Free clinics need more government funding

by Cole Petrochko

The nation’s free clinics provide medical service to 1.8 million patients annually — more than half of those clinics operate without government funding and serve patients who are almost all uninsured — according to the first census of free clinics in 40 years.

Responses to a national mail survey by 764 free clinics in the U.S., reported in the June issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine, revealed that new and recurring patients waited an average of 12 and 11 days respectively for clinic appointments, suggesting far greater demand than can be met by the time and number of volunteer clinicians at the limited number of available clinics.

“Our nation’s 46 million uninsured often delay or forgo needed healthcare because the cost is prohibitive,” said study author Julie S. Darnell, PhD, MHSA, then of the University of Chicago and now with the School of Public Health at the University of Illinois at Chicago. The mean cost for a doctor visit for uninsured patients is around $50, Darnell wrote.

Traditional sources of care, including public clinics and federal health centers, both charge fees and bill patients. “Aside from cost considerations, care is frequently difficult to find, especially for those with the least resources,” Darnell added. For many poor, uninsured, and underserved patients, the only sources of care are emergency rooms or free clinics.

At the time of the survey, 1,007 free clinics were known to be operating throughout 49 states and the District of Columbia (Alaska was the lone exception).

Free clinics were defined as a private, nonprofit organization or component of an organization that provided medical, dental, or mental healthcare or medication directly to patients who were mostly (more than 50%) uninsured and charged no or nominal fees ($20 or less) for service.

Those defined as free clinics could also not bill patients, deny, or delay service if payment could not be made and did not belong to a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) or Title X family planning clinic. Sites that only offered pregnancy or sexually transmitted disease-related services were also excluded from the operating definition used in the study.

The survey revealed that free clinics operate an average of 18 hours a week, an average three days a week, on a mean budget of $287,810, with 95.2% providing medical treatment, said Darnell.

Nearly three-fifths (58.7%) receive no government-supplied revenue, and slightly more than a quarter (26%) receive less than a fourth of their budget from any government source.

A whopping 92.2% of patients going to the free clinics are uninsured, and more than half (56.1%) earn below the poverty level. Only 40.8% are at or earn up to two times the poverty level, while the remaining 3.1% earn more than 200% poverty level.

A large number of patients using free clinics belong to special populations, including:

* Homeless (41.9%)
* Immigrant (39.3)
* Substance abuse disorder (18.5)
* HIV/AIDS (9.5)

The medical staffs at the free clinics surveyed were mostly volunteers, including physicians, nurses, and nurse practitioners/physician assistants (82.1%, 72.6%, and 54.9% volunteer, respectively). Roughly, only 19% of nurses and 15% of nurse practitioners and physical assistants receive part- or full-time pay (18.1% of nurses and 14.1% of nurse practitioners and physician assistants receive full-time pay, while 20.5% and 16.2% receive part-time). Only 6.8% of physicians receive full-time pay and 12.6% receive part-time pay.

Executive directors of free clinics mostly (43.2%) receive full-time pay, while 22.6% receive part-time pay and 27.1% are volunteers.

Most free clinics (97.7%) have at least some volunteer staff, contributing an average 4,237 volunteer hours per clinic.

More than half (56.6%) are independent, while the remaining clinics are part of or affiliated with another organization.

The survey compared free clinics with health centers in uninsured patient volume (1.8 million for the clinics versus 6 million at health centers), budget ($290 million from all sources versus $1.8 billion in federal money), cost per patient ($600 versus $562), primary care services offered (basic with medications versus comprehensive with reduced price medications), staff (mostly volunteer versus paid staff), and average cost to uninsured patients ($9.30 versus a tiered structure).

Uninsured patients in health centers pay an average $5 to $24 with income below the poverty line, $47 at up to 150% of the poverty line, and $87 at 200%.

The author concludes that the findings challenge the belief that free clinics will phase out with the introduction of healthcare reform — that free clinics are gap-fillers and that an average 7.5% of patients in free clinics already have insurance. The heavy burden on free clinics would be offset with additional support from safety net systems, such as coverage through healthcare insurance reform, which should strengthen the overall healthcare system and free clinics, Darnell added.

Sources were originally compiled from sources including member lists of free clinics, directories, online databases, and Internet searches, initially resulting in a pool of 2,545 potential free clinics.

The study’s operating criteria narrowed the initial pool to 1,188 sites, which was further reduced by 181 when many were found to charge more than $20, were duplicate entries, billed patients, served mostly insured patients, were an FQHC, or for another general reason were deemed ineligible. The survey was then sent to 1,188 free clinics between October 2005 and December 2006; 764 clinics returning the survey were classified as eligible for study.

Limitations of the study include its cross-sectional design, potential sampling bias, the disparate sources used to identify free clinics (the smallest, youngest, and least formal free clinics were more likely to be excluded), and only free clinics currently in operation at the time of the survey were described.

Cole Petrochko is a MedPage Today staff writer.

Originally published in MedPage Today. Visit MedPageToday.com for more health policy news.

email

  • Vox Rusticus

    Since I have given charitably to my local city free clinic, I feel some measure of personal observation is in order.

    There will never be enough funding for services that are provided free to their consumers. This is the inherent structural problem with a “free” clinic.

    Providing federal funding to community free clinics makes them, in essence, federally-subsidized enterprises. Those clinics already exist and have standards for eligibility for those who may use them. So that by asking for federal funds for these other “free” clinics, you are saying that there should also be federal clinics for people who 1. do not want to or cannot pay for care at other available facilities that provide outpatient care and 2., those who wish to use those clinics should not have to fulfill the eligibility criteria that would otherwise be required at an existing federally-subsidized clinic.

    I believe the voluntary “free” clinics should stay as they are, as voluntary, private community charity enterprises, not as outlets for federally-subsidized medical care. They should establish their own criteria for means testing and accept or deny new patients based on their own criteria and their means to pay.

    If you think that nationally-provided insurance is the better option, then were that to be legislated, there should no longer be any need for federally- subsidized clinics of any kind (unless the subsidy is so grossly inadequate that no private medical enterprise could survive on its revenues, much the way Medicaid is now and the way Medicare is heading.

    • twicker

      On this, we almost completely agree — and I utterly, totally agree that “free” services are almost universally overused (“free” being in quotes because someone, somewhere, pays for it — but, as you pointed out, it’s not the consumer).

      I’m not sure how to truly best handle the situation of the fully indigent (e.g., the long-term homeless), though I think even they should have to either pay a pittance ($2, or $5, or something), or be required to do some work. “Free” leads to people undervaluing and overusing resources, and likely to worse health outcomes (patients are more likely to listen to the advice of a doctor they had to pay something to see, while the “free” doctor can be dismissed as costing nothing).

  • Vox Rusticus

    Since when is being an “immigrant” a special class needing special consideration, never mind medical care free of charge? I certainly see no public good in offering free service to immigrants over anyone else. And if you were really referring to “undocumented” persons–illegally immigrated–then have the courage to say so. Of course that will likely provoke controversy, as one’s willingness to break the laws ought not to invite much sympathy, whatever the circumstances, never mind the opportunity for free medical services, paid for by the government for whose laws the beneficiary has shown nothing but contempt.

    • twicker

      Two things about immigrants:
      1) I’m assuming they did, in fact, mean “immigrants,” not “illegal immigrants.” Many perfectly legal immigrants do *not* have health insurance; they have come here for various jobs (either through a temporary visa or, like my fiancee, with a green card) and, yet, the jobs are still of the type that don’t provide health insurance.

      2) I have to take issue with your characterization of undocumented immigrants as showing “nothing but contempt” for our laws. The reality is that being undocumented in the US is a misdemeanor offense — akin to drinking (but not driving) when under 21. In other words — they show the same level of “contempt” for our laws that the average college student shows, only, instead of committing a misdemeanor offense in order to have a night’s fun, they’re doing it to feed their family and have a better life.

      We have lots of problems with the immigration system, and, for the record, I DO support sending illegal immigrants back to their home countries, but trying to characterize these people — these fellow humans — as contemptuous and somehow seemingly less than fully human is, frankly, wrong. Even the Arizona law treats first-time lack of documentation as a misdemeanor offense (with a fine of no more than $100, or roughly the equivalent of being caught speeding twice) — not exactly the kind of fine you’d have for people who were truly “contemptuous” of laws.

      • Vox Rusticus

        Well, I hope they are “fully human,” which I will also take to mean, whether you agree with me or not, fully responsible.

        Twicker, you appear to be making excuses for those that are illegal immigrants based on the fact that they choose to come to the US illegaly for a reason, their and their family’s betterment, and that they are somehow entitled to break laws because, well, they aren’t laws that must be very important because the penalties we impose for breaking them seem so minor. But then you say you think we should kick them out.

        Exactly what regard would you think an illegal immigrant has for U.S. law when they feel that those laws are to be observed when it is convenient for them to do so but not when it isn’t? I think it is contemptuous and entitled.

        I will agree with you on the last point. I think we should kick them out.

        • twicker

          Fully responsible? Absolutely.

          Contemptuous and entitled? Not at all.

          Plenty of people drive faster than the speed limit, commit a low-speed rolling stop at stop signs, and even might run a red light at 4 AM on deserted streets. Likewise, plenty of good, decent 18-20 year olds have a drink or two on weekends, including college students, soldiers/sailors/aviators, etc.

          Does that mean that they are “contemptuous and entitled?” No, not really. They might be completely upstanding otherwise (the 18-20 year olds I know who drink also call a cab to get home). They don’t commit murder, they don’t steal, they don’t rape, they don’t break into people’s houses, they don’t cheat, etc. Many (not all, but many) are model citizens — except that, yes, they may speed sometimes, or have a drink or two (or three) on the weekends.

          “Contemptuous?” No — and I do know some folks who are, indeed, contemptuous. Maybe you think that even the slightest infraction of any rule means that one is “contemptuous.” I also therefore assume that you never speed, never tailgate, and always follow every guideline and procedure to the absolute letter, since anything less would be obviously contemptuous.

          As for the undocumented: yes, they’re breaking the law; hence the reason that, if they’re caught, they should be sent back. That said, if I was living with my family in a community where I could not provide for my family, or for myself, I would likely leave and look for work elsewhere. Yes, I might even illegally immigrate to another country. I would not rape, I would not steal, and I would follow the laws of the country where I was — except for the immigration law. I might be a completely upstanding citizen — except for not being able to find work in my native country, while being able to find work here.

          Further, if they were so contemptuous, then you would expect the crime rate in immigrant communities to be much higher than the average — especially in places like Arizona. And, if you’re right about this “contemptuousness,” you’d expect, at the very least, that the wave of illegal immigration coming over the border into Arizona would bring massive violence — not from drug traffickers (they’re violent, legal or illegal), but from the people who are just coming here to work.

          You would be thoroughly wrong:
          Crooks And Liars: AZ Crime Rate Flat While Gov. Brewer Talks About “Beheadings”

          So no, being an illegal immigrant does not automatically equate to contemptuousness, any more than your contempt for them means that you are universally contemptuous of all people. I doubt that your contempt for them means that you are a universal misanthrope; I actually suspect quite the opposite. I would consider it to be a gross overgeneralization to assume that, since you are contemptuous of one group of people, you are therefore contemptuous of all groups of people. Much as I consider your opinion to be a gross overgeneralization.

          Of note: yes, I do believe that any illegal immigrant who is caught for another offense should be deported posthaste. Even before that, I am glad that Obama’s administration is actually taking effective action against those who employ illegal immigrants, and believe that even more should be done to hold employers’ feet to the fire — MUCH more. I particularly want to make sure that all employers have to provide legal wages to their workers, pay for the work performed, and otherwise live up to their legal obligations. Our country seems to enjoy demonizing people who are simply trying to improve their lives, while letting those businesses that abuse these workers get off free. As someone who hates law-breakers, I’m sure you completely concur that we need to go after these businesses as much as, if not more than, we go after the workers.

        • twicker

          Speaking of responsibility, and out of curiosity: why do you only speak about the need for not committing a misdemeanor? Do you believe that people do not have a responsibility for their families? If you lived in a poor village somewhere, and you felt you were faced with the choice between (a) providing for your family, or (b) breaking a misdemeanor-level law in another country, which would you choose? Your comment implied that the only responsibility people should have is to the laws of the United States; I’m not sure most people in the US, much less the rest of the world, would agree.

  • ninguem

    So if the foreign worker is justified in entering a country illegally to work, then the employer is equally justified in giving that person a sub-minimum-wage job and ignoring all state and federal workplace laws as well.

    And for that matter, why limit it to those in the country illegally. That same employer is justified in offering that same sub-minimum-wage job to anyone who wants it.

    I bet the employer has a family to feed as well.

    • twicker

      ninguem,

      If you actually read what I wrote, you’ll see that I specifically said that undocumented workers should be held accountable for breaking the law. No, their responsibility to their families doesn’t “justify” what they do, but it does help explain the ethical dilemma they face. As for the employers, a far smaller percentage of the employers are facing the economic situation the illegal immigrants face in the immigrants’ home country; that is, after all, why the illegal immigrants moved in the first place.

      It doesn’t matter if it’s the immigrant who breaks the law or the employer who breaks the law: neither is justified in breaking the law. That said, as someone who has a family, I do understand the immigrants’ position more than the employers.

      Further, by basic economics, if the employer is producing something that’s of real value to people, then s/he should be able to charge a price for it that meets or exceeds her/his costs; if not, then either (a) they need to legally reduce their costs, or (b) make something else.

      And the discussion about how our laws need to be changed to increase the ability of people to start/run businesses is far beyond the scope of a blog post about free clinics.

  • Vox Rusticus

    Agree, although this is off-topic to the post regarding the need for federal funding for free clinics. The illegal immigration problem is not merely one of the enticed breaking the law, it is also the demand side, for compliant, poorly-paid workers to supply industries that are unskilled-labor-intensive. The illegal immigrant isn’t the only one flouting the law.

Trending