Ken Raske has a strange definition of the word “serious.”
Raske, whose Greater New York Hospital Association has been bullying Gov. Paterson for proposing mild austerities in state Medicaid spending, is spurning an offer from state Health Commissioner Richard Daines to publicly debate the issue.
The challenge “is a distraction that diminishes the seriousness of Governor Paterson’s proposed health-care cuts,” he said last week.
Seriously?
What a coward.
Raske, of course, is entitled to make his case however he sees fit: GNYHA and its health-care-union partner in crime are spending an estimated million dollars a week on TV spots accusing Paterson of plotting to inflict unspeakable miseries on New York’s old and infirm.
Still, we wonder what frightens him so much about a little public give-and-take.
Is it maybe that, shown in the light of day, Paterson’s “cuts” might seem as modest as they actually are?
Indeed, Raske’s fear-mongering runs up against some embarrassingly inconvenient truths.
For one, New York already spends more Medicaid dollars – $45 billion this year – than any other state in the country. That includes California, which has nearly twice the population.
On a per capita basis, the state’s Medicaid spending is by far the most lavish – besting No. 2, Rhode Island, by nearly 40 percent.
Paterson’s budget, meanwhile, only “cuts” the rate of spending growth. Actual outlays would rise by more than $300 million.
And, according to a new study from the Albany-based Rockefeller Institute, New York’s not even getting any bang for its buck.
Despite leading the country in funding for nursing homes and other long-term care (a huge chunk of the Medicaid pie), the study found, the quality of its care was barely middle of the road.
So, where’s the waste?
Let’s just say that most New Yorkers would love to see a full and public exposition of how their Medicaid dollars are actually spent.
Raske – probably not.
After all, what’s truly serious is the massive state fiscal crisis threatening to drown taxpayers in red ink – federal stimulus or no.
In that context, the current level of Medicaid spending is simply unaffordable.
Unfortunately, Daines’ theatrics aside, one doubts that’s a case the Paterson administration is prepared to make.
After all, the governor’s already promised that a large chunk of New York’s stimulus cash will go toward “restoring” Medicaid “cuts.”
But even that’s not likely to satisfy Raske and the rest of the health-care lobby.
So good for Daines for calling him out.
We’d happily host the debate.