Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Is There An Obamacare - Dedicato TC Link?

Mod: Since a few of the things related to sober houses (and the current Dedicato Treatment Center controversy in particular) have been moved up to next week's City Council meeting from June sometime (perhaps Mayor Goss has been getting email?), I thought we'd look at the situation from a different perspective. The following comes to us from a website called Transcend Recovery Community (link). It helps to show that the explosion in sober house expansion and the Affordable Care Act, AKA Obamacare, could be linked.

Staying Sober, Obama’s Affordable Care Act: There are many challenges to sober living and maintaining sobriety. The biggest hurdle is making the choice to get sober. Once you’ve taken on that remarkable endeavor and the process of recovery has begun, you’ve got to find a rehabilitative treatment center, which is often quite costly. But it doesn’t end there. The next challenge, an ongoing one, is how to stay sober and prevent relapse after your treatment is complete.

One option that many recovering addicts choose is to stay at a sober living or halfway house. This helps to bridge the gap between having a very structured and supportive environment to returning home where there is likely little or no structure for staying sober. Halfway houses can provide a community of folks in similar shoes, also making the choice every day to stay sober.

However, this also costs money, adding to the challenges of creating a sober life for yourself. One of the benefits of Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA) is that the treatment of substance use disorders is considered to be an essential health benefit. Addiction recovery is now seen as a primary component to physical health, and for this reason, the ACA is making it more affordable and more accessible for individuals to get the recovery treatment they need.

Apparently, the logic is simple. Taxpayers were essentially paying high dollars to privatized health care and law enforcement when it came to untreated addictions. However, the aim of ACA is to use those dollars in a preventative way by making it easier for addicts to obtain the treatment they need, hopefully keeping them out the legal system and keeping law enforcement costs down.

Furthermore, screening and counseling for addicts is now considered to be preventative care and this kind of care under the ACA is fully covered. Also, whereas before addicts might have been deemed ineligible for health care coverage, now under the ACA an individual cannot be turned away even if they have a history of addiction.

There are some disadvantages for recovering addicts covered under the ACA. For instance, if an individual says yes to whether they use tobacco products, insurance companies can charge them a higher premium. The point here is to prevent people from smoking. But using tobacco products is often closely related to using other drugs, and often a recovering addict might also be a smoker and be subject to higher healthcare premiums.

Also, there is some confusion regarding specialty treatment, which should be the umbrella term for rehab programs. There are some clear loopholes regarding whether new healthcare plans under the ACA will cover ongoing rehabilitative treatment that would prevent relapse.  There is no clear indication whether a patient’s second, third, or fourth admittance to rehab programs would be covered. Because relapse is a reality in treating addiction this is an important component that still needs clarification under the ACA.

In some cases, the ACA is a godsend for a recovery addict. Most or all of their treatment costs are covered. In other cases, certain costs are still in question. Hopefully, in the future, those loopholes will be closed and the full range of treatment costs for healing addictions don’t have to land on the individual in recovery.

Mod: A website called RehabCenter.net asks that question, and then provides the following answer (link).


Mod: There are other sites that explain this connection as well. SoberNation (link) has an article called "Obamacare Helping Low-Level Drug Offenders Beat Their Addiction" that is also informative.

sierramadretattler.blogspot.com

75 comments:

  1. On one hand, Mr. Mod, you decry a UUT tax but it's okay to pay tax dollars for an addict....several times?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't recall saying that tax dollars should pay for addict treatment. Can you point out where I did?

      Delete
    2. The trolls are up early today.

      Delete
    3. They're kind of like bats.

      Delete
    4. Chasing bugs all night with high pitched cheeping sounds can be tough work.

      Delete
  2. Well, that helps explain why my health insurance premiums have tripled in the last few years. I have to help pay for Dedicato and the like to ruin the neighborhood.

    The Affordable Care Act helped the deductible go from $2,000 to $8,000 and max out of pocket go from $4,000 to $12,000 EACH for my spouse and me. So there's that.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The underlying problem of our premiums are in the healthcare industry, not in the addiction treatment. Nowhere in the world are the premiums so high and the service so lousy as here. Yet, many who have not seen better service, believed for too long that their high premiums give them access to better service, following the motto, "you get what you pay for". It ain't so.

    http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/oct/us-health-care-from-a-global-perspective

    We as a nation choose to criminalize addiction whereas other nations choose to treat addicts. We choose to put people in prisons, costing the taxpayer more money than treatment, and we are OK with that.

    In our household the highest expenses that we have are by far taxes. Not housing, which are blown out of proportion as well for the constructions you get around here, it is taxes.



    ReplyDelete
  4. http://www.sociology.org/content/vol003.004/thomas.html ,,,,, And were did this start?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No contest. This is undoubtedly where it all started.

      Delete
    2. It was during the Reagan administration that the United States went from being a lender to a debtor nation.

      Delete
    3. Ironically, Reagan's policies that affected people with mental disabilities the most, suffered himself from a mental disability.

      Delete
    4. News flash:
      That was almost 30 years ago...

      Delete
    5. 3:49:
      You need to understand the source of the problem to address it.

      Delete
    6. Wrongfully accusing Reagan doesn't solve the problem of mental illness. It does solve 4:31's hateful agenda, though.

      Delete
    7. Reagan is considered to be a hero by some only because Nixon, Ford and the two Bush idiots were such miserable failures. He's the only option they have. The last decent Republican president was Eisenhower.

      Delete
    8. Despite his status as a Republican deity, Reagan wouldn't get the Republican nomination today--way too liberal.

      Delete
    9. Heck, Jesus wouldn't get the Republican nomination either--way too socialist.

      Delete
  5. An example of the transfer of wealth Mrs./ Mr. 5:24, don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point 7:34, you nailed it!

      Delete
    2. That explains why 45-64 year olds have to pay for maternity coverage in their health insurance.

      Delete
    3. Wealth redistribution goes in many directions. We don't hear a lot of complaints when someone receives a tax deduction for the interest on their homes or 401k or ROTH IRAs.
      It is just problematic if we are not on the receiving end.

      Delete
    4. I think the issue is whether the money is earned or not. What you are describing is not a handout, it is the product of functioning at a high level. Junkies, on the other hand, function at the lowest possible level.

      Delete
    5. 2:59
      Tax reductions are not earned, they are government handouts. Sometimes high functioning people, who do not need them, receive them, and sometimes low functioning people, who need them, do not receive them.

      Delete
    6. Most junkies would just spend the money on dope.

      Delete
  6. Is there a difference between a sober living establishment and a treatment center? Are they both 'supportive housing' which is Dedicato's self-identified category?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It mostly depends on what they think you want to hear.

      Delete
    2. Our local shop is "Luxury rehab."

      Delete
    3. The better the location the more money they can charge.

      Delete
    4. It can also be said that the more the business damages the property values, the more it profits.

      Delete
  7. I've had way too much experience with alcoholics and addicts, and know that these rehabs don't work. AA and NA do, sometimes.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What a crazy world we live in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed.
      Woman’s obituary says she died rather than vote for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump
      https://www.yahoo.com/news/obituary-trump-hillary-clinton-212822295.html

      Delete
    2. Can't say I blame her.

      Delete
    3. I'd think voting for a third party candidate would have been preferable.

      Delete
  9. Obamacare is a failure like everything else Obama has done.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, right. You need to get your head out of your arse

      Delete
    2. Covering everyone with taxpayer paid "free healthcare" could hardly be called successful.

      Delete
  10. Hmm. So the Dedicato Treatment Center owes its existence to Obamacare?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nah. It's a much older tradition than that. Think covered wagons, and sales.

      Delete
    2. Are you the guy they call Cookie? Is the chili ready?

      Delete
    3. Cookie worked for a living.
      The traveling salesmen, selling "cures", not so much...

      Delete
  11. I am a member of NADA...Neighborhoods Against Drug Addicts. Let them recover in their own neighborhood or parent's home.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I live on your street. I can either recover, or steal your stuff. You choose.

      Delete
    2. 11:24 can either walk past that opportunity for criminal activity or get shot stealing inside someone else's home. Call it a quality of life decision.

      Delete
    3. How about drug addicts being treated in legitimate medical facilities?

      Delete
    4. We don't have nearly enough medical facilities to treat our drug addicts. It has been shown that group homes that offer cognitive-behavioral assistance are quite effective in treating drug addicts.
      Unless we can roll back time and reconsider the policies enacted in the eighties, this is our most cost-effective shot right now.

      Delete
    5. Ok, let's meet at 2:29's house. I get the couch!

      Delete
    6. I hope 2:29 has enough spoons.

      Delete
    7. Ha ha, 2:29, that "quite effective" is a joke, right?
      Good one.

      Delete
    8. No, it is a fact.

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2897895/

      "For example, in a study of psychosocial treatment for cocaine dependence, Rawson and colleagues [7] reported that 60% of patients in the CBT condition provided clean toxicology screens at 52-week follow-up."

      Delete
    9. Uh oh, a "No, really!" comment.

      Delete
    10. 60%?
      Just a little better than half.
      And watch out for week 53.

      Delete
    11. So how do other addictions rank - or is Dedicato dedicated only to cocaine addicts?
      Talk about manipulating a statistic.

      Delete
    12. 11:24, think about taking responsibility for yourself.

      Delete
    13. Translation of 11:24, sort of an addict's creed:
      Let me do what I want or I'll hurt you.

      Delete
    14. How many addicts were in the Rawson and colleagues study?

      Delete
  12. I was driving on Laurel and some kids from Gooden School were crossing the street and a teacher had to steer some kids around a total druggie hanging out on the corner of Laurel and Baldwin. Is this the new SM?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It wasn't a druggie. It was a disabled citizen exercising his rights.

      Delete
    2. Perhaps it was the teacher who was zig-zagging?

      Delete
    3. If it was a Gooden teacher he was probably dodging spitballs.

      Delete
    4. Dedicato resident on a lunch break?

      Delete
    5. Naked lunch.

      Delete
  13. Unrelated matter. On the city website there are some questions. To answer them I was directed to something called Survey Monkey. During the recent election I received emails from a couple of Councilmembers. They were sent to me on something called Mail Chimp. Can somebody please enlighten me about the city's dependence on simian labor. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It increases the comfort level of city staff.

      Delete
    2. More than a seat cushion?

      Delete
  14. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Do the Chimps get Calpers?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, but they retire at 12. That is 50 in chimp years.

      Delete
  16. Boy sure hurts when radically liberal ideals come home to bite you in the ass. Bet people on Carter wished they would have thought it through. Now hurting prop values give me a break.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you know all the people on Carter and their choices?

      Delete
    2. Clearly, 7:53 is omniscient.
      That's why he's posting on the Tatt.

      Delete
  17. Do people get their money back if the rehab fails?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's tax money. Of course we don't get it back.

      Delete
    2. Thirty thou a month, you'd think there'd be some kind of money back guarantee.

      Delete