One person can make a difference, for better or worse. Our efforts to highlight the challenges in rural healthcare take us to South Carolina today. An area very important to us as residents of the state. Most are not aware that South Carolina has earned the reputation of having the most inefficient public health system in the country. Recently, a study by Boston Consulting Group said South Carolina puts more money into public health but gets the worst outcome of all the states. It’s something the governor and state lawmakers know and have been working to address. There has been some progress, but South Carolina still has 6 different public health entities, all functioning autonomously serving the state.
A bi partisan bill was introduced (S.915) that had tremendous support from both sides of the isle in both the senate and house. It also enjoyed the support of the governor, demonstrating a collaborative effort to make things better for this patient population. However, two different versions were passed (House and Senate) so there was a need for a procedural vote to finalize approval of the bill. That’s where things went sideways. The bill was killed on a procedural move by Rep Josiah Magnuson, of Spartanburg. He is part of the 20 member House Freedom Caucus that opposed the bill, saying it would create a too-powerful “health czar”. But is that really the reason he killed it?
In an interview after the session ended, he said, “They have basically ridiculed me, in fact, on the House floor. Right now, there is a little puppet sitting back there with red hair that had a tinfoil hat on that said, ‘House Freedom Caucus,’” Magnuson, who has red hair, said. “And so, they have completely, I think, eradicated any credibility they have with me at this point.” Really? Of all the things that could have been said to support his actions, this is the justification he used in the media to potentially impact thousands of patients throughout the state?
This was a bill developed and designed over a two-year period with input and review by 124 house members and 46 state senate members. A bill designed to overhaul the public health structure in South Carolina to better serve its patient population. A design taking six different, autonomous divisions and consolidating them into one highly efficient and collaborative organization with a focus on improving healthcare delivery and outcomes with a potential to reduce costs. While I tend to stay away from politics when discussing rural health issues, it is important to highlight events driven by competing interests impacting this vulnerable patient population. A population that includes, nationally, 40% of our children who receive needed care during formidable, developmental years.
So, who will step up and be the bigger person(s) for this patient population? The people who made the puppet and developed the perceived climate of ridicule? Or will it be Rep Josiah Magnuson and the other members of the House Freedom Caucus? Either way, it once again proves that one person can make a difference for the better, or in this case, for the worse.
South Carolina Public Health
One person can make a difference, for better or worse. Our efforts to highlight the challenges in rural healthcare take us to South Carolina today. An area very important to us as residents of the state. Most are not aware that South Carolina has earned the reputation of having the most inefficient public health system in the country. Recently, a study by Boston Consulting Group said South Carolina puts more money into public health but gets the worst outcome of all the states. It’s something the governor and state lawmakers know and have been working to address. There has been some progress, but South Carolina still has 6 different public health entities, all functioning autonomously serving the state.
A bi partisan bill was introduced (S.915) that had tremendous support from both sides of the isle in both the senate and house. It also enjoyed the support of the governor, demonstrating a collaborative effort to make things better for this patient population. However, two different versions were passed (House and Senate) so there was a need for a procedural vote to finalize approval of the bill. That’s where things went sideways. The bill was killed on a procedural move by Rep Josiah Magnuson, of Spartanburg. He is part of the 20 member House Freedom Caucus that opposed the bill, saying it would create a too-powerful “health czar”. But is that really the reason he killed it?
In an interview after the session ended, he said, “They have basically ridiculed me, in fact, on the House floor. Right now, there is a little puppet sitting back there with red hair that had a tinfoil hat on that said, ‘House Freedom Caucus,’” Magnuson, who has red hair, said. “And so, they have completely, I think, eradicated any credibility they have with me at this point.” Really? Of all the things that could have been said to support his actions, this is the justification he used in the media to potentially impact thousands of patients throughout the state?
This was a bill developed and designed over a two-year period with input and review by 124 house members and 46 state senate members. A bill designed to overhaul the public health structure in South Carolina to better serve its patient population. A design taking six different, autonomous divisions and consolidating them into one highly efficient and collaborative organization with a focus on improving healthcare delivery and outcomes with a potential to reduce costs. While I tend to stay away from politics when discussing rural health issues, it is important to highlight events driven by competing interests impacting this vulnerable patient population. A population that includes, nationally, 40% of our children who receive needed care during formidable, developmental years.
So, who will step up and be the bigger person(s) for this patient population? The people who made the puppet and developed the perceived climate of ridicule? Or will it be Rep Josiah Magnuson and the other members of the House Freedom Caucus? Either way, it once again proves that one person can make a difference for the better, or in this case, for the worse.