Curious consumers start to see more hospital data

In an Austin American Statesman article written by Mary Ann Roser on Saturday, March 24, 2012, government payments to hospitals will soon be linked to care that they provide and to patient satisfaction scores.  As consumers, we should have the right to have access to more information regarding hospitals in our area.  Government should require hospitals to report more information on complications and should require more information to be available to the public.  As prospective patients, we have a choice in the hospital we choose.  We should know the truth about all of our potential choices and have valid information about each hospital in our area.

Although a below average score on the reports is not ideal, a public hospital such as University Medical Center Brackenridge deals with many more obstacles than a private hospital.  Those who have the choice not to go there CAN go to other nearby hospitals, but many patients arrive in a hospital who were involved in a serious accident and did not plan on coming to a hospital.  In these cases many are transported to specific locations such as the Trauma Center at Brackenridge.  These ratings are  important to show specialization for each hospital in the area.  Some patients require specialized treatment, which can only be received at specific hospitals in our surrounding area. These issues are real and can affect anyone at any time.  Having the appropriate data available helps everyone make an educated decision on their health care choices and everyone deserves to know the truth.  “Americans know more about the car they drive than the hospitals where they entrust their and their loved ones’ lives.”

The idea is for Medicare to reward hospitals based on the quality of care they provide and will begin in October of this year.  Poor health care is costly and there should be more interest in patient safety.  Reports on deaths, complications, and infection should be mandatory for hospitals.  Also, more information about doctors/surgeons should be required.  With surgery being one of the leading causes of infection, I agree that "Patient's doctors are the best consumer guides".  In conjunction with enforcing stricter guidelines on hospital reports, the government should make the data more easily accessible.  These scores are important determining factors for where we will choose to go if and when the necessary time comes and it is surprising to see that legislature did not fund the requirement of reporting infection rates until 2009.

Thousands of dollars are being paid out by Medicare for hospital stays that could have been prevented.  Improving these areas could save a lot of money for both insurance companies and patients.  It is incredibly important that more people know about these issues and make a stronger effort to make a change.  Especially hospital staff.  Guidelines can be set, but must be followed to ensure further complications.  Infection spreads fast once inside a hospital setting.  It is up to all hospital staff to abide by the training they have received in order to keep the infections from spreading to themselves and others. 

Over all, I agree with the legislature to begin enforcing stricter laws on hospital reports.  Medicare is on the right track and in Texas we hope to see more Insurance companies following soon.  Because after all, hospitals are businesses too, and like the article states, “Once you start tying dollars to it, you’re going to see hospitals pay more attention to it.”

Sonogram requirement gives potential Texas mothers an appropriate pause

In an Austin American Statesman article published February 28, 2012, contributor Ashley Sanchez discusses the recent law passed that affects potential mothers in Texas.  The author provides input from the fetus’ side of the story.  It is pointed out that there are many people out there who began their lives as unwanted pregnancies and are grateful today to have gotten a chance at life.  The option of adoption is brought up in this commentary.  Using Steve Jobs as an example, Sanchez makes a valid point that if raising a child is not suitable for the woman, adoption is a happy ending for the child as well as it’s new family. 

For some women, when going into an abortion clinic they are confronted by others suggesting they should be ashamed of themselves and called names by protestors that are against their decision.  For some percent of women, this treatment alone might put an end to their decision to proceed with the abortion.  But with the new ultrasound law, there is even more emotional distress than ever that is put on pregnant women. Although Texas law doesn’t specify the type of sonogram that the woman must receive, a trans-vaginal ultrasound is usually necessary to meet the doctors requirements of showing the woman the fetus, making the heartbeat audible, and describing the features of the fetus. Perhaps the additional step will turn away another percent of women that would have proceeded to follow through with the abortion.

However, because there is now another procedure added to the abortion process, more time is needed from both the patient and the doctor.  Clinics will now face scheduling conflicts due to the fact that the ultrasound will have to be done 24 hours prior to the abortion procedure.  The cost will also be driven up if women are required to pay for the mandatory ultrasound in addition to the abortion.  Which surely isn’t an issue to those mandating the law, but will be a major factor for those women who are financially unstable. 

I can’t say that I agree or disagree completely with the new sonogram law.  Of course it depends on the situation of the particular pregnancy.  One viewpoint is that it is somewhat condescending to women and treats them as though they don’t already know what is in the their uterus.  But the viewpoint is that giving women all of the information that they need will help the decision they make, whatever that decision is. 

Lakeside residents, your days of free water are over.

In an editorial published February 14, 2012 by the Austin American Statesman, the issue of water being siphoned from the Highland Lakes is discussed.   Resident of the lake area are pumping water from the lakes for their own personal use.  The water being used is not being paid for by the majority of the residents and is becoming an issue for the Lower Colorado River Authority, as taking the water for free is illegal.  The LCRA is urging residents to sign a contract stating that they will pay for the amount of water which they siphon from the lake.  For those who fail to pay for the water which they use, the LCRA is ready to issue fines of up to $875.


I agree with the author's statement, "Its time they pay for the water they take."  Siphoning water from the lake is illegal and should be punishable by law.  Fines should be enforced and not withheld no matter what the excuse.  Many cities are drought stricken and nobody should be taking water for free.  There are certainly preventative measures that can be taken to avoid unnecessary water usage, especially in time of drought.  Landscaping should be done with drought tolerant plants that are native to the area.  Grass should be there naturally and should grow from rainfall, not hoses.


Although weather conditions have improved since last summer, the drought in central Texas remains. There is potential for heavy rain this upcoming summer, however, with the rate of the rainfall this year, it will take years to build the lakes back up to the level it was recently at. With the lakes at a historically low level, residents should refrain from using water directly from the lakes. Even with the amount of rain expected this upcoming Spring and Summer, we are dangerously close to the lowest water levels seen since the 10-year drought of the 1940's and 50's. (www.lcra.org/water/drought/index.html)


Overall, the author's approach to inform Texas residents of the illegal usage of water makes it easily an agreeable argument.  Most residents of the surrounding area should be more conscientious about water usage after reading this editorial.  Likewise it should be agreed that those taking water directly from our lakes should make a better effort to conserve water usage if payment their source of the issue.

They're Not Pro-Life

On Friday, February 3, 2012 the Austin Chronicle published an article about funding cuts for women's health care in the Capital Area.

Many Texas Planned Parenthood clinics are closing due to lack of funding.  Why? Because Texas government officials have cut funding for women’s health care services.  Planned Parenthood has lost funding due to a campaign enforcing 'Pro-Life'. Millions of dollars from the state budget for family planning have been cut in Texas, leaving women across the Capitol Area without proper well-woman care.  By cutting funding for abortions, the Government is also cutting funding for crucial health care services.  In fact, many of the clinics forced to close their doors did not even provide abortion services.  Without those doors open, women are unable to receive necessary preventative health screenings for Sexually Transmitted Diseases and Breast and Cervical Cancer.  Without routine services for family planning and well-woman care we can expect to see a rise in health problems in pregnant women as well as their children, causing the state even more money to treat what could have been prevented. Rep. Donna Howard emphasized that " We've already seen that there's an association between unintended pregnancies and lack of prenatal care, with problems that may occur with premature deliveries, with low-birth-weight infants, with subsequent issues of health for the child as the child develops, as well as impacts with the woman being able to get a job, and be able to provide child care. The list goes on and on. There's a real multiplier here and the impacts of the cost on society – just by virtue of not giving this woman a couple of hundred dollars in preventive care."  Not everyone is fortunate enough to have health insurance and many rely solely on Government funding at clinics such as Planned Parenthood.  By cutting these funds, the Government is hurting the population and putting many citizens at danger that shouldn't have to be. If adjustments are going to be made regarding the funding for such clinics, there should be some sort of guideline differentiating between the types of services received.  If abortion is the root of all of these budget cuts, then there should be some sort of regulation specifically against abortion services that does not affect other necessary health care services.  It seems to be agreed that 'Pro-Life' is 'anti-women and anti-family'.