There's a Times-Picayune article from Feb 3rd by Bill Barrow which describes the slashing of medical and mental health services across the LSU run medical system and, of particular interest to me, in New Orleans:
- Eliminating the 20-bed chemical detox unit: $841,632.
- Closing nine inpatient psychiatric beds on the DePaul Hospital campus, leaving 29 open: $663,007.
- Closing 10 mental health beds in the emergency department, leaving 10 open: $853,673.
- Closing four general emergency department beds, leaving 40: $1.43 million.
- Closing 24 medical/surgical beds: $1 million.
- Cutting additional personnel across all departments: $4.94 million.
- Scaling back treatment for state prisoners: $2 million.
- Cutting professional services contracts with Tulane physicians/professors: $2.29 million.
My first reaction is that these are brutal. The LSU system primarily is the medical safety net for indigent patients and so necessarily, any cuts will disproportionately affect...the indigent. And specifically, the indigent who have mental health illnesses. Less detoxing for poor people. Fewer ER psych beds. And fewer overall ER and med-surg beds in the LSU (aka "University") hospital.
Maybe all these patients will be ok. Maybe this is the slap of hard-reality in the face they need to overcome...drug addictions...and heart attacks. Or maybe, they'll just move elsewhere were services for indigent patients is better. The likelihood is that there will just be more mass suffering for those without resources.
But one point in this article which irks me more is the question of proportion. These cuts seem brutal. But what's the overall budget for the LSU hospitals and the state government? Are there other cuts in the state budget as severe? How are these cuts in relation to corporate tax cuts within Louisiana?
20 years ago, to answer these proportionality questions, one would have to go to a library. But I can do it now just by opening another tab and googling the answers. It would be quite helpful, though, for the reporters on these beats who have access to these public databases to link to them in the stories. Or if their editors don't want out-linking from their sites, then perhaps links to other stories within their own paper?
It seems that one reason for the polarization of the electorate is that we've become more reactionary. LSU hospital slashing! Deep medicaid cuts! Corporate executive pay rises! But reporters can help reduce this with the simple tools of the internet and giving context to their stories.
