Thoughts on Salem Hospital budget cuts

There was an article in the Statesman Journal on Wednesday, Dec. 16th, concerning some upcoming budget cuts at the Salem Hospital.

It states, "Salem Health announced in October that that the nonprofit hospital was dealing with losses for the first time in nine years." And that "Officials said demand for hospital services is greater than ever, but how people are paying for services has changed: More people are on government-insured programs such as Medicare, which has lower reimbursement rates, or self-pay; fewer patients have private insurance."

Of the $9.3 million to be cut, "About $3.6 million will be trimmed from labor expenses." And "About 80 percent of the projected job cuts are not related to patient care," according to Aaron Crane, the chief financial officer for Salem Health.

Now there are some other strategies involved with this budget scale-back, such as haggling with drug companies and feeding people less. But what I initially thought about was the fact that more workers would be let go. And as Crane said, these are people that are "not related to patient care" (i.e. not doctors, etc.). I didn't read anything about management going anywhere either. As we know, cuts are usually made from the bottom up. What strikes me as sadly ironic is that within this very article it states that part of the problem is that "fewer patients have private insurance" or are on government programs with a lower reimbursement rate. And now more people will be added to that growing population.

As a side note, I'm not one to criticize lower reimbursement rates from government programs. That's not the issue at all. Costs are astronomical, and any diehard conservative that would bloviate for hours on government expenditure cannot complain about lower rates paid by government. The cost of insurance premiums and prescription drugs are at the root of the trouble. Conservatives love to whine about tort reform, but lawsuits are a minuscule portion of the overall costs. And as much as the cons despise lawyers they are the first in line, with the most expensive lawyer, when the need arises.

So, it wasn't as much as a day later, on Thursday, Dec. 17th, that I heard about a study in the headlines on Democracy Now! Outside of the intrinsic value that workers have as people, this study laid it out in economic terms. I've quoted the blurb in its entirety.

"And a new study from a progressive British think tank says low-income workers, such as hospital cleaners, have a far higher economic value to society than bankers. The New Economics Foundation says bankers take away seven British pounds for every one pound they earn. By contrast, hospital cleaners create ten pounds of economic value for every pound they earn. The study’s authors say the findings suggest pay structures should reward jobs that create societal benefit, not profit."

Good luck seeing that to fruition.

So, as nothing is done that will cut to the chase on the real problems of our health care system, those laboring behind the scenes, those on the night shift, those we may not seek out though we benefit from their efforts... those people will again become casualties in a battle that seems out of their control. Those in Washington, D.C. that we pay to represent us are many times paid far more by those who hope to profit from our sickness and death.

And as the laborers described above are seen as expendable in the war for the bottom line, their value... our value!.. as workers in this society and economy is under-appreciated and ignored. Apparently, the solutions sought to the current budget troubles, at Salem Hospital and elsewhere, will continue to benefit those who suck the life out of the very system they adore, at the expense of those who add the most life to our economy and nation.

Eventually, the system will fail. Must we wait until the bottom falls out before we fix it? As the fossil fuel industry tells us of the global climate crisis, the health care industry also tells us, "Not until the last dollar has been made".