The New York Times reported this week that New York teaching hospitals—Stony Brook Hospital included—could stand to suffer more than the national average if the cuts to Medicare programs that congressional Republicans are seeking are part of a larger series of spending cuts. President Obama has indicated that he may be willing to accept some cuts to Medicare, but many congressional Democrats have voiced strong opposition to the plan.

“While there is no formal proposal on the table, we have heard that significant cuts to Medicare medical education payments have been discussed that could have a negative impact of up to $30 million on Stony Brook University Medical Center,” said Stony Brook Hospital CEO Steven Strongwater on Friday.

That would be part of an estimated $1 billion in cuts to teaching hospitals across New York State, reported the New York Times.

A $30 million loss would be devastating to Stony Brook University Medical Center, which also saw state funding cut in half this year under Governor Cuomo’s cost-cutting budget. All told, Stony Brook University Medical Center could lose as much as $60 million this year if the federal government moves ahead with Medicare cuts.

A cut of that size, almost 7 percent of SBUMC’s overall budget, could begin to have noticeable impacts on both patient treatment and physician training, warns Strongwater.

“We feel strongly that reducing medical education payments would be extremely harmful in light of the current physician shortage and growing demand for health care under health reform and because of our aging population,” he said.

Over the last few months, the most prevalent issue in the national political discussion has been President Obama’s crusade to reform our broken health care system.  As one of the only developed industrial nations without a universal health care system, the United States ranks shockingly low on many international health rankings.  Whether one is a single parent, a small business owner, or a college student, the fight to provide suitable health care coverage is a salient issue for most Americans.

The Stony Brook University Medical Center is home to the best ideas in medicine, save for one: universal health care. At least not yet.

Fortunately, legislation has recently been proposed in Congress to remedy this problem.  Although not perfect, the proposed health care bill recently put forth by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nevada) would expand coverage to 94% of all Americans, and would simultaneously reduce the federal budget deficit.   Rather than fit the stereotype of an intrusive liberal program, this bill allows those Americans who are happy with their coverage to keep it as is. This bill will clearly be a boon for our federal government, for many Americans struggling to provide their families with proper health insurance, and not least of all for businesses weighed down by the overwhelming costs of providing their employees with health coverage.  Here at Think, we wonder whether these expected positive results will also translate to college campuses.

Many of the uninsured are college students or recent college graduates.  Currently, college students are usually covered by their parent’s health plans, but upon graduating they are left to fend for themselves.  The proposed health care bill would extend the aforementioned privilege to include young adults as old as twenty-six.  This would ease the burden on college graduates, who are one of the most susceptible demographics to health care problems.  Already saddled with student loans and the pressure of finding gainful employment, the news that health care will be provided for college graduates is a good sign that the Obama administration has remembered that even college graduates need assistance at times.

While it is true that many young Americans do choose not to purchase health insurance, believing themselves to be invincible, this is not as widespread a phenomenon as the opponents of universal health care would like the public to believe.  To hear conservatives tell it, the vast majority of the uninsured are arrogant young people in their twenties who distort national statistics by refusing to purchase coverage that they could easily afford.  In fact, a majority of the uninsured truly are those who cannot afford it, including a great number of college graduates who do not possess the financial means to insure themselves.  Furthermore, there are an unknown, but substantial, number of college students who are electing to intentionally delay their graduation in the hopes of remaining on their parent’s insurance.  The resulting glut of college students has had a negative effect on the college experience, most palpably felt by students who are now struggling to find housing on campus.  Many of these older students have conditions that can only be treated using the health care available to them as college students.

I recently spoke with Dr. Raymond Goldstein to discuss the Baucus health care bill and its prospective effects on college students, and on the country as a whole. The following are a summation of his thoughts on the issue, prompted by three overarching questions I asked him during my interview with him.

What effects, if any, will the proposed health care bill have on college students?

The health care bill as it stands right now will not do enough to remedy the current situation.  Rather than excise the harmful inclusion of insurance companies in our health car system, the Baucus bill will be a windfall for these same companies who have so badly harmed our nation.

In regards to college students, Dr. Goldstein’s prognosis is hardly more promising.  Although he predicts that the stipulation in the bill that young adults can remain on their parent’s coverage until the age of 26 may result in short term improvements for our demographic, he believes that this is only on the margins of our age group, and that this part of the bill will also help the companies.  The lack of regulation in the bill will allow insurance companies to charge higher premiums for the young adults remaining on their parent’s plans.

Dr. Goldstein believes that real reform would be a boon to college students, but that any bill without a strong public option included will do nothing to alleviate any current or potential suffering that we experience.  Without a public option, or at least clear regulations on predatory practices by insurance companies, this bill may exacerbate current problems in our system, rather than cure them.

Does the University Medical Center have an official position on the proposed legislation?

The University has not officially weighed in on the issue, although the individuals in the medical center obviously have their own strong opinions.  Dr. Goldstein referred to Dr. David Brown as being a strong proponent of a single payer system, although he assured me that most doctors on campus are opponents of any progressive health reform.

Are there any common myths and misconceptions about health care that you would like to dispel?

It is important to stress that Americans should look to Western European health care systems for guidance, rather than demonizing them for simply being “un-American”.   Dr. Goldstein thinks that our pervasive ideology of what he calls “rugged individualism” has harmed us in this area, and that this mode of thinking is responsible for the insurance companies being able to maximize their profits at the expense of public welfare.  In an interesting side note, he also submitted that the current state of our health care system in relation to Western Europe’s is a definite contributing factor in the continuing weakness of the US dollar compared to the Euro.

Stony Brook University Medical Center is the primary treatment facility for residents of Suffolk County. The center houses research facilities as well as classrooms for instruction in numerous subjects, including nursing. The hospital is also home to a treatment center with just over 500 beds for its patients. From pregnancies to allergic reactions, the medical center is the primary option for most residents and since it is a public hospital, it has become a haven for those without insurance. This is especially apparent because four East End hospitals are associated with, and transfer their patients to, Stony Brook Medical Center when the diagnosis is beyond their means. However, the past couple of years have brought attention to mismanagement in the hospital, including misdiagnosis that has led to deaths—especially involving their pediatric practices. The hospital has been under investigation and cited by the Department of Health numerous times, and though lately the center has managed to stay out of the spotlight, its grim past leaves the future of the Stony Brook Medical Center uncertain.

In 2005, a year before the New York State Health Department closed the Pediatric Cardiac Treatment Center citing “imminent danger to health and safety,” three children died under the care of the Stony Brook University Medical Center.  One child died as a result of getting twenty sevent times worth the dosage of medication needed, another died after not receiving adequate pre-operation procedures for adenoid surgery and the third died after waiting a week for a surgeon to operate on a heart problem after being born prematurely. Stony Brook University Medical Center did not transfer the waiting child, but rather, left him while other facilities with a full-time staff could have operated on the baby.

A year later, another case brought the hospital back into the spotlight after a six year-old boy from Mastic, William Gonzalez, died under the hospital’s care.  After being transferred from an East End hospital in Brookhaven, Gonzalez was treated at Stony Brook Medical Center three separate times before his eventual death at the hospital. Gonzalez, a first grader, was sent to the hospital and treated for reflux after an x-ray revealed that he had an enlarged heart. A state report on the matter stated, “There is no documented evidence that the heart problem was addressed.” Since then, the hospital has implemented the “P.E.A.S” System, or Pediatric Early Addressing Scores, which, among other things, monitors a patient’s heart and breathing in the hopes that no symptoms can be misdiagnosed. Gonzalez’s father responded positively to the program remarking to Newsday that he will be satisfied, “If my son’s death at Stony Brook was not in vain and if this [system] hopefully will not let another child or adult die.”

In the first set of lawsuits against the Medical Center, parents of patients in its Pediatric Cardiac Center sued after their children were mistreated following their diagnosis of heart birth defects and instead treated for stomach problems.  Stony Brook University Medical Center was the one hospital in Suffolk County at the time that treated children with these specific problems. The charges against the hospital of this alleged misguided treatment were dropped this October after the health department’s investigation. Parents of patients who almost lost their lives at the hands of the cardiac center still band together in believing that if their children stayed at Stony Brook, they wouldn’t be alive today.

After it was announced that the medical center was responsible for nineteen violations in pediatric surgery and seventeen violations involving overlooking symptoms and overdoses in 2006 alone, a new Chief Executive, Steven L. Strongwater, took over the hospital in December 2006 and continues to monitor the hospital’s care today. Stony Brook University President, Shirley Strum Kenny, has also called for additional changes in the hospital’s staff and procedures and has commissioned a blue ribbon committee to research and address its findings of the faults in the Stony Brook Medical Center.

Though lately it seems it is business as usual at the Stony Brook Medical Center, it is unclear what the future holds for this hospital, which serves 400,000 patients per year. The hospital remains under investigation, and its treatment facilities are regularly assessed. Though originally the Medical Center attempted to restart the Pediatric Cardiac Center in the hospital, the treatment center remains closed indefinitely.