ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “California

Health

Will The Obama Administration’s Efforts To Expand Medicaid In The States Lower Access To Care?

In a blow to Americans relying on Medicaid — the state-federal partnership public health insurance program that covers disabled and low-income Americans — the federal government on Tuesday reaffirmed to a California federal appellate court that, in the Obama Administration’s opinion, “states could cut Medicaid payments to many doctors and other health care providers to hold down costs in the program,” paving the way for massive state health care cuts that will further discourage doctors from treating low-income patients enrolled in the program.

Doctors, health care providers, and patient advocacy groups sued California in response to state health officials’ decision to cut already-low reimbursement rates for providers that treat patients on Medi-Cal — California’s Medicaid program — by an extra 10 percent. State leaders led by Gov. Jerry Brown (D) argue that the payment cuts are necessary for California’s fiscal security, especially as the state expands Medi-Cal to an addition 1.8 million Californians under Obamacare. But critics assert that the drastic payment cuts will make treating current and prospective Medi-Cal beneficiaries anathema to California care providers:

Medicaid is one of the fastest-growing items in state budgets. Cutting payment rates saves money for states and for the federal government, which will pay most of the costs for people who become eligible for Medicaid under the new law.

Health care providers said California’s payment rates were inadequate even before the cuts. They pointed to a federal study that said, “California stands out because of its very low Medicaid payment levels.”

In an interview, Dr. Paul R. Phinney, president of the California Medical Association, a plaintiff in one of the court cases, said: “Two-thirds of doctors in California cannot afford to participate in Medicaid because the rates are so low. The problem will only get worse if rates are cut as we move more and more people into Medicaid.”

The Administration’s endorsement of the Medicaid payment cuts underscores just how badly federal officials want states to take part in Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion. Formally blessing states’ abilities to “reasonably” lower their Medicaid physician payment rates is likely a concession aimed at luring reticent governors into accepting the expansion, since it will save both states and the federal government money. But while expanding Medicaid under Obamacare is crucial for the health and financial security for millions of low-income Americans, drastically lowering hospitals’ and physicians’ Medicaid reimbursements — which are already far less generous than Medicare reimbursements — is rife with risks.

Certainly, provider cuts are preferable to cutting special Medicaid benefits for the poor and disabled that are not available on lower-tier private insurance plans, especially in a state like California that has had its fair share of problems with providing adequate services to Medi-Cal beneficiaries. But California already has 6.8 million residents on Medi-Cal, including one in three Californian children and the majority of HIV-positive Californians. Payment cuts that discourage providers from treating these Medi-Cal beneficiaries will leave millions of Americans with few facilities to go to for their care, making them dependent on either free clinics, costly emergency room care, or forcing them to travel massive distances to find an accepting provider.

Reporting on a 2012 study finding that one in three American doctors won’t take new Medicaid patients, Wonkblog’s Sarah Kliff presciently wrote that that could spell trouble for states with historically low Medicaid reimbursement rates — such as California — that also wanted to expand Medicaid, since “fewer than 60 percent of providers accept new patients in the [Medi-Cal] program.” With Brown’s new Administration-endorsed payment cuts set to hit California’s safety net providers, that number has nowhere to go but down.

Economy

How Looming Budget Cuts Will Hurt The GOP Leadership’s Home States

Allowing sequestration to occur on March 1 will have a devastating impact on states, the White House warned Sunday, when it released state-specific reports detailing the effects of the automatic budget cuts. States will lose funding for education, job training, health care, and a plethora of other services, jeopardizing assistance for low-income and middle class families alike and threatening the economic recovery.

ThinkProgress examined the implications of the budget cuts on the five states represented by Republican leadership in the House and Senate. Those five states would lose a collective $206 million in education funding, jeopardizing nearly 3,000 teaching jobs and allowing them to serve 428,000 fewer students. While the impacts are particularly large for California and Texas, they would be felt across all five states, according to the White House fact sheets:

OHIO: House Speaker John Boehner’s state will lose $25.1 million in education funding, putting 350 teaching jobs at risk and allowing it to serve 34,000 fewer students and 100 fewer schools. 2,500 children will lose Head Start funding, 3,320 will lose assistance to help pay for college, and as many as 800 will lose access to child care. The loss of $1.7 million in job training and assistance funds will mean 57,000 fewer Ohioans get help from those programs. Ohio will also lose $823,000 in funding to help provide meals to seniors.

KENTUCKY: Sequestration will cost Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s home state $11.8 million in education funding, meaning it could lose 160 teaching jobs and serve 21,000 fewer students. More than 1,700 low-income students will lose assistance to help pay for college, and 1,100 will lose access to Head Start. More than 16,000 Kentuckians will lose job training and placement assistance when the state loses $478,000 in funding for those programs, and it will also receive $677,000 less to help provide meals to seniors.

VIRGINIA: Virginia, the home of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, would lose $14 million in education funding, jeopardizing 190 teaching jobs and cutting funding for 40 schools and 14,000 students. 1,000 students would lose access to Head Start and 2,120 low-income students would lose funding to help finance college. Another 400 low-income children could lose access to child care assistance. The state will lose $348,000 in job search and placement assistance, allowing it to serve 18,390 fewer people. It will also lose $1.2 million in funding to help provide meals to seniors.

TEXAS: The home of Senate GOP Whip John Cornyn would lose $67.8 million in education funding, putting 930 teaching jobs at risk and cutting funding for 280 schools and 172,000 students. Another 4,800 students would lose access to Head Start and 2,300 would lose access to child care assistance. Texas would lose more than $2 million in funds for job search and placement assistance, meaning more than 83,000 people would lose assistance. Texas will also lose $3.5 million in funding to help provide meals to seniors.

CALIFORNIA: House GOP Whip Kevin McCarthy’s home state would lose $87.6 million in education funding, jeopardizing 1,210 teaching jobs and affecting funding for 320 schools and 187,000 students. More than 8,000 students would lose funding for Head Start, and 9,600 low-income students would lose funding to help pay for college. Another 2,000 families will lose child care assistance, while the loss of $3.3 million in funding for job search and placement assistance, affecting nearly 130,000 people. The state will also lose $5.4 million in funding to help provide meals to seniors.

LGBT

Liberty Counsel Maintains ‘Viewpoint’ That Sexuality Is ‘Changeable’

Ex-gay therapist Joseph Nicolosi, a plaintiff in this case, encourages parents to reject their children.

The Liberty Counsel has filed its final brief in its challenge of California’s ban on ex-gay therapy (SB 1172) on behalf of NARTH. In it, the group reiterates its claims that encouraging young people to change their sexual orientation is simply a “viewpoint,” and thus protected by the First Amendment. Despite the dearth of evidence supporting its effectiveness and the research that shows not only that it’s ineffective but that it can also be harmful, the conservatives stand by their claim that same-sex attractions (SSA) can be changed:

The APA Report admits SSA is “fluid,” which, no matter the debate over “enduring” change, it is clear that SSA can change. Studies reveal that sexual orientation is “not static.” “Contrary to the theoretical notion that one becomes fixated in childhood, the sexual orientation of the individuals in this study often changed remarkably.”

SB 1172 prohibits any counsel under any circumstance to change SSA. If SSA is fluid, then it is changeable. Given that SSA is capable of change, then why does the law prohibit change therapy? If an unhappy homosexual client engages the counselor because he wants to be bisexual, does the counselor violate SB 1172 by providing counsel that helps the client develop sexual attraction for both sexes? Or does the counselor violate the law only when the counsel offered seeks to change the client to be exclusively heterosexual?

SB 1172 prohibits any counsel to change SSA.  What are Appellant-Counselors to do when clients return  after hearing their opinion that SSA can change and asks the counselor to help them meet their self-determined objective to change their SSA? If the clients seek change, and if the Report admits SSA is fluid, and thus changeable, then why are counselors and clients prohibited from pursuing change? Where is the line drawn? What is permitted and what is not? The licenses of the Appellant-Counselors are on the line. They and thousands of other counselors and clients have no idea how to avoid these landmines.

NARTH and Liberty Counsel are twisting words beyond reproach in an attempt to make their case. There is a difference between the fact that sexual orientation naturally changes over time and the claim that it can be manipulated by therapy. Further, just because an individual has a “self-determined objective” to accomplish any bizarre outcome in therapy doesn’t mean it’s healthy or valid to work toward that objective. Indeed, the reason that professional psychological groups have established that affirming an individual’s sexual orientation is a best practice is because that is what has been determined to help patients regardless of what they’ve been taught to believe about homosexuality.

It’s important to keep in mind the mind-game at work. In the original complaint, these ex-gay therapists argued that the treatment was important for bringing families together. In other words, parents with a bias against homosexuality claim they can only love their child if he rejects his same-sex orientation, but the therapists then blame this situation on the patient — as they are wont to do. The young person is convinced to participate in the treatment to appease his family, implying an ultimatum that he can be gay or he can be loved, but he can’t be both. Thus, the “benefits” of ex-gay therapy are often a sort of Stockholm Syndrome in which young people claim to be happier because they’ve managed to placate their family’s homophobia. This artificial construct is self-serving, caters to parents’ demands instead of children’s well-being, and speaks nothing to the actual validity of ex-gay therapy.

Convincing young people to reject their identities is harmful on its face, and the animus behind defending the practice is not particularly well hidden in these arguments. These counselors can claim that they have an opinion about homosexuality, but they can’t claim to have any truth.

Economy

Despite Big Business’ Warnings, There’s No Evidence That Mandated Sick Leave Causes Job Loss

Requiring that businesses provide employees decent amounts of sick leave doesn’t cost jobs, according to research by the consumer advocate group Public Citizen. The researchers studied three examples of sick leave policies — the San Francisco paid sick leave ordinance (which requires general paid sick leave), the wider California Paid Family and Medical Leave (which requires paid time to take care of children or sick family members), and federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA, which mandated job-protected, but unpaid sick leave).

In each case, Republicans and industry advocates like the Chamber of Commerce warned that sick leave would kill jobs. In each case, the evidence after the fact proved them wrong.

Take the San Francisco law, both the most progressive of the three laws (in that it mandated paid sick leave for a wide set of reasons) and the clearest case of success. Here’s what Public Citizen found:

[A]fter implementation of the paid sick-leave law, San Francisco experienced an increase in employment. A study by the Drum Major Institute found that employment in San Francisco increased 3.5 percent between the start of 2006 and the start of 2010. In San Francisco’s five closest neighboring counties, employment fell 3.4 percent during the same period. The same study found that despite predictions to the contrary, the number of businesses in San Francisco grew by 1.64 percent between 2006 and 2008 while falling by 0.61 percent in neighboring counties. San Francisco also experienced growth within both large and small businesses, and within the retail and food service industry during this period. (These industries expected to be affected most by the ordinance.)

The impact on businesses themselves was minor. A majority reported that understanding and implementing the ordinance was either “not difficult” or “not too difficult.” Additionally, while only 14 percent of businesses reported a negative impact on profits, more than 70 percent reported that the law had either no impact or a positive impact on their profitability…After its implementation, many small business owners discovered that many of the dire consequences predicted prior to the ordinance’s passage, virtually none of them came to fruition. In 2010, three years after the ordinance was enacted, the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce realized there was very little impact on business, noting that “it has not been a huge issue that we have heard from our members about.”

The reason for the gap between industry predictions and reality, as Public Citizen notes, is clear: “Productivity, and thus profitability, suffers when workers are forced to come to work when they are sick. One study on the impact of illness on productivity estimates that businesses lose twice as much money to workers who show up at work while sick then when workers stay home due to an illness.”

Currently, the FMLA does not, as San Francisco does, mandate paid sick leave. For this and other reasons, Congress should consider expanding the FMLA’s protections.

Public Citizen also studied the effect of three other unrelated regulations which business interests decried as job killing, coming to similar conclusions about their actual impact. Their conclusion squares with a wide body of evidence suggesting that overregulation is not the problem holding back American growth and, moreover, that smart regulation can effectively create jobs under certain circumstances.

Economy

California’s New Homeowner Protections Help Reduce Foreclosures By 62 Percent

There were fewer foreclosure filings in January than there have been in any month since April 2007, as foreclosures dropped 28 percent from the same month a year ago, according to data from RealtyTrac. And while the drop was significant across the country, no state contributed more to the decline than California, where legislators last year passed a law that grants homeowners new rights in the foreclosure process.

The “Homeowners’ Bill of Rights,” signed by Gov. Jerry Brown (D) in July, took effect at the turn of the year. California has led the nation in foreclosures every month since 2007, but foreclosure filings dropped 62 percent in January, moving three states ahead of the Golden State. The decline is at least partially attributable to the homeowner protections contained in the new law, CNNMoney reports:

Regulations that took effect in California contributed to the dramatic decline. The state had long been recording the highest number of foreclosure filings of any state. But on January 1, a Homeowner Bill of Rights became law, offering more protections for California borrowers in default. As a result, new foreclosure filings in California fell 62% in January.

Under the new rules, mortgage servicers must halt all foreclosure proceedings once a borrower applies for a mortgage modification. Servicers will also face fines of up to $7,500 per loan if they record and file multiple unverified documents in foreclosure proceedings.

The Homeowner Bill of Rights makes foreclosure harder for banks by banning practices like dual-tracking, in which banks foreclose on homeowners even as they are seeking a loan modification, and robo-signing, the fraudulent approval of foreclosure documents widely utilized by banks immediately after the housing crash. The law also makes it easier for homeowners to deal with their banks and gives them legal recourse against lenders.

The new regulations, and fears that it would make foreclosing harder and more stringent for banks, led to a “bum rush” of foreclosures before the deadline, CNNMoney reported. But after it went went into affect, foreclosures dropped precipitously.

Other states, however, are trying to take the opposite approach, speeding up the foreclosure process instead of slowing it down and protecting homeowners. Lawmakers in Florida, which now leads the nation in foreclosures, introduced a bill to reduce the amount of time banks had to process foreclosure documents, a plan consumer advocates fear will make it more likely that banks will resort to the shoddy and sometimes fraudulent practices California banned.

Justice

California Democrats Propose Strictest Gun Regulations In The Nation

California Democrats present gun violence prevention plan.

Thursday afternoon, a group of California Senate Democrats rolled out a legislative package that would create what would likely be the tightest gun regulation system in the nation, ranging from sweeping prohibitions on semi-automatic rifles to restrictions on guns in the home. The proposal consists of ten points:

1. Ban all semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines. California’s assault weapons ban only restricts the possession of semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines if they have an additional, “military-style” feature like flash suppressors. The new laws would tighten this law by banning all such rifles regardless of external features.

2. Ban possession of high-capacity magazines. California law bans the transfer, not possession, of magazines that can hold over ten bullets. This allows people wanting to skirt the law to buy the constituent parts and make the magazines themselves. The new law would close that loophole.

3. Ban “bullet button” conversion kits. State law defines “detachable magazines” as, in part, magazines that can be released “without the use of a tool.” Bullet button kits allow magazines to be released quickly by pressing a bullet into them, thus creating an end-around the intent of the assault weapons ban. The new provisions would ban such kits.

4. Bans shotgun-rifle combinations. It would ban this class of class of weapon.

5. Universal registration of all guns. The law would create “ownership records consistently across-the-board, ensuring all firearms are recorded” so that the background check system can prevent criminals from getting guns.

6. Background checks on ammunition. This provision requires a “full and complete” background check on ammunition sales, “building on” laws existing in Los Angeles and Sacramento.

7. Regulating gun loans. The legislators propose setting up an as-yet undefined regulatory system for the loan, as opposed to sale, of guns.

8. Prevent prohibited individuals from living in homes with guns. California’s Armed Persons Prohibition (APP) database lists people who can’t legally own weapons (as a consequence of criminal or mental health records) under state law. This addition would prevent people on the list from living in a house that has a gun.

9. Cracking down on people who can’t own guns legally but do anyway. Currently, 19,700 people who are on the APP list own guns. Police estimate that these people own roughly 39,000 firearms. This new law would authorize additional funding to enforce the law in this area.

10. Required safety training for handgun owners. People with concealed carry permits are required under California (and many other) state laws to pass a mandatory safety and firearm instruction course. This provision would require all handgun owners, regardless of permit status, to undergo a similar process.

Health

California Introduces Bill To Expand Access To First-Trimester Abortions

As states across the country impose restrictions to limit women’s access to abortion, California lawmakers are taking the opposite route. On Wednesday, Democratic lawmakers introduced legislation to expand the availability of first-trimester abortions by allowing more medical professionals — such as nurses and midwives — to perform the procedure.

Assembly Bill 154 revives last year’s push to allow nurses to perform nonsurgical abortions. Gov. Jerry Brown (D) ended up signing a watered down version of that bill, which only allowed non-doctors to perform early abortions after going through training in a specific pilot program. The California’s Nurses Association opposed the initial version of last year’s bill because they wanted to see the results from a multi-year study on early abortion that researchers were conducting at the University of California-San Francisco — but since the results from that study were published last week, lawmakers say the political landscape is different now.

The six-year study led by UCSF found that first-trimester abortions are just as safe when they are performed by professional nurses, physician assistants, and midwives as when they are performed by doctors. In a press release about their results, the researchers explained that expanding the abortion procedure beyond doctors could ultimately help eliminate the economic and racial barriers that prevent some women in California from accessing early abortions:

Nationally, 92 percent of abortions take place in the first trimester but studies find that black, uninsured and low-income women continue to have less access to this care, according to the researchers.

In California, 13 percent of women using state Medicaid insurance obtain abortions after the first trimester. Because the average cost of a second trimester abortion is substantially higher than a first trimester procedure and abortion complications increase as the pregnancy advances, shifting the population distribution of abortions to earlier gestations may result in safer, less costly care, according to the research team.

“Increasing the types of health care professionals who can provide early aspiration abortion care is one way to reduce this health care disparity,” said lead author Tracy Weitz, PhD, MPA, a UCSF associate professor and director of Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health at the UCSF Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health. “Policy makers can now feel confident that expanding access to care in this way is evidence-based and will promote women’s health.”

In a press conference on the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade to unveil the bill, California lawmakers said they are committed to ensuring that women can access reproductive care no matter where they live in the state. According to the bill’s sponsors, 52 percent of California counties don’t have an abortion provider other than hospitals, which may have limited services. “California will not go back. We are going to go forward,” said state Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson (D).

But other states across the country are going back, as women’s access to first-trimester abortions continues to be threatened. In states like Iowa, Texas, and Wisconsin, anti-choice lawmakers are imposing unnecessary barriers to early abortion — even though restrictions on first-trimester abortions simply lead to a rise in more costly later term abortion procedures.

Economy

Mega-Rich Professional Golfer Complains That Paying Higher Taxes ‘Doesn’t Work For Me Right Now’

As governments at both the federal and local levels attempt to cut down budget deficits, taxes are going up on wealthy Americans like superstar professional golfer Phil Mickelson. The federal tax rate returned to its Clinton-era levels for income above $450,000 at the beginning of 2013, and voters in California, where Mickelson lives, approved a three percentage point tax increase on incomes above $1 million in November.

Such increases have helped — California is projecting a budget surplus for the first time since 2007. But for Mickelson, who made more than $40 million in tournament winnings and endorsements in 2012, the higher tax rates are a reason for “drastic changes,” like potentially moving out of his home state, he told CBS Sports:

I’m not sure what exactly, you know, I’m going to do yet. I’ll probably talk about it more in depth next week. I’m not going to jump the gun, but there are going to be some. There are going to be some drastic changes for me because I happen to be in that zone that has been targeted both federally and by the state and, you know, it doesn’t work for me right now. So I’m going to have to make some changes. [...]

I’ll probably go into it more next year or next week. But if you add up, if you add up all the federal and you look at the disability and the unemployment and the Social Security and the state, my tax rate’s 62, 63 percent. So I’ve got to make some decisions on what I’m going to do.

If Mickelson is indeed paying 62 to 63 percent of his income in taxes, he probably needs new financial advisers. When state, local, and federal taxes are combined, California does have the nation’s highest marginal tax rate, but it’s likely Mickelson’s marginal tax rate (the rate he pays on his last dollar) doesn’t top 52 percent once deductions for state and local taxes are included. And if he is investing, contributing to charity, or planning for retirement, there are an assortment of ways for him to legally lower his tax rate.

But even if he does pay a higher tax rate, he doesn’t have it all that bad. The vast majority of his income came from sponsorships, meaning companies paid him $43 million to wear their logos, play golf with their equipment, and film commercials. He made another $4.8 million playing in 22 golf tournaments, bringing his career total to more than $66 million and his net worth north of $150 million. He is the world’s seventh highest-paid athlete.

Meanwhile, the amount of taxes paid by the wealthy has plummeted over the last two decades, even as states like California face budget deficits that force them to cut spending on education, public safety, and poverty and children’s programs. And while he complains about his burdensome tax rate, the average California household would have to spend the next 775 years working to make what he made last year alone.

Justice

How Allowing Undocumented Immigrants To Obtain Driver’s Licenses Can Save Lives

Unlicensed drivers are three times more likely to cause a fatal car crash compared to licensed drivers, according to a new report from the California Department of Motor Vehicles. And requiring drivers to pass a written test and driving test before they can obtain licenses plays a major rule in reducing traffic fatalities. In California, where the majority of unlicensed drivers are undocumented, this is reviving the debate about whether or not undocumented immigrants should be able to apply for driver’s licenses:

Immigrant rights groups say that granting such licenses would reduce fatalities and costly uninsured motorist claims. Insurance companies paid out $634 million in claims for collisions related to uninsured motorists in 2009, according to the most recent data from the state.

It “really goes against public safety because the current law forces people who would otherwise be properly licensed to drive without one,” said Angela Sanbrano, board president for the Central American Resource Center in Los Angeles. [...]

The DMV report looked at 23 years of data on fatal accidents. Its conclusions were similar to the last such report in 1997, which looked at accident data from 1987 to 1992. The latest report was also the first analysis since a 1994 change in the state law that required all licensed drivers show proof of legal residency, which significantly increased the number of unlicensed drivers.

Maria Galvan, a 42-year-old undocumented immigrant living in Los Angeles, told the Los Angeles Times that she continues to drive without a license because she has to get to work and take her children to school. “We need driver’s licenses to be comfortable and be trusted and follow the law,” she said.

There are roughly 2 million unlicensed drivers in the state, compared to 24 million licensed drivers. Previous legislative efforts to allow undocumented immigrants to apply for driver’s licenses failed, but the Los Angeles Times points out that the issue might be gaining support. For the 2013 legislative session, one Democratic member of the state assembly has introduced a bill to allow anyone who can prove they pay taxes to apply for a driver’s license, regardless of their immigration status. Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck and L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca previously have said they would support a measure like that.

Last fall, Gov. Jerry Brown (D-CA) signed a bill allowing young undocumented immigrants who are granted temporary legal status under a deferred action policy President Obama announced in June 2012. Sixteen other states have also agreed to allow deferred action beneficiaries to apply for driver’s licenses, but at least six states are preventing them from becoming licensed drivers.

Health

Why Undocumented Immigrants Are Turning To Underground, Cash-Only Clinics To Get Health Care

Obamacare seeks to extend health coverage to millions of previously uninsured Americans, but that doesn’t include the nation’s estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants. And as Kaiser Health News reports, that oversight — along with the historical difficulty that undocumented immigrants face when trying to obtain coverage — has led to the proliferation of underground, cash-only “bodega clinicas” in Los Angeles migrant communities.

The clinicas aim to serve Latino immigrants who do not have public or private health insurance. Strictly speaking, they are closer to private primary care doctors’ offices than public clinics that are subject to much tighter regulations. But while the community clinics provide immigrants with a much needed service, their off-the-grid nature has some health officials worried about the quality of care that they provide.

Still, care providers also see in the clinicas the potential to ease the burden of America’s primary care doctor shortage:

Health officials see in the clinicas the tantalizing opportunity to fill persistent and profound gaps in the county’s strained safety net, including a chronic shortage of primary care physicians. By January 2014, up to 2 million currently uninsured Angelenos will need to enroll in Medicaid or buy insurance and find primary care. And the clinicas, public health officials note, are already well established in the county’s poorest neighborhoods where they are meeting the needs of Spanish-speaking residents. The clinicas also could continue to serve a market that the Affordable Care Act does not touch: undocumented immigrants who are prohibited from getting health insurance under the law.

Dr. Mark Ghaly, deputy director for Community Health at the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, said bodega clinicas, a term he seems to have coined, that agree to some scrutiny could be a good way of addressing the physician shortage in these neighborhoods.

“Where are we going to find those providers?” he said. “One logical place to consider looking is these clinics.”

The clinicas are obviously not a perfect solution. While the clinicas could make for an effective source of cost-effective primary care, their cash-only model does pose some risks for the people who may need more specialized and expensive care — after all, paying $120 in cash for antibiotics is one thing, but $5,000 for a surgery is another story entirely. For more extensive care, these immigrants will require some sort of public or private insurance coverage.

But barring comprehensive immigration reform or additional measures to extend health benefits to America’s undocumented immigrants, Los Angeles’ clinicas are many people’s realities.

Older

Newer

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up