The News-Leader this morning ran a story on the state of Missouri having run out of funds for rape kits. According to the story:
“Missouri lawmakers in August passed legislation making the state responsible for paying for the so-called “rape kit” of evidence collected at hospital emergency rooms and other tests following a sexual assault. “
“Before August, sexual assault victims had to pay upfront for the exams and seek reimbursement either through their insurance companies or by requesting payment through the state’s limited crime victim’s compensation funds.”
It really bothers me that we had to go until 2007 before the state was actually picking up the cost for a rape victim’s evidence kit and the exams after a sexual assault. While I’m not someone who’s in favor of socialized medicine I can’t believe that people can really make a reasonable case that a woman or man who has just been sexually assaulted should have to choose between emergency care and trying to take care of themselves because of the cost of health care.
“We’re sorry you were raped,” the hospital would say. “But here’s the bill.”
If there are times where you could say it’s in the best interests of a community to have medical care provided without cost to the person a victim of rape would have to be on that list. So I’m glad that the state is stepping up to take care of the problem.
Now…that said…according to the story there has been exams for 969 women for a total of $674,000 dollars and the state had budgeted for $320,000 for the entire year. I could not find the crime figures for 2007 but in 2006 there were 1,764 rapes were reported. If the average cost of a rape kit examination (including the tests for STDs) was $696 (as reported in the N-L story) then you would have to predict a cost of over $1.2 million. At $320,000 as budgeted by the state that would put all exams at around $180 if that figure was used to calculate the budget items. You can’t get a hangnail taken care of at a hospital for $180. I went in for a twisted ankle and the bill was almost $800 and that was just with a few x-rays.
So the question becomes why can’t the folks in Jefferson City look at the crime statistic reports and reports of medical costs for the procedure and do the simple math to multiply the first number by the second before setting the amount in the budget for this item?
We couldn’t find some pork in the state budget to cut to make up that cost difference?
And there’s another issue that I realized when I saw this part of the article near the end of the story:
“a sexual assault victim late last year was prescribed an expensive drug aimed at heading off an infection of HIV that had to be administered within 48 hours.
The drug wasn’t covered under the legislation but the hospital agreed to cover the cost.”
Can any of us really say that it’s not in the best interest of society to give a rape victim a drug aimed at stopping HIV infection when either the attacker is known to be HIV positive or is of unknown status? Even if you don’t have any compassion for a rape victim (which I don’t know anyone in that camp but there’s someone bound to have that view) you can look at keeping someone away from a disease that could cause them great financial stress from medical bills that would include heaping amounts of money from insurance that would then drive up other insurance rates.
I’m glad in this case the hospital was willing to cover the cost. I have to wonder in this case how much the cost of the exam, the tests, the drugs and other items are jacked up above their actual cost which feeds the overall $696 average cost for an exam. This kind of situation would be a place where hospitals, drug manufacturers and testing services could come together and work to provide the services at cost or below cost…or in the best case scenario, free…as a contribution to the wellness of the community. I think you can measure the health of a community by how they treat someone in dire need like a victim of a sexual assault.
I’m not against a hospital or drug manufacturer or testing company making a profit. However, there are times we all have an obligation to the communities from where be obtain our profit and sometimes that obligation is to allay a few extra bucks for someone who just faced a horrible, life-altering moment.
Let’s hope the folks in Jefferson City can find a way to do both…get the funding needed to take care of the victims while at the same time doing some investigating to find out where the costs can be cut to lessen the financial effects on the state.
This story is disgraceful.
Not providing rape kits free-of-charge is a throw-back to the days when women were blamed for their rape and re-victimized by society. If a woman is brave enough to come forward and have her recently-violated body processed as a crime scene, then she shouldn’t have to pick up the tab.
I completely agree.
This is sick. It’s not right, the victim was already raped and tramatized. She’s strong enough to come forward so that the police may be able to get some kind of evidence from her body and hopefully stop this person before they can attack anyone else but yet they are going to “rape” her again? Now we are poor and I don’t have health insurance. So are you telling me I can’t get medical help and a kit done cause i don’t have the money to? I can’t help find my attacker and stop him before he can do it again? Just another way to re-rape victims.
And now we find that Sarah Palin thought this practice was hunky-dorey.
The reports I saw said the policy was set by the police chief of the town and not Palin.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_sarah_palin_make_rape_victims_pay.html
Sure, I find it hard to believe she didn’t know … but I can’t find anywhere that she approved it.
But if you want to get down to it, no politician in Missouri currently in office should be re-elected if Palin should be disqualified because of this.
Uh, Palin should be disqualified for a bunch of reasons. This is just one of them.
Except there’s no proof she was involved with it. I know you despise Palin but this is on par with the accusations that Obama was in favor of infantcide because he wouldn’t vote for the bill to protect children born alive after an abortion.
Jason, do you really believe that in a town of only 7000 people the mayor didn’t know what the police chief was doing? Especially when Wasilla became the only place to NOT get on board with Alaska’s state legislation? I know you know better. This is a woman who had ambitions to become governor, and she wants to act like she didn’t know about a political controversy in her little town that happened right under her nose? Check out my post and read the story at CNN.
I’m not saying it’s not probable, I’m saying it’s not proven. Did you read the factcheck.org posting I put in my comment?
I had already read it the other day. factcheck.org is a great website, but it also can’t prove what someone did or did not know. It only proves what they did or did not say in a public forum, or what they are on record as voting for/against. I just don’t believe she didn’t know.
I don’t despise her, BTW. I don’t know her. I do think she is terribly unqualified for the job. I also disagree with her political position on almost everything.
Well, that kind of backs up what I said…the CNN article doesn’t prove your contention that Palin knew and that it disqualifies her from being able to serve. Hopefully we’ll be able to get something on the record either way.