doctor's control.

"Let's say you're under threat of eviction because of something that happened," she says. "That's going to cause a significant amount of anxiety, potentially, and then you're suffering from these anxiety problems that wouldn't have happened if we had been able to intervene and perhaps help with the eviction problem," she says.

A Type Of Preventative Law

And, as a lawyer, Watts makes house calls. One of her clients, Shirley Kimbrough, lives in a subsidized housing unit in a north Akron neighborhood.

The clinic referred Kimbrough to Watts, who last year helped her move into this handicapped-accessible apartment to care for her disabled granddaughter.

"If I hadn't had her to help me I would have lost my granddaughter because I had already lost my daughter, and I don't think I could have stood that," Kimbrough says.

Attorney Marie Curry runs Akron's medical-legal partnership.

"It's exciting to be able to do what we think of as preventative law, rather than always being crisis intervention because you can help something not happen, before it becomes a crisis," Curry says.

'It Doesn't Make Any Sense'

But not all lawyers are quick to embrace a cozy new relationship with their old adversaries.

"I don't understand how a medical clinic needs an attorney to be a part of its team. It doesn't any make sense to me," says Allen Schulman, a malpractice attorney in nearby Canton who takes a more traditional view of the two professions.

"I think there has historically been an animosity between lawyers and doctors. I think we share some of the blame, and I think the medical profession shares some of the blame," he says.

But back at the Akron women's clinic, researcher Michele McCarroll says doctors here like having a lawyer down the hall from the examination room.

A 'One-Stop Shop'

"We are trying to meet the needs of the patients right here on site in kind of a one-stop shop where we know things ... such as social issues, can make a difference in health issues," she says.

McCarroll and Akron's Community Legal Aid lawyers have enrolled 100 women in the first randomized study to determine whether having a lawyer on-site really does improve health outcomes.

They're measuring conditions like blood pressure, stress and other health factors in two groups of women who had legal issues. One group was introduced to a clinic lawyer; the other group was given a number for the legal help line.

They plan to present their results next week at the national Medical-Legal Partnership Summit in Washington.

Share 2092Facebook 66Twitter Google+ Email Comment More From Health Care BusinessBusinesses Seek Out 'Culture Of Health' AreasHealth CareThe 'Hard To Change' Legacy Of Medicare PaymentsHealthWith Plan B Ruling, Judge Signs Off On Years Of AdvocacyPoliticsKansas Set To Enact Law Saying Life Starts At Fertilization

More From Health Care

Comments

With Plan B Ruling, Judge Signs Off On Years Of Advocacy

More From Shots - Health News HealthHow A Spring Birthday Could Pose A Risk For Multiple SclerosisHealthGenetically Modified Rat Is Promising Model For Alzheimer'sHealthState Laws Could Muddle Same-Sex Marriage BenefitsHealth CareThe 'Hard To Change' Legacy Of Medicare Payments

More From Shots - Health News

Comments   You must be signed in to leave a comment. Sign In / Register

Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the NPR.org Community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated prior to posting. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

Please enable Javascript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

With Plan B Ruling, Judge Signs Off On Years Of Advocacy

More From Shots - Health News HealthHow A Spring Birthday Could Pose A Risk For Multiple SclerosisHealthGenetically Modified Rat Is Promising Model For Alzheimer'sHealthState Laws Could Muddle Same-Sex Marriage BenefitsHealth CareThe 'Hard To Change' Legacy Of Medicare Payments

More From Shots - Health News

Comments   You must be signed in to leave a comment. Sign In / Register

Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the NPR.org Community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated prior to posting. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

Please enable Javascript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

The 'Hard To Change' Legacy Of Medicare Payments

More From Shots - Health News HealthHow A Spring Birthday Could Pose A Risk For Multiple SclerosisHealthGenetically Modified Rat Is Promising Model For Alzheimer'sHealthState Laws Could Muddle Same-Sex Marriage BenefitsHealth CareThe 'Hard To Change' Legacy Of Medicare Payments

More From Shots - Health News

Comments   You must be signed in to leave a comment. Sign In / Register

Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the NPR.org Community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated prior to posting. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

Please enable Javascript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Monday, April 1, 2013

Three Years On, States Still Struggle With Health Care Law Messaging

March 30, 2013

Listen to the Story 11 min 18 sec Playlist Download Transcript   Enlarge image i

Joy Reynolds of San Diego looks at the newspapers on display at the Newseum in Washington, D.C., on June 29, 2012, following the Supreme Court ruling on President Obama's health care law.

David Goldman/AP

Joy Reynolds of San Diego looks at the newspapers on display at the Newseum in Washington, D.C., on June 29, 2012, following the Supreme Court ruling on President Obama's health care law.

David Goldman/AP

It is hard to imagine that after three years of acrimony and debate we could still be so confused about President Obama's Affordable Care Act.

Is it actually possible Americans know less about Obamacare now than they did three years ago? Apparently that is the case, and the news comes just as the most sweeping effects of the law are about to kick in.

According to a new poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation, 80 percent of people don't know whether their state is going to expand Medicaid under the law, a huge piece of the health care changes coming down the pike.

“ People just don't have any idea about how they will be impacted.- Ron Cookston, Gateway to Care, Texas Half of people don't know whether their states are going to be setting up so-called health exchanges, and half of people think the law gives undocumented immigrants health care subsidies � it doesn't. The poll also shows that 40 percent of people still think the government is going to set up death panels to decide if someone gets heath care when they're dying � it won't. To further illustrate confusion about the law, 70 percent of people said they like the initiatives in the law when they were asked specifically about each one, but only 37 percent of people said they liked the law itself. Where Are We Now? NPR's health policy correspondent Julie Rovner says a lot of the confusion regarding the Affordable Care Act comes, in part, from a commanding "misinformation and disinformation" campaign. "It has worked better than the people who were trying to put the law into effect, who have been working to put the law into effect rather than messaging about it," Rovner tells weekends on All Things Considered guest host Laura Sullivan. There are essentially three big pieces to the Affordable Care Act: the insurance reforms (also known as the patients' bill of rights), quality and cost measures, and the health care mandate. The insurance reforms portion has mostly taken effect, Rovner says, and includes things like allowing adult children to stay on their parents' health insurance until they are 26, and not letting health plans cancel coverage after you get sick. These are things she says most polls show Americans back. The quality and cost measures are mostly behind-the-scenes changes that are meant to change the way health care is delivered to improve the care patients get to save money for both the patient and the government. The third part goes into effect on Jan. 1, and is the one that has caused the most controversy: the health care mandate. In an effort to get about 30 million more people health insurance, those who don't have coverage will pay a penalty. "This October is when small businesses and people without insurance can start enrolling in these so-called health exchanges," Rovner says. "That's where they'll be able to shop for health plans if they have moderate incomes [and] they'll be eligible for subsidies from the government to help pay for the plans." For low-income Americans who live in a state that has decided to accept the option to expand Medicaid, they can see if they qualify. As part of the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act, it made the Medicaid expansion portion of the law optional. "So we're still waiting to see how many states take up the federal government's offer to pay for most of that cost," Rovner says. Despite the law's efforts to get all Americans health coverage, she says, some Americans could still fall through the cracks if their state doesn't take the option to expand Medicaid. The Risks Of Opting Out In order to get everyone health care coverage � whether a 22-year-old working in a coffee shop or a 58-year-old who's just been kicked off another insurance plan � the idea was that every state would create something called a health care exchange. This is a fancy way of saying each state would build a website and offer folks a sampler platter of low-cost insurance options. The law, however, gave states the chance to opt out of creating one. So far 26 states � mostly red states and mostly on ideological grounds � have done just that. It doesn't mean the exchanges aren't coming to those states or that people in those state's wont have to get insured, it simply means the federal government will build the exchange for those states. One of the states opting out of building its own health exchange is Texas. "Texas has the distinction of having the most uninsured people as a percentage of the population [than] any place in the country," says Ron Cookston, executive director of Gateway to Care, a nonprofit health care advocacy group in Houston. Almost 30 percent of adults in Texas lack health care insurance, according to the research company Gallup. Cookston and other advocates have to find a way to reach out to all those people and let them know what's coming.

"The state of Texas ... [has] great capabilities, and it would have been wonderful if since the passage of the Affordable Care Act they had begun to help communicate and inform our public so they would be ready," Cookston tells NPR's Sullivan. "People just don't have any idea about how they will be impacted."

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has been outspoken about his opposition to Obamacare, saying it costs too much and "kills too many jobs." Perry has also rejected Medicaid expansion in his state, which would have provided care to more than 1 million poor Texans.

President Obama says the federal government would pick up the tab, but Gov. Perry says he believes the state will be left with higher costs in the long run.

In Houston, where Cookston's group operates, few people who will be required to use the health care exchange know anything about it.

"When leadership in any state talks about things in a negative way, it becomes awfully easy for the general public to dismiss it and not think about it," he says.

The federal government is going to send organizations like Cookston's group some money to help get the word out, but he says what they're missing is a coordinating central body.

Related NPR Stories Shots - Health News At Age 3, Affordable Care Act Is No Less Controversial Shots - Health News Arkansas Medicaid Expansion Attracts Other States' Interest Shots - Health News Obamacare Won't Affect Most 2012 Taxes, Despite Firm's Claim Shots - Health News Ryan Budget Proposal Echoes Obamacare While Rejecting It

"The government of the state of Texas, they are not doing anything at this point in time," he says. "We certainly are, neighborhood by neighborhood ... because that's how this will have to be done � church by church, community by community. Unfortunately, we've not had the support of the [state]."

Spreading The Message

Unlike Texas, California has decided to build its own health exchange. The state has even gave it a catchy name, Covered California.

"[We're] doing consumer surveys, marketing and focus groups," says Peter Lee, who is running the state's health care effort. "So come this summer, we're going to hit the ground in a big way with messages that we know will resonate."

The state is hiring thousands of people to get Covered California off the ground, and the federal government is giving the state $900 million to do it. The "ground troops" needed to spread the message, Lee says, will come from the community.

"We'll be funding groups in communities across the state that are based in faith-based organizations, schools [and] unions," he says. "Because we know that delivering this message needs to come from your neighbor, from people in your community."

About 2.5 million Californians will be eligible for subsidies through Covered California, a diverse group of people, says Lee. He says the state needs to have outreach that speaks to farmers and people in rural communities, and in dozens of languages in downtown urban areas.

About half the states are following California's lead, setting up their own exchanges and using what is essentially seed money from Washington to get them off the ground.

"These are states that have said, 'Lets get this venture capitalist funding from the federal government to set up an exchange that works right for our state,' " Lee says.

For consumers, however, it doesn't matter if you're in Texas or California or anywhere else in the country, the law is clear: The uninsured are expected to get coverage by January. Whether those folks will be informed and ready by then is not so clear.

Share 1Facebook Twitter Email Comment More From Health Care Health CareThree Years On, States Still Struggle With Health Care Law MessagingHealth CareObamacare Won't Affect Most 2012 Taxes, Despite Firm's ClaimU.S.Pennsylvania Tightens Abortion Rules Following Clinic DeathsHealth CareEmployers Try To Spur Healthy Behaviors With Health Plan Rewards

More From Health Care

Comments   You must be signed in to leave a comment. Sign In / Register

Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the NPR.org Community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated prior to posting. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

Please enable Javascript to view the comments powered by Disqus.