Daniel Costello

Borderline medicine

A California company is convincing hospitalized illegal immigrants to move to Mexico for cheaper healthcare. Their plan is saving U.S. hospitals millions -- but critics say it's immoral.

  • more
    • All Share Services

Borderline medicine

Lying in his sparsely decorated hospital room, Juan Torres looks like any patient in any hospital. Most days, he whiles away his time away watching cable TV or flirting with the nurses, who sometimes order him pizza to boost his spirits. A car accident in April nearly killed him. His pelvis was crushed, and he’s still unable to walk. A 3-inch pin holds his right arm together and a deep red scar stretches across his forehead.

But Torres, a gawky, poker-faced 27-year-old, isn’t like most other patients here. In fact, his hospital stay came with an unexpected twist: a cross-border trip to this bustling city. Torres’ car accident actually happened 100 miles north in the U.S., on the California and Arizona border. He spent the first two months recuperating in a hospital outside San Diego before the hospital there offered to transfer him to Tijuana to finish up his recovery.

At the time of the accident, Torres was earning $40 a week picking melons and grapes and living mostly in migrant farmworker camps. But as his days in the hospital turned to weeks, and the severity of his injuries became clear, Torres began to worry: he had neither a place to live once he got discharged nor anyone to help him get back on his feet. When could he work again? Who would pay for his rehabilitation? Like most illegal immigrants, Torres didn’t have health insurance and his hospital bills were piling up fast.

Then, one morning in May, a caseworker at his hospital, Scripps Memorial, stopped by Torres’ room with an idea. She told him that the hospital had recently started contracting with a local company that had a medical facility in Tijuana. Scripps would help transport him, pay all his bills and even pick up the tab for a plane ticket back to his hometown, Oaxaca, once he was better. Torres’ caseworker explained that the quality of care in Mexico would be excellent and that he would be able to get the months of rehabilitation he needed.

Torres jumped at the offer. This way, he could be closer to home, and he wouldn’t have to worry about his bills or being reported to the INS.

Two days later, Torres signed a three-paragraph transfer agreement and took a half-hour ambulance ride over the border to Hospital Ingles, a two-story, 17-bed facility on a busy street in downtown Tijuana. He’s still there today, and he’ll likely stay for several more weeks until he is healthy enough to travel home. “I am grateful for what everyone has done for me,” says Torres, looking well, if a bit uncomfortable, as he sits up in his bed. “I have no regrets.”

The outfit that orchestrated Torres’ Mexican homecoming is NextCare, a Chula Vista, Calif.-based company founded by a retired medical salesman, Bob Barraza, 58, and his 49-year-old partner, George Ochoa, who moonlights with NextCare on the side from his day job as the director of diagnostic services at one of Scripps’ five local hospitals. While some hospitals across the country have also tried sending undocumented patients home in recent years — mostly as one-off attempts in which nurses accompany an uninsured patient home — NextCare appears to be the first company in the country trying to make a business out of the practice.

Ochoa and Barraza were business acquaintances for nearly a decade before they founded NextCare in 2001. Ochoa, who saw the strain that uninsured illegal immigrants were putting on hospitals like Scripps, decided that there was a business opportunity in arranging for immigrants arriving at border hospitals to return to Mexico for their care.

The numbers made perfect sense. Because Mexico has a quasi-national healthcare system, medical costs there can be a third of what they are in the U.S. Patient bills that run as high as $2,000 a day in the U.S. cost just a third of that in Mexico. While the company won’t discuss financial arrangement with partnering hospitals, the standard deal works something like this: a typical acute-care patient in a U.S. hospital costs around $1,500 a day to treat. NextCare charges the U.S. hospital $1,000 a day to transfer and care for the patient in Tijuana. Hospital Ingles charges around $400 a day to treat the patient. And NextCare makes a profit off the difference.

At first, the company admits, it was hard getting hospitals in the U.S. on board. Some had to get over their initial “ick factor,” says Barraza, worried that program might appear as though it was taking advantage of the helpless. “No one wanted to see their face on ’60 Minutes,’” he says.

But then NextCare invited administrators and doctors from Scripps and other area hospitals to visit Hospital Ingles for a tour and to meet the clinic’s owner. After seeing the facility and speaking with its director, says Next Care, the group of three doctors and a representative from the Mexican Consulate were sold. “It’s a “top-notch facility with excellent doctors,” says Dr. Brent Eastman, chief medical officer at Scripps Health.

So far, NextCare’s efforts are paying off. In the past 18 months, they’ve signed up seven San Diego area hospitals and treated 65 patients, a number they hope will rise in the coming year as they sign up other hospitals in Orange County and Los Angeles. And as early as next year, the company hopes to triple the number of beds at Hospital Ingles.

Not surprisingly, NextCare has plenty of critics. Many compare what the company is doing to medical deportation — a fast and loose way of making money off people who are scared of possibly being arrested and don’t understand their rights. Dr. David Goldstein, co-director of the University of Southern California’s Pacific Center for Policy and Ethics, says that enticing undocumented patients to leave the U.S. while they lie in a hospital bed just weeks after suffering serious injuries, and often while still on medication, doesn’t even pass the most basic ethical litmus tests. “For doctors, the first rule is do no harm,” he says. “I’m not sure that’s the case here.”

Complicating matters further is the fact that many illegal immigrants in the U.S. have little or no formal education — and according to the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan economic and policy think tank, a quarter of Mexican immigrants cannot read. This worries some immigration advocates who fear that patients may not fully understand their rights when it comes to being transferred.

“Most of these people are too scared and unaware about their rights to be making such an enormous decision,” says Gabrielle Lessard, staff attorney at the National Immigration Law Center in Los Angeles.

Lessard adds that it may be possible that the hospitals working with NextCare are violating federal laws that mandate that all patients receive similar medical treatment regardless of race or immigration status. While Lessard admits it’s hard to prove a hospital is breaking the law, she believes they are essentially giving different medical treatment to undocumented patients by singling them out to return to Mexico before they’ve fully recovered. In fact, recent NextCare cases include a double amputee who was sent to Hospital Ingles two weeks after his accident and a quadriplegic who was moved to a charity hospital for long-term care about three hours outside Mexico City after spending three months at Hospital Ingles.

NextCare and its partnering hospitals counter these charges saying that what they are doing is in fact a godsend for most patients. They point out that while uninsured patients can’t legally be forced to leave a hospital until they agree to leave, many are discharged once they can walk out the door on crutches. Only those that complain — or are aware of all of their rights — usually stay and finish out their full care.

NextCare and the hospitals also insist they are abiding by all laws and going to every length to ensure that patients fully understand their legal options before making any decision. In some cases, the Mexican consulate oversees the process to ensure the patient is treated well. “We only approach patients after they’ve passed their acute phase, and they are fully aware of what they are doing,” says Rosemelia Lopez-Platt, Scripps’ coordinator of international services. “We are clear with them they don’t have to go if that is not what they want to do.”

However the legal and ethical arguments play out, hospitals like Scripps say they’re running out of options. An unprecedented wave of illegal immigrants — according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the annual number rose from 3.5 million to 7 million in the decade from 1990 to 2000 — are showing up at emergency room doors, often with severe and expensive injuries. Although Scripps’ system of five area hospitals runs a profit, the company bleeds $7 million to $10 million annually at Scripps Chula Vista, its closest hospital to the border — a good portion of which is lost on uninsured patients.

By law, hospitals must treat and stabilize anyone who comes though their doors. But neither the federal government nor any of the border states most affected by illegal immigration — California, New Mexico, Texas and Arizona — have helped pick up the tab. “At some point, something has to give,” says Ms. Lopez-Platt of Scripps.

A survey done last year by the U.S.-Mexico Border Counties Coalition, a lobbying group for 24 U.S. border counties, estimates that border hospitals are losing $200 million annually on undocumented patients. Congress is currently considering a bill to reimburse border hospitals $410 million a year for the next four years as part of the massive Medicare legislation under consideration.

In the meantime, one of the only measures border hospitals say they can take is to send illegal immigrants back home. NextCare helps hospitals with the task by promising the same level of care for patients — if not better, they say — in Mexico. They also entice patients with comforts like fresh Mexican food, Spanish-speaking doctors and nurses and visits from family who can more easily travel to Tijuana than to the U.S. Some even receive psychological counseling to help sort through the effects of their trauma. According to NextCare, up to 85 percent of patients they approach decide to make the transfer to Mexico.

Back in his small white hospital room — complete with Spanish cable TV and a nearby bookshelf full of movies — Juan Torres says he couldn’t be happier about coming to Hospital Ingles. He’s satisfied with the progress he’s making, and says his doctor and nurses are wonderful. Listening to him rave about his care, it’s easy to wonder if the company’s plan to treat patients in Mexico may indeed be a perfect antidote for overcrowded border hospitals.

But underneath Torres’ platitudes are some disturbing details. For example, he says that the day his caseworker told him about the NextCare option, he was “still dazed from the accident” and on heavy pain medication. He also acknowledges that he wasn’t aware that he could have had the same treatment, including long-term rehabilitation, if he insisted on remaining in the U.S. Knowing that now, is he bothered? “No. I’m happy here,” he says.

A spokeswoman for Scripps says Mr. Torres was clearly made aware of all his options before he signed his transfer agreement, and that he was coherent during all conversations about his transfer. For its part, NextCare says it is not concerned about the fact Torres may have made his decision while heavily medicated. “That’s not our responsibility,” says Barraza. “It’s the hospital’s responsibility to take care of that stuff.” (Later, the company amended that comment, saying they do try to make sure all patients are aware of their rights before they agree to leave).

Meanwhile, Juan Torres is counting the days until he can walk out of Hospital Ingles unassisted and fly to Oaxaca to see his family. Though because there are so few jobs there, he probably won’t stay home for long. “Who knows?” he says with a smile. “I may try to come back to the States.”

Is CRACK wack?

An organization that pays drug-addicted women to get sterilized is increasingly getting referrals from publicly funded agencies. Its supporters say it's saving babies from being born into hellish lives. Its critics say it's practicing "Hitleresque eugenics."

  • more
    • All Share Services

Is CRACK wack?

Cathy Mayne was devastated when she heard that her 27-year-old daughter, Nicole, would be having another baby. In fact, she prayed it would be Nicole’s last.

That’s because Mayne, a 48-year-old former data entry clerk from Anaheim, Calif., already had custody of Nicole’s first three children, all of whom suffer from medical and developmental problems caused by their mother’s prenatal drug use. A chronic heroin and methamphetamine addict who lives on the street, Nicole had her first child at 17, has gotten pregnant by four different men, and has never had enough money to regularly use birth control. It seemed to Mayne like a “bad cycle that could go on forever.”

But thanks to a controversial program called CRACK (Children Requiring a Caring Kommunity), which pays drug addicts to get sterilized or to use long-term birth control, that cycle has finally ended.

After Cathy Mayne saw a flyer near her grandson’s elementary school that read, “If you’re addicted to drugs, get birth control — get cash!” she called CRACK on Nicole’s behalf. The organization’s premise is radical, if dizzyingly simple: CRACK gives addicts $200 (they’ll throw in an extra $50 if a participant recommends a friend) and sets up the medical procedures at a public hospital or clinic. All Nicole had to do was sign a release form, and two weeks later she had her tubes tied at a local hospital. She received a check the following month.

CRACK’s solution to the ever growing number of babies born to drug addicts is catching on. Although it began just five years ago as a small grassroots organization based out of a crowded home office in Orange County, it now has branches across the country.

What’s more, the group is increasingly getting referrals from unlikely and controversial sources: publicly funded jails, probation centers, drug treatment centers and even hospitals. Addicts who are directed to CRACK by public employees now account for a quarter of the program’s participants.

One new supporter is the Bernalillo County Detention Center in Albuquerque, N.M., which last summer began hosting biweekly CRACK presentations for inmates. The local CRACK representative, Yvonne Smith, says she talks to prisoners about birth control options; discusses the stress and costs of having too many children while addicted to drugs; and recounts stories of addicts who say they are happy they’ve gone through the program. Smith says that half a dozen women who have attended these sessions have been sterilized.

A spokesman for the Bernalillo jail, Capt. John Van Sickler, says that CRACK is just one of a dozen groups that frequently hold information sessions at the prison. He says the jail does not recommend people to CRACK, and that officials don’t believe they are endorsing a group’s services just because they host the meetings.

“We don’t take a position on what they are doing one way or the other,” he says. “It’s no different than giving people information about A.A. or passing out materials from a local church. We are just providing [inmates] with information.”

Barbara Harris, CRACK ‘s director, says she began the project five years ago after seeing dozens of babies born to drug-addled mothers who couldn’t care for them. Harris adopted four children of her own from the same crack-addicted mother who kept having babies year after year “without a care in the world,” she says.

The organization grew slowly. At first, Harris worked from home and got friends to help her post flyers all over Los Angeles. (One read: “Don’t let getting pregnant get in the way of your drug habit.”) She spent her own money and used $400 donated from a local lawyer to pay CRACK ‘s first two clients. Volunteers were mostly other foster parents who heard about what she was doing and wanted to help out.

Five years later, CRACK has three full-time staffers, hundreds of volunteers, and branches in 28 cities, from Washington to Reno, Nev. Its annual budget is $286,000, and the group has raised nearly $2 million from average citizens who send in small checks as well as from high-profile businesspeople and well-known philanthropists who each donate thousands of dollars. A few years ago, Dr. Laura Schlessinger contributed $5,000.

Not surprisingly, CRACK ‘s unconventional drug reform approach, and its increasing support from publicly funded organizations, has attracted legions of critics. Many, like the National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW), have organized media and letter-writing campaigns to force publicly funded jails and treatment centers to stop referring addicts to CRACK. “It’s an outrage that public agencies are spending public dollars to recommend people to a coercive group like CRACK,” says Lynn Paltrow, executive director of NAPW. “Yes, the public health system is flawed. But there has to be a better way of helping these women than by giving them cash to be sterilized.”

Other critics, such as Planned Parenthood and the ACLU, argue that CRACK preys on minorities and the drug-addicted poor who often live rock to rock and probably use the cash for just another fix. They argue that public money should be funneled toward a larger and more deleterious problem facing addicts — the dearth of affordable drug treatment programs.

Indeed, Medicaid rarely pays for pregnant women to attend inpatient drug treatment programs, and even outpatient resources are hard to come by. Making matters worse, the National Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors says that states, which cough up the lion’s share of drug treatment and prevention money in the United States, have cut treatment money by as much as 30 percent in the last two years.

“Poor women have fewer and fewer options to help them deal with their substance abuse dependencies,” says Gwen Rubenstein, director of policy research for the Legal Action Center, a public interest firm in Washington, which represents individuals with drug and alcohol problems. For this reason, Rubenstein believes that CRACK ‘s money would be better spent developing viable treatment options for the women they serve. Harris has a simple response to that suggestion: “That’s not what we do.”

The NAPW’s Paltrow, whose voice sometimes strains to contain anger while discussing CRACK, compares the group’s cash-for-birth-control concept to “Hitleresque eugenics.” She argues that historically, many privately funded efforts that purported to help disenfranchised groups eventually revealed other motives. “It’s hard not to think that some of the people who support this just think it’s a good way to get those they don’t like to stop reproducing,” she says.

Harris says that the claim that she and others involved with CRACK are practicing social engineering is ludicrous. “We are not picking on the poor,” she says. “We’re just helping people who need our help but have nowhere else to go.” She pauses and then adds: “Paltrow should adopt some of these children and then try and criticize me.” Harris, who is white, also points out that her husband is black, as are the four children she adopted. “I know what a racist is and I am not a racist. My father disowned me when I married my husband. We have been denied apartments because he is black and my children are biracial. People should know what they are taking about before they call me a racist.”

Last year, Patricia McBride, a 41-year-old mother of seven who lost custody of her children because of her drug and alcohol addiction, applied to CRACK to receive Depo-Provera, a bimonthly contraceptive shot. As long as she continues to take it, she’ll receive $200 a year (as opposed to the one-time payment for sterilization). McBride, who is living in Baltimore in her sister’s apartment, says she doesn’t regret having her children, but adds, “I wish I had waited until I stopped using the drugs and drinking to have them.” McBride’s children are in four different foster homes. Even though she’s been through rehab and says she’s clean, her efforts to regain custody have failed.

CRACK’s offer to pay for contraception doesn’t extend just to women. Paris and Shawn Mitchell, 23- and 29-year-old brothers from Lamarque, Texas, both had vasectomies paid for by CRACK last year. Both used drugs for years and have five children between them. The brothers now say they are clean, working, and attending as many as three A.A. meetings a week. “This is a great option for someone who needs to strap down and get their life back in order,” says Paris, who is one of two dozen men who have been sterilized through the program.

So far, 907 people have signed on with CRACK. Of those, 329 were permanently sterilized and the rest opted for long-term birth control like Norplant or Depo-Provera. Despite critics’ assertions, the majority of participants have not been racial minorities, although there is a greater percentage of minorities than in the general population: 463 have been white, 392 black, and 52 nonwhite Hispanic.

A recent CRACK survey shows that before entering the program, the group as a whole accounted for more than 4,000 pregnancies: 3,003 children; 1,342 abortions; 189 stillborn babies; and 1,603 children living in foster care. “People can criticize us all they want, but there is nothing good about women having six or eight babies taken away from them,” says Harris.

Not surprisingly, the controversy surrounding CRACK has only brought the group more publicity — and more money — even in the currently depressed economy. One major supporter, Loreen Arbus, the president of Arbus Productions, a Los Angeles production company, and daughter of ABC founder Leonard Goldenson, donated $100,000 two years ago and also held a fundraising party at her home around the same time that raised an additional $50,000 for CRACK.

Arbus says she couldn’t disagree more with critics who say the program, and even supporters like her, are racist or coercive. “No one who signs up does so for any other reason than they want to,” she insists.

Despite its provocative premise, people like Cathy Mayne remain deeply committed to the organization. Mayne hands out flyers in church and at the grocery store and recently had the family’s Chevy Metro specially wrapped in CRACK ads, with the group’s slogans and toll-free number plastered on the hood. She now refers to the car as the “CRACKmobile.”

“CRACK was a godsend for our family.” Mayne says. “People shouldn’t bring children in this world if they can’t take care of them.”

Continue Reading Close