KidCare helps families care for kids

Thanks to state Sen. Bettye Davis, the House is again considered expanding eligibility for Denali KidCare Coverage with Senate Bill 5. Yet I am amazed that the bill is having problems passing the Senate due to a tied vote.

Alaska lags behind other states in providing prenatal and health care for children. Some 45 other states cover children in families with incomes at 200 percent federal poverty level (FPL) or higher.

Who does Denali KidCare serve? More than 80 percent of the children receiving Denali KidCare are from working families, but their employers either can’t afford or simply don’t provide employee health insurance. Many of the parents in these families work more than one job.

A simple examination of the numbers demonstrates that a family of four (Mat-Su’s average family size) with an income of $55,140 a year (200 percent) with usual expenses cannot afford to purchase stand-alone health insurance for their kids.

The low eligibility guidelines contribute to a system that breeds dependency because hard work often results in a lack of eligibility for services; thus, working families often have to choose between higher income and health care. Increasing eligibility will ensure the children of parents who work hard are not left to fall through the cracks.

Unfortunately, this bill has become highly political and turned into an issue about abortion when the real issue is health care for pregnant women and children. I understand the concerns about funds being used to pay for abortions. Personally, I am a pro-life advocate and a member of Alaska Right to Life who seeks to reduce the prevalence of abortions.

If a woman is facing a crisis pregnancy, a lack of public funding for an abortion is hardly a deterrent compared to the idea of completing a pregnancy and raising a child with no medical coverage. Passing the bill will enable women who choose life to provide medical coverage for their children.

I had my son when I was 19 years old and a major reason why I was able to raise him (rather than choose adoption) was that I qualified for Denali KidCare. Because of this help, I was able to pursue college and am now self-sufficient.

In my opinion, the benefits of increased childcare for children in our state outweigh the costs associated with a minor percentage of these funds being used to fund abortions. I also speculate that the decision to veto the bill will not reduce the prevalence of abortions and could potentially have the opposite result, as fewer women would qualify for health care coverage during pregnancy, they may feel abortion is the only affordable option. If the end goal is reduced prevalence of abortion, I would advise other pro-life advocates to attend to issues around informed consent and adequate services for women who choose life and their children.

Denying the bill will not reduce the number of abortions; it only has the potential to contribute to a very small number of those covered by Denali KidCare. According to Senator Davis, an estimated 22 more abortions would be funded if the bill were to pass; however, it has not been determined how many of these would be for ectopic pregnancies (which result in death of the mother if the pregnancy is not terminated) and miscarriages (usually require a D&C after) that are also billed as abortion-related services. The number of elected abortions that would be covered is probably even smaller than 22, and if this bill passes more pregnant women get a chance to deliver a healthy child through covered prenatal appointments and treatment.

Early intervention and preventative care under SB 5 will greatly increase health for Alaska’s children and yield substantial savings to the state and public and private sector hospital emergency rooms that must admit indigent and uninsured patients for non-emergency treatment. It is estimated that uninsured children with a medical need are five times as likely not to have a regular doctor as insured children and four times more likely to use emergency rooms at a much higher cost. Private health care coverage for children has declined more than 30 percent in the last 10 years. And the economic downturn has pushed more children and families into the ranks of the uninsured.

Children and teens covered by Denali KidCare receive a full range of prevention and treatment services, including visits to doctors, health check-ups and screenings, vision exams and eyeglasses, dental check-ups, cleanings and fillings, hearing tests and hearing aids, hospital care, speech therapy, physical therapy, mental health therapy, substance abuse treatment, laboratory tests, prescription drugs and medical transportation. Medicaid-enrolled children who are up-to-date on their well-child check-ups through 2 years of age are 48 percent less likely to experience an avoidable hospitalization. Children with incomplete care are 60 percent more likely to visit an emergency room compared to children who are up-to-date on their well-child care.

The bottom line is programs like Denali KidCare promote better health for more of Alaska’s children. The reauthorized State Children’s Health Insurance Program and stimulus package should help, and Alaska should do its share and take advantage of available federal matching funds by insuring its low-income children up to and including 200 percent FPL under SB 5.

There is even an unborn child provision option in the federal Children’s Health Insurance Program that could be elected and would increase eligibility guidelines while protecting unborn children; thus, is this issue really about abortion, or is it just an easy way for opponents to turn a blind eye to the pregnant women and children who are falling through the cracks?

Wasilla resident Desiree Compton is the community impact director for United Way Mat-Su.