Saturday, October 24, 2009

My Interpretation Series, part one

A few Interpretations from 10/24/09: A new patient comes in to check a problem because she is bleeding-she heard chlamydia can cause these symptoms & called the Floyd County health department—they want $90.00 to check her and they did not tell her the fee could be reduced. Interpretation: the Floyd County health department denies services to women based upon their ability to pay. She also has an abnormal Pap smear and needs a colposcopy (a diagnostic test) but her Medicaid was recently canceled. Interpretation: she might have cervical cancer-but neither Georgia Medicaid or Georgia public health will assist her until she actually has cancer, but how is she supposed to find that out? She had her first of three Gardasil (cervical cancer) vaccines, but she is now 20 years old and the health department won’t give her the last two vaccines. Interpretation: Georgia public health is not interested in preventing cervical cancer, because if a woman actually gets cancer, they then qualify for Medicaid and then she will not be public health's problem. Another woman with severe itching was recently seen at the Floyd Medical Center E.R. (FMC) because the health dept. told her an STD exam would be $150.00. Interpretation: the Floyd County health department denies services to women based upon their ability to pay and it costs the taxpayers of Floyd County $$$$. She had a full panel of STD tests in the E.R., but no one told her what that might cost or that she might be eligible for free care-she hasn’t received her bill yet and is now at risk of garnishment (she has a minimum wage job). Interpretation: patients at FMC are not always informed that they may be eligible for free care under the Indigent Care Trust Fund program. Another high risk woman with a long history of abnormal pap smears finally came in after three years for a repeat Pap smear—because she just got back on Medicaid. How long will Georgia women put up with this kind of health care treatment? See our "Tweet' of the day.

No comments: