Video: The fight to save baby Pierce

soundoff (5 Responses)

1. Scott
   

   Missing from this story is the excellent care this child received at Riley Hospital during his stay there. The story also entirely misrepresents the capabilities of the congenital cardiac program at Riley, which treats far more patients with this severity of lesion (or worse) than the story states. No attempt is made to research the outstanding quality of the surgeons, cardiologists, intensivists, anesthesiologists, nurses, and others who provide excellent care to congential cardiac patients like Pierce every day, with outcomes that meet or exceed national standards. Contrary to the story, there IS a cardiac ICU at Riley, although not physically separate from the pediatric ICU, which is staffed 24/7 with pediatric cardiac intensivists. This story focuses on the outstanding care at Boston at the expense of the outstanding care at Riley Hospital and others like it throughout the Midwest and the country. As good as Boston is, it is NOT the only excellent pediatric hospital in the country. Medicaid, and the American taxpayer, should not be required to fund travel and other expenses related to care at Boston Children's Hospital for illnesses that can be adequately cared for in home institutions.

   December 28, 2011 at 1:25 pm |
2. trish
   

   Medicaid is living up to its obligation to provide care in the home state. Mom wants to take the baby to a specialty hospital in Boston. That is her choice so she has to figure out how to pay for it, not demand/ blame the state of IL. Saying yes to her will open up the doors for everyone to pick and choose where they access medical care AND get the gov't/ taxpayers to foot the bill. Sorry, it doesn't and can't work that way.
   The generosity of others to step up and take care of the less fortunate is how it should work. Not expecting the government to always intervene.

   December 26, 2011 at 7:32 pm |
3. minnie
   

   I feel for this mother however government or insurance based health care doesn't mean you get the specific type of care you want, you get the care the benefit covers. In this case its medicaid...the child would have gotten the surgery he required. If that wasn't good enough for her she had the option to transport him at her own cost to somewhere else where the surgery would STILL be paid for by government. The system worked the way it should have.

   December 20, 2011 at 12:29 pm |
4. carmel
   

   ...That medicaid rep should be fired!..How dare he treat that sick child with such brutality!he should be with out a job and trying to negate health care for his family!too bad we don't tar and feather anymore!...what if that baby was his grandson?...what has happened to our country?...watching him explain why that child should not be sent the better Hospital was like watching a fat greedy King with no regard for poor people ..the only thing missing was the big greasy turkey leg!!

   December 20, 2011 at 12:18 pm |
5. Jeff R.
   

   While I am completely in support of the Medicaid system for people who cannot afford health care for their children, this story is off the mark. Medicaid is providing the services needed in Indiana. While it certainly is desirable to get the best health care possible, this mother is hardly in a position to demand the absolute best care available when the American taxpayer is footing the bill. I am glad that people have stepped up to the plate to help this poor woman that is how it should be. Medicaid however, is having to do the best they can with limited resources, the best they could do was to provide services locally. We would all like to have the best of the best take care of our health care, but we all have to settle for the best we can afford.

   December 20, 2011 at 12:06 pm |