4 -- The Michigan Daily - Monday, July 19, 1999 Edited and managed by EMNIy ACHENBAUM NICK WOOMER students at the - ' ' Editor in Chief Editorial Page Editor I at r ij $ University of Michigan LA_ Unless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the opinion of the 420 Maynard Street majoriy of the Daily editorial board. All other articles, letters and Ann Arbor, M, 48109 cartoons do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Michigan Daily. I t is difficult for any student at the University to get excited about tuition hikes, even if those increases are the smallest in recent history, especially in the wake of an accommodating 4.8 per- cent funding expansion from the state of Michigan. In attempting to figure out how they will address their increased financial burdens, students may find con- solation in the fact that, should the cur- rent tuition increase trend continue, future increases will be more in line with the Consumer Price Index. The Bureau of Labor Statistics report- ed recently that the CPI has only increased by 2 percent over the 12 month period between June 1998 and June 1999. At their meeting last Thursday, the board of regents approved a tuition increase of 2.8 percent which will amount to a $100 increase for first year students and sopho- mores and a $200 increase for juniors and seniors in the College of Literature, Science and the Arts. Some graduate pro- Dollars and sense Tuition hikes will maintain quality education grams will witness much stiffer increases - most notably a 7.4 percent increase for students seeking a Master's degree in Business Administration. Ideally, tuition would be capped at a reasonable amount for several years but this is far easier said than done. The cur- rent state of higher education has made it difficult or impossible to maintain a top- notch institution and keep tuition rates at the rate of inflation, much less the same for several years. It may be troublesome, but by increasing efforts to raise funds through alternative methods such as soliciting alumni donations and entering into more private research partnerships, the University should be able to reason- ably hike tuition rates at the rate of infla- tion without sacrificing its reputation. Some might find it unacceptably com- placent, but it is still important to put the tuition hike in perspective. As recently as 1992, tuition was increased by 13.5 per- cent and the bulk of the University's new revenue will go towards academic ven- tures rather than bureaucracy. In order to remain competitive with other important research institutions like those in the Ivy League and the Universities of Virginia and California- Berkley, tha University needs to have a robust budget. This year's tuition hike combined with the additional funding from the state will allow the University to hike faculty salaries. Several depart- ments have suffered in recent years from the loss of key members who have gone to higher paying jobs at other universi- ties. In addition to keeping its most cele- brated faculty members and maintaini important research projects, the University is looking at several immense construction projects in the future - most notably the new Life Sciences Institute which will connect the Central and Medical campuses. Keeping tuition low should be one of the regents' top priorities. If a tuition cap is impossible, then the Board should strive to keep tuition increases at the rate of inflation. In working out th University's budget, it is equally impoo tant to maintain the University's status as a vital research institution. Finding a bal- ance between keeping students' costs down and preserving the University's rep- utation is not easy, but this year's tuition increase offers hope that that a solution is slowly working itself out. The kids aren't airight State Medicaid fails to provide proper care The State of Michigan is failing to pro- vide adequate health care for children on Medicaid. Last Monday, the Michigan chapters of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Pediatric Dentists and three advocacy groups for the poor filed a lawsuit in feder- al court in Detroit on behalf of the state's 800,000 children that are covered by Medicaid. The suit alleges that these chil- dren are not receiving proper screenings for diseases or medical checkups. Widespread changes must be implemented to ensure that Michigan's future does not start their lives with an added disadvantage - poor health. According to the plaintiffs, the state of Michigan's Medicaid system is placing children in extreme danger in an era where most pediatric illnesses and diseases can be easily avoided with basic preventive care. The state's doctors have been considering filing this suit since the early '90s, and they were moved to action when the number of children falling through the cracks of the system became alarming. While the State's Community Health representatives claim that the system is improving, the actual statistics are appalling. The federal government requires states to show that 80 percent of children on Medicaid receive the required medical screening exams that help prevent common illnesses. -However, since this prerequisite was implemented in 1995, Michigan's numbers have steadily dropped from 47 percent in '95 to 38.5 its 196 and 35.3 per- ccln it 19)7. According to th Ann Arbor News these statistics translate insto the tbl- lows ng. "3.158 i(fmts did not ha e even one of the six requited cxams and that only one in four ciren received a dental exam." This lack of care undoubtedly stems from financial issues. According to Michigan's health and dental care providers, the state's Medicaid program does not reimburse them at high enough rates to encourage them to examine chil- dren on the program. Medicaid does not "cover the cost of overhead," which can include lab costs, employee wages, and the like. While doctors certainly don't want to refuse health care to children, it is simply not economically feasible for them to accept patients who will end up costing more money in the long run than these physicians will be reimbursed for. There are several things that can be done to remedy this problem. While educating parents about the availability of basic health care and the amount of required health checkups and screenings could help, it is not the only answer. Clearly, the State of Michigan needs to provide adequate com- pensation to doctors in the hopes of making the care of Medicaid children more attrac- tive financially. This funding may come from budget surpluses, or even increased taxes, but this is an investment that the state's taxpayers should be willing to make. Moreover, the State must establish some sort of "watchdog" organization to nonitor the implementation of the Medicaid pro- gram's coverage upon the children it covers. The implementation of this three-pronged solution will reestablish Medicaid as a "governiment safety net to make sure those it poserty have access to basic health care,' slieh tis hat it sat ittenied to be. The ctildren of the state of Miehig it mtst sot be impeded by life-long heah pnchlets that could base bee presented. The stite needs to allocate new funds so that Medicaid can properly care for the health of the economically disadvantaged. Th] al Senat ulate tion t step Repu tions. guara patie Demo new p excite Inc some Most specif spons appea care.1 feel t can a review progre the re will b carec $10,0 tions, empl impro Bu by an th i sl;ort. who i plan lion insura mostl emplo York7 Billfwrongs - G.O.P. health care plan is off the mark is past Thursday, in a vote divided sponsored plans "are not the more lmost exactly along party lines, the restrictive insurance plans that have e passed the Republican bill to reg- caused the most consumer concern health care. Although any legisla- because they channel access to care that increases patients' rights is a through a 'gatekeeper' doctor." In other in the right direction, the words, the 113 million Americans left blican plan falls short of expecta- out of the Republican bill are the one@ While the Republican plan does who need help the most. These are the intee valuable new rights for people who need federal legislation to nts, only the passage of the protect them. cratic bill would have guaranteed a Additionally, and very notably absent patients' bill of rights worth getting from the Republican plan is the right of d about. patients to sue health maintenance orga- eluded in the Republican bill are nizations. While Republicans argue that significant new patient rights. the courts are not the proper forum to importantly, the Republican bill shape H.M.O. policy, the right to sue is fies that Americans in employer- necessary to hold H.M.O.'s accountabl@ tored health care programs can for their actions. Until the federal gov- l decisions that deny them medical ernment grants the patient's right to sue Under the new plan, patients who a managed care provider, patients' rights hey have been denied proper care will not be complete. ppeal to an independent medical And while the Republican bill does wer. If the employer health care call for new health care provisions like am still fails to provide care upon consumer information, the right to a viewer's request, the employer plan hospital stay after a mastectomy, and e required to pay for the patient's access to an emergency room outside of outside the plan in addition to a an H.M.O. network in cases where emer- 00 fine. With these new regula- gency care is required, these rights will the level of care for Americans in vary depending on a patient's t-.M.C@ dyer-sponsored programs should coverage. There is no guarantee. ve. Health care should be guaranteed. Not t not every American is protected just for the 48 million Americans with employer-sponsored program, and employer-sponsored coverage, but for all s where the Republican bill falls Americans. The Republican bill is The Republican plan is most acceptable, but not good enough. Swayed le nt for who it Iteludes but for by big health care dollars and supported t leaves out. While the Democratic by an expensive advertising campaign wocild hase applied to all 161 mil- from the insurance industry, the G.O.P. Americans wvith private Iteahlth has failed to draft a true patients' bill n@ nce, the Republican plan applies rights. It is likely that President Clinton y to the 48 million covered by will seto this latest attempt. With the )yer-sponsored plans. The New Democratic bill as a model, let's hope Times reported that the employer- Congress gets it right next time.