What good is Obamacare if doctors won’t take patients?

Obamacare expanded health insurance to millions of Americans. But what good is insurance if there are no doctors available to treat them?

This month, I found out, first hand. I saw a woman falling through the cracks of the new health care system, and I tried to help her.

The woman — let’s call her Isabella — is a naturalized U.S. citizen and housekeeper for a friend of mine. A few weeks ago, Isabella began having what seemed to be debilitating panic attacks. She was unable to work. She stopped eating. She would frequently burst into tears. She said she thought things would be easier if she were dead. She called at all hours asking for advice. During previous episodes, she had gone to the emergency room or paid doctors out of pocket who gave her prescriptions with no counseling for medicines such as Xanax that provided temporary relief at best. She badly needed mental-health treatment — and there was none available.

Obamacare provides mental-health “parity,” meaning mental health is covered as well as any other condition — in theory, an important advance. But in practice, parity was meaningless for Isabella. She is enrolled in one of the CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield plans from the Obamacare exchange, but when my friend and I searched for psychiatrists within 30 miles of Washington that take her plan, the CareFirst website returned none.

Next, we took Isabella to Metro Immediate &Primary Care, an urgent-care clinic; after a two-hour wait, a doctor said “I can’t do anything for you.” A nurse provided a list of psychiatrists who, we learned after calling them, also didn’t take her insurance.

We tried various other places experts suggested: The 35 K Street Clinic: No good, because Isabella lives in Maryland, not the District. Mary’s Center, a community health-care group, and the Psychiatric Institute of Washington: Both said they weren’t taking new patients. The Women’s Center, a mental-health counseling nonprofit, said the same but offered to put Isabella on a lengthy wait list.

Finally, we found something called Holy Health Care Services, which said Isabella could see a social worker now and a psychiatrist in the middle of next month. With luck, Isabella will get the treatment that she needs — and with more luck, CareFirst will reimburse her for it.

But that’s hardly a reassuring result. Isabella wouldn’t have found psychiatric help without two educated, connected and persistent advocates representing her. (After I made an inquiry for this column, Mary’s Center offered to see Isabella, but we declined.) What if you’re not well-off, well-educated or well-connected and you start hearing voices in your head telling you to shoot people — but you are told by place after place that no doctor is available to see you?

One of those we asked for help with Isabella was my college friend John Santopietro, a psychiatrist who is chief clinical officer for behavioral health in the Carolinas HealthCare System in Charlotte, N.C. He said her experience is typical.

One in five of us needs mental-health treatment at any given time, and for those who get good care, the recovery rate is between 60 percent and 80 percent — higher than in many other medical fields. But only about 40 percent of the people who need treatment get any help, Santopietro said, and those who do “often get bounced around in a system that leaves them feeling misunderstood, stigmatized, brushed aside.”

Obamacare aimed to improve this woeful system by requiring mental-health parity. But psychiatrists, many of whom stopped taking insurance because of the paltry reimbursement, have yet to rejoin the system. This leaves the public mental-health system (clinics that charge on a sliding scale) overloaded.

“What we had is a major expansion of coverage, at least on paper,” said Mark Covall, president of the National Association of Psychiatric Health Systems, a group of 800 mental-health hospitals. Now, “you have insurance but you don’t really have access to these services because these services aren’t readily available.”

Thankfully, a bipartisan group in Congress is trying to fix this. The “Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act,” introduced by Rep. (and psychologist) Tim Murphy, R-Pennsylvania, and Rep. (and psychiatric nurse) Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, attempts, among other things, to reinforce community mental-health programs. It has 165 co-sponsors and has already cleared a commerce subcommittee. Similar legislation by Sens. Chris Murphy, D-Connecticut, and Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana, attempts to expand the mental-health workforce.

Both could close the gap between what Obamacare promises and what those needing mental-health treatment actually receive.

Dana Milbank is a Washington Post columnist.

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

toon
Editorial cartoons for Wednesday, May 8

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) speaks to reporters during a press conference about the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act, on Capitol Hill in Washington, on Wednesday, May 1, 2024. Senate Democrats reintroduced broad legislation on Wednesday to legalize cannabis on the federal level, a major shift in policy that has wide public support, but which is unlikely to be enacted this year ahead of November’s elections and in a divided government. (Valerie Plesch/The New York Times)
Editorial: Federal moves on cannabis encouraging, if incomplete

The Biden administration and the Senate offer sensible proposals to better address marijuana use.

Tom Burke: Don’t know much about history? Better start reading

Reading — anything — matters, but especially before an election with history-making consequences.

Where did Carolyn Hax advice column go?

Recently the Herald has replaced the Carolyn Hax column with Dear Abby.… Continue reading

Why did The Herald add an astrology column in print?

We live in times when accurate information and good science are vital.… Continue reading

Plastics are vital to health care

Regarding a recent letter warning about plastic pollution: For the past six… Continue reading

Climate change, nuclear war threat to life on earth

There is one sentinel topic that has received minimal media attention in… Continue reading

toon
Editorial cartoons for Tuesday, May 7

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

A radiation warning sign along the road near the Hanford Site in Washington state, on Aug. 10, 2022. Hanford, the largest and most contaminated of all American nuclear weapons production sites, is too polluted to ever be returned to public use. Cleanup efforts are now at an inflection point.  (Mason Trinca/The New York Times)
Editorial: Latest Hanford cleanup plan must be scrutinized

A new plan for treating radioactive wastes offers a quicker path, but some groups have questions.

Maureen Dowd: Consider the three faces of Donald Trump

Past, present and future are visibile in his countenance; an especially grim one on the cover of Time.

Paul Krugman: Still no stag and not much flation

The grumbling about inflation’s slow path to 2 percent isn’t worth steps that risk a recession.

David Brooks: Why past is prologue and protests help Trump

Today’s crowd-sourced protests muddle their message and goals and alienate the quiet disapprovers.

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.