Qualify for government subsidy: become a(n involuntary) unionized government employee

 Next up: doctors, section 8 housing owners, ????? Grocery stores, drug stores???

A year ago in December, Ms. Berry and more than 40,000 other home-based day care providers statewide were suddenly informed they were members of Child Care Providers Together Michigan—a union created in 2006 by the United Auto Workers and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. The union had won a certification election conducted by mail under the auspices of the Michigan Employment Relations Commission. In that election only 6,000 day-care providers voted. The pro-labor vote turned out.

Many of the state's other 34,000 day-care providers never even realized what was going on. Ms. Berry tells us she was "shocked" to find out she was suddenly in a union. The real dirty work, however, had been done when the state created an "employer" for the union to "organize" against.
Of course, Michigan's independent day-care providers don't work for anybody except the parents who were their customers. Nevertheless, because some of these parents qualified for public subsidies, the Child Care Providers "union" claimed the providers were "public employees."
Michigan's Department of Human Services then teamed with Flint-based Mott Community College to sign an "interlocal agreement" in 2006 establishing a separate government agency called the Michigan Home Based Child Care Council. This council was directed to recommend good child-care practices—and not coincidentally, to serve as a "public employer." Although the council had almost no staff, no control over the state subsidies and no supervision of the providers' daily activities, it became the shell corporation against which the union could organize.
Thus the state created an ersatz employer and an ersatz "bargaining unit" against which what was essentially an ersatz union could organize.
Today the Department of Human Services siphons about $3.7 million in annual dues to the union—from the child-care subsidies. The money should be going to home-based day-care providers—themselves not on the high end of the income scale. Ms. Berry now sees money once paid to her go to a union that does little for her. She says she is "self employed and wants nothing to do with the union."

Open Letter to AMA: I quit

Emailed to the AMA Board:
I paid my Texas Medical Association dues for 2010 but will not renew my American Medical Association membership. I do not want to be counted as an AMA member.

I dropped my membership once before due to political moves by the leadership of the AMA. I rejoined hoping to work within the House of Medicine to influence policies of the AMA. I became more active in my TMA, the Texas Academy of Family Physicians, national meetings of the AMA and the American Academy of Family Physicians and accepted the Chairmanship of the Family Medicine Section of the Christian Medical Association.

This weekend, AMA President-Elect Wilson announced support for the Reid substitute and manager’s amendment, which dropped the effort to correct the “Sustainable Growth Rate” and does not even mention (much less achieve) tort reform. Instead, current language provides billions of dollars in special deals for Democrat Senators, support for payment for elective interventional abortion in healthy mothers and on healthy babies, and an expansion of Medicaid that threatens to bankrupt my State of Texas.

The AMA leadership have told us that they hoped to protect our patients and the practice of medicine in the final legislation, just as I had hoped to influence AMA policies by lending my name and paying my dues to them. I will no longer give the AMA my name or my money, since neither of us has achieved our goal.

Beverly B. Nuckols, MD
New Braunfels, Texas

LifeEthics quoted about Doctors for America posts

I've been a little distracted, getting my house ready for the New Braunfels Republican Women's Christmas Tour of Homes, but I should be blogging more in the future.

Found a post at "RBO," (RealBarackObama) that quoted my reports (here and here) on the conference call with "Doctors for America," back in September. I like being known as someone capable of "serious sleuthing."

?No self breast exams?

The recommendation *not* to teach exams throws the whole report into question for me. If we are changing the frequency of mammograms, should we also change the recommendation to do self exams? Won't the first change the effectiveness of the second?


In the news, the report by the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality. The "conventional wisdom" about breast cancer screening was turned on its head - or, at least tweaked, this week.

I think we might have been over doing the mammograms ("MMG"), but the old recommendation to do a "baseline" MMG between 35 and 40, with self exams each month and MMG each 2 years from 40 to 55 and then one a year or each 2 years according to risk, made sense to me.

What I absolutely don't get is the recommendation to stop teaching self exams. Teaching self breast exams received a "Grade D" recommendation - meaning there's no empirical evidence that the procedure is "effective." In other words, it has "moderate or high certainty that the service has no net benefit or that the harms outweigh the benefits." The practice would be "discouraged" -- considered bad medicine, and actually put the doctor at risk for criticism. It most certainly won't be paid for.

There's a reason to find masses: it will change what we do, we have treatment that we can and should do for positive changes. Any mass that's fast growing and lasts over a month is highly suspicious and any mass we can feel should be biopsied. Even though the sensitivity may be low (compared to MMG), patients who do regular exams have been proven to be more likely to find masses earlier and smaller than the doc would at an annual exam, and it's non-invasive, cheap, and accessible. Teaching the self exam gives me something to talk about while I'm doing my own exam of the patient and is an opportunity to explain what I've written, above.

It looks like the fuss over the recommendation will be the first test of the realities of "Comparative Effectiveness Panels" which was funded by $1 Billion allocated in the 2009 "Stimulus Package."  Emotions and reactions are high, with Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius,  Medicare and most insurance companies already reporting that their policies (paying for annual MMG and recommending teaching at doctors' exams) won't change. The Mayo Clinic has absolutely renounced the recommendations.

For more information on the policies of other nations, see this article.

Aristotle ethics, RFK, and health care reform

The Wall Street Journal's daily newsletter by James Taranto, The Best of the Web Today, debunks a quote floating around the Internet to support the "right" to health care paid for by government. The blurb has been attributed to a translation from the writings of Aristotle, a translation from the original Greek by Robert F. Kennedy.

Unfortunately, the first reference to the quote is from 10 years after Senator Kennedy died, is credited to someone else, and the original cannot be found in the existing works of Aristotle.

From an article by Edmond Pellegrino, the last chairman of President Bush's President's Bioethics Council, written in 2008:

In attempts to establish the provenance of the text in question we have conducted an extensive search for its source and original wording. We have not been able to locate it. Our initial curiosity was aroused by several things, including that rights language did not seem to have the Aristotelian context, and health care, as such, was not included in Aristotle's works. We searched Nicomachean Ethics and Eudemian Ethics, and the Magna Moralia without successfully locating the quote. Nor could we find it in other of works of Aristotle: On Length and Shortness of Life, De Anima, Economics or the Fragments. "Rights" language certainly would stick out in Aristotle's virtue-based ethics.

That article by Dr. Pellegrino is available in pdf, here, thanks to the WSJ and Georgetown Bioethics.

Intentionally Skewed Cancer Survival Rates

 From Ann Coulter's latest report on Health Care Reform Myths:

European women are only 55.8 percent likely to live five years after contracting any kind of cancer, compared to 62.9 percent for American women.
In five cancers -- breast, prostate, thyroid, testicular and skin melanoma -- American survival rates are higher than 90 percent. Europeans hit a 90 percent survival rate for only one of those -- testicular cancer.
Most disturbingly, many cancers in Europe are discovered only upon the victim's death -- twice as many as in the U.S. Consequently, the European study simply excluded cancers that were first noted on the death certificate, so as not to give the U.S. too great an advantage.

I didn't know about that last manipulation of the cancer survival rates. 

Politics bites science

For a clear outline as to why you shouldn't believe that 45,000 people die each year because they don't have insurance, read the blog entry by John Milloy, publisher of "Junk Science" on last week's report in the American Journal of Public Health.

Forget that the authors are blatantly biased members of the "Physicians for a National Health Plan."

All you need to know is:
# Among the many problems with the study, here are four of the most glaring; all of which will likely be missed by the media:

* The researchers assumed that study subjects lacking health insurance at the time of the interviews did not subsequently gain or regain insurance coverage. In fact, a study subject could have received health coverage the very next day after the interview and this would not have been considered by the researchers.
* The researchers essentially assume that lack of health insurance at the time of interview is the causal factor in the deaths that occurred. No data was gathered to back up this assumption.
* None of the data collected during the interviews, including insurance status, was validated by the researchers.
* The study result is statistically weak. Combined with the peculiar date-of-death cutoff (the year 2000 as opposed to any other year), it raises questions as to whether the study result was produced by “data dredging” – essentially cherry-picking data that provides the desired result.

Playing doctor with the White House

Who’s playing doctor with the White House: Another example of the lack of openness in the dealings of the Obama Administration

(Informed consent blurb: Organizing for America, etc., along with all the White House websites, are collecting data including email and other information from everyone who visits or contacts their sites. I got a couple of those emails from David Axelrod last month.

Don't worry - they already have my data. I used to email President Bill Clinton at least once a month and ask him to resign for the sake of our daughters – they are about the same age - because he'd set the women's movement back 50 years. He never answered. However, it occurs to me now that maybe that's why I was named to the Bush Administration's National Advisory Committee on Violence Against Women.)

On Thursday, September 17, 2009, I was web-surfing and searching Google news hits on the September 12th March on Washington and health care reform when I found information about a conference call between "Doctors for America," the White House "Office of Public Engagement" and doctors like me who somehow found out about the conference call.

I called in, but wasn't called on to ask my questions, so I re-wrote them as an essay (see below) and emailed it to info@drsforamerica.org I'm also sending the essay to the White House OPE.

When I started writing up my notes from the call, it finally occurred to me that – even though there was no attempt at disclosure - there might be a connection between "Drs for America," "Organizing for America" (whose website address is still "http://www.barackobama.com/ ," the same url once used by - and the remains of - “Obama for America,” the Barack Obama campaign machine.

I was slow to catch on, but I was right: The leadership at Doctors for America is made up of nearly the same roster of men and women who, in 2008, were the leadership of “Doctors for Obama” in 2008. Common names are Vivek Murthy, MD MBA, Mandy Krauthamer, MD MPH, Nikhil Wagle, MD, Alex Blum, MD, and Jay Bhatt, DO MPH

And, I was wrong: there’s a disclaimer at the bottom of the “Doctors for Obama” leadership page that says “Not affiliated with Obama for America.” (Yeah, right.)

In fact, former Obama Administration transition chief John Podesta's “Center for American Progress” funds the group :

May 04, 2009
'Doctors for America' launches

This may not wind up being decisive in the health care fight, but the organizing gap between the two sides continues to widen.
Sen. Max Baucus and the Center for American Progress Action Fund are announcing a new group on a conference call later this morning: Doctors for America, which is a reincarnation of Doctors for Obama, an arm of the Obama campaign that boasted more than 10,000 members.
The question of patients' relationships with their doctors is always a flashpoint in debating changes to the health care system, so doctors are often particularly credible messengers.
Today they'll "release new reports detailing the depth and breadth of America's health care crisis and announce a new effort to amplify physicians' voices in support of health care reform," according to the advisory.
By Ben Smith 11:07 AM

Here's the bio on the President and Co-founder, Vivek Murthy, MD MBA, at the Center for American Progress website:

Vivek Murthy is an internal medicine physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an Instructor at Harvard Medical School. He received his undergraduate degree in Biochemical Sciences from Harvard University, his MD from the Yale School of Medicine, and his MBA from the Yale School of Management. He completed his residency training in Internal Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Vivek is the co-founder of VISIONS and the Swasthya Project, international health non-profit organizations focused on HIV/AIDS education and women’s health, respectively. He is also the co-founder and chairman of Epernicus, LLC a web-based professional networking service for individual researchers and scientific institutions. Vivek’s past research has focused on the participation of women and minorities in cancer clinical trials; his current research interests include physician satisfaction and burnout. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Vivek served as a member of the Obama Health Policy Advisory Committee and the Obama New England Steering Committee.

Notes on the Conference Call

I couldn't catch all the names and I am not very good at telling who was speaking, but did try to take some notes from the opening statements. The quotations are the actual words of the speakers, the rest is my own interpretation and from memory.

The moderators talked about the "public option" as though it's a done deal and strongly pitched it as just a way to provide health care for people who have lost their insurance.

We were told that everyone will be required to have insurance, and that businesses will be asked to "chip in their part."

The White House has a plan to fix the SGR that has been pushed off over and over. In fact, there are plans for a “complete reform of the physician payment system.” without incentives for doing more procedures.

The President has given instructions to begin the medical liability demonstration projects to find a way to decrease defensive medicine while "mitigating risks to patients."

We were told that we are closer than we've ever been to health care reform this year.

The moderators were surprised by the second doctor who said he was from the former Soviet Union and that the public option would soon become the only option. They were adamant that the public option is not a pathway to single payer. (And besides, we all know that being paid by and regulated to the teeth by the government is not at all like working for the government.)

Later, one of the docs who called in asked specifically about the news stories that the public option was finished and the White House representative reminded us that the legislation is not written, yet. He was adamant that we shouldn't rule the public option out and that we should advocate with our patients and fellow doctors for that option.

One doctor asked about the effect on doctors with concierge or boutique practices and the other doctors who "opted out." The answer from one of the men was that these practices were just a reaction to cash pay patients who couldn't afford insurance.

There was a lot of excitement about one doctor's suggestion that doctors be required to give two years to a sort of National Healthcare Workforce. And huffy about the shortage of doctors that a Massachusetts doc reminded them that they'd have if all the uninsured were suddenly looking for primary care.

The woman naturopath was reassured that naturopathic primary care doctors would be evaluated by the same evidence based medicine that the traditional docs were judged by.

My letter to Doctors for America and the White House Office for Public Engagement

I’m Beverly B Nuckols, MD, the National chair of the Family Medicine Section of the Christian Medical Association as well as a member of the AMA, the Texas Medical Association and the American Academy of Family Physicians. I'm not officially representing the above, but I believe that my opinions are shared by a large number of doctors.

Many of my colleagues and I see the Patient Centered Medical Home plans, the protocols at Mayo and other medical centers that have been praised are attempts to model a bureaucratic form of practice for large practices so that they can do what the family doctor does every day.

My experience is that government bureaucracy is not only more restrictive and punitive than private insurers, the clout of the Federal government results in undesired UNINTENDED consequences all across the board. Doctors used to be the good guys, but now we feel as though we are assumed to be guilty of abuse of the system, largely due to Federal legislation and regulation.

These result in time and money spent on our futile attempt to keep up with Medicare regulations in order to avoid charges of fraud, abuse and waste. For instance: HIPPA, National Provider Identification numbers, bullet points and check boxes, E & M’s, procedure and diagnosis codes and qualifiers that change each year, and a whole alphabet soup of regulators.

In addition, government cost control attempts in the '90's actually limited the numbers of graduate medical slots, while encouraging sub specialty growth in relation to numbers of primary care doctors.

Making it all worse is the fact that under current Medicare payment schemes, Family Doctors who provide the same services as sub-specialists are paid less by Medicare.

Like the laws and regulations in the past, this year's “reform bills” and proposals are overly complicated and try to guarantee too much: school based clinics, nutrition data on menus and buffet lines, an overhaul of the federal income tax code, new lists of “enhanced penalties,” taxes, fines and the mixing of all of the above abuses with an overhaul of the Federal Income Tax.

Today’s announcement about the study of liability makes me worry that our Texas laws concerning tort reform will be over come by Federal inertia and interference.

1. Why not just look at Texas’ experience with tort reform rather than wasting time and money on new studies?

2. Is it possible to make the legislation smaller in scope so that it is focused on providing help for those patients and families who cannot afford or access medical care?

3. What plans are there to ensure training and sufficient payment for family physicians and other primary care doctors who are in the best position to coordinate care for our patients in the "Medical Home?"

Edit: added this 4th question that I believe I sent to Doctors for America:

4. Could the fines and mandates be replaced with tax incentives, removal of restrictions on Health Savings accounts, return of the major medical plans and the removal of the barriers preventing patients from owning their own health care insurance?

Comments on President's 9-9-9 speech

You can read the speech, here.

As of 8:30 AM on September 10, there's not much comment from the AMA or other powerful, interested observers. I wonder if, like me, they're waiting to see the actions that result from the speech?

Here are my own(Beverly Nuckols) thoughts after the speech:

Quality, timely, or cheap medicine: Pick two. If you think you can have all three, please, tell Walmart how to do it.

The President is still talking about mandating that everyone buy insurance. He still ties it to employers and there is no mention of tax breaks for individuals who buy their own insurance. (Will companies still be forced to ensure dependents, and will "children" include adults to the age of 26?)

Instead, we hear about fines and new taxes, and more negative comments about profit-seeking companies and "the wealthiest Americans."

First, show me the wording in the actual proposed Bill, give me time to read and understand it and reassure me that you’ve read it. Will that wording be clear on the various promises?

Second, let’s get this straight: tax cuts don’t cost the government, taxes cost the taxpayers. If the government wants more money, give incentives to those who earn money that you tax. Don’t punish them by taxing them at higher rates! If the government has less, the government should do what the rest of us do: cut what you spend!

It seems illogical to me to tax insurance companies for offering "the most expensive plans." These are plans that people decide to buy for themselves. The only result of such a tax would be to kill the "expensive plans."

If the government mandates well care for everyone, there will not be enough manpower or other resources for sick care. If you mandate the addition of both numbers of people and services to the health care that is paid for not only by private funds but public funds, you will increase costs and demand.

Show me the “patient safety trials” that will decrease defensive medicine. As to the tort reform and "trials" to allow doctors to practice with less concern about lawsuits, I suggest that the President simply look at Texas since our own tort reform passed in 2005.

President Obama promised that abortion will not be funded by federal funds and that the current conscience laws will remain in place. Does this mean that no mandates for private insurance to cover abortion will be allowed? Does this mean that he will enforce the conscience laws that exist?

We must remember that the President signed an Executive Order in his first week to fund organizations that pay for abortions and referral for abortion overseas and who overturned the last Administration’s ruling to affirm the enforcement of conscience laws. What will he do in the face of the House’s passage of a Bill that will fund abortions in Washington, DC?


Cross-posted at Comal GOP blog.

Forget conscience - go straight to mandate

Human Events has an editorial from Christian Medical And Dental Association's Jonathan Imbody.

Here's an excerpt:

A national poll showed that Americans favored the “conscience clause” regulation and the civil rights laws it enforced by a two-to-one margin. During a 30-day public comment period, an astounding 340,000 comments and petitions poured in favoring the regulation.

The White House and Congress ignored public opposition, and instead moved even more aggressively to evolve abortion from a choice into a mandate.

Besides the House bill opening the door to mandated abortion coverage in all health insurance plans, the House of Representatives in July voted to force taxpayers to fund abortions in the District of Columbia. The Senate is now eyeing publicly funded abortions under the eight million-member Federal Employee Health Benefits Program.

In each of these actions, the President and Congress tacitly assert that abortion ideology trumps the conscience rights of taxpayers, patients and health professionals like Katrina Belova.

"I became very concerned when I learned about President Obama’s plan to rescind the conscience clause," Katrina said. "It made me uneasy to think that my adopted country, which was always proud of its democratic heritage, had begun to remind me of a communist country my family fled ten years ago.

"If the conscience rule is rescinded and I am obligated to choose between performing an abortion or losing my job, I will choose the latter. And then where will I flee next?"[vii]

Former Senator Explains Consequences of Bill Language

Former Senator from Tennessee, Fred Thompson, explains the consequences of the language concerning end of life care that is included in the current version of House Bill 3200.

I do read the language as making the counseling mandatory, although not necessarily a demand that doctors (or nurses, if they are the "primary care providers") tell a patient that they must refuse or be willing to withdraw medical intervention at the end of life.

Of course, there's the pesky problem that no one has written the approved counseling language or produced the approved documents, yet. That will be done by "the Secretary," if and when the Bill passes with this provision still in place.

Here's what I think happened: the Committee or staffer who wrote that section thought that offering payment for what was mandated in the "Stimulus bill" earlier this year would be a politically advantageous move.

However, since no one knows what will actually be required by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and there is no note as to which doctors will be responsible to counsel patients, I forsee a repeat of the confidentiality snafus and stumbling blocks that happened after the "HIPAA" became law. Remember when every single doctor and pharmacy had each patient sign a disclaimer, no one knew who could talk to whom, and a whole lot of money, time and energy was wasted making sure that you knew that the provider knew that the government wanted us to keep your medical information private - at least from everyone except the government agencies who demanded documentation, ICD-9 and CPT codes and qualifiers?

Here's Senator Thompson's essay:

FRED THOMPSON: Phantom pains at The Post

Fred D. Thompson

A Page One article in Saturday's Washington Post blaring the headline "Talk Radio Campaign Frightening Seniors" states, "A campaign on conservative talk radio ... has sparked fear among senior citizens that the health care bill moving through Congress will lead to end-of-life 'rationing' and even 'euthanasia,' " and that the bill has been described as "guiding you in how to die."

The story's continuation inside -- under the headline "Conservatives Have Seniors Fearing 'Euthanasia' as Part of Reform" says that, like arguments about abortion coverage, this has become a distraction to the president's broader health care agenda.

The reader looking for examples of this "talk show" campaign will be disappointed. Not one talk-radio host is quoted, and no specific radio show is mentioned (though The Post does quote an interview done on my radio show, without telling the reader the interview was done on a radio show). However, the article does make use of information supplied by off-the-record "Democratic strategists." One is free to conclude for oneself who has launched a "campaign."

It does seem that the words attributed to unnamed conservative culprits are fairly mild compared to the hysteria coming out of left-wing Web sites and blogs. My favorite is the one found on the Huffington Post, where Republicans are accused of saying that granny would be shot in her wheelchair under a provision in the Obama-Pelosi-Waxman health care bill.

Let's discuss whether these deranged seniors are being misled by people who actually may have read the bill. (Presumably this offense cannot be laid at the feet of their representatives of Congress.) Although I have never said anything like the things attributed to radio talk hosts, the article states that "the attacks on talk radio began when Betsy McCaughey ... told former senator Fred D. Thompson (R-Tenn.) that mandatory counseling sessions with Medicare beneficiaries would 'tell them how to end their life sooner' and would teach the elderly 'how to decline nutrition -- and cut your life short.' "

The basic position of the bill's proponents seems to be that these consultations are totally voluntary, that seniors should have the benefit of such end-of-life consultations and that the consultation provision is nothing more than to get doctors reimbursed when a consultation occurs at the patient's request. The "let's get the doctor paid" rationale was swallowed whole by The Post's writer, Ceci Connolly.

Those concerned by this provision believe it to be mandatory and wonder why the government is involving itself in the doctor-patient relationship and with end-of-life decisions.

Section 1233 of the bill, having to do with Medicare, describes the "advanced care planning consultation" as between the individual (a spouse and next of kin are not mentioned) and a "practitioner," described as a physician, a nurse practitioner or a physician's assistant. (It does not appear that it is a requirement that the physician in question be the patient's physician of record.)

In legislation, an issue as to whether an action is mandatory or not can be resolved quickly by a glance at the statute, which will state that (in this case) the consultation either "shall" be taken or "may" be taken. Remarkably, neither phrase is used in the statute in question.

Rather, the statute just describes what a consultation is and then strictly prescribes in mandatory language what must be included in the consultation as well as what may be included. For example, in Paragraph 4, a consultation "may include the formulation of an order regarding life-sustaining treatment" and may include an order for "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration."

The drafters of the provision were either sloppy, befitting a situation in which a complicated, 1,000-plus-page bill, controlling one-sixth of the economy, is rushed through the legislative process. Or it might be that the drafters desired an intentionally vague statute, knowing administration officials would be drafting regulations for the implementation of the bill after it passed.

As it stands, there is more than ample reason to believe the provision was meant to be mandatory with regard to the practitioners. Otherwise, why have the provision in the bill at all? If getting the doctors paid for a voluntary consultation really was the provision's intent, an amendment of two or three lines would have fixed it. As it is, it is two lines in a five-page provision full of specific instructions about what doctors, nurses or doctor's aides must explain to the patients.

Seniors are reminded daily by the media that Medicare is going broke, that the country must cut Medicare costs and that the last days of life are by far the most expensive. Now they are being told by the administration -- one that has been less than transparent on this bill and a host of other issues -- that this bill will cut Medicare costs. They are learning that they are "coincidentally" being asked about end-of-life issues at the government's behest, perhaps by a stranger who is receiving Medicare reimbursement payments. How long do you think it will take a Medicare patient to figure out which decisions will cost the government money and which will save the government money?

This is no reflection on medical professionals. They clearly are being put in a position they neither have asked for nor are completely qualified for. However, I am gratified that a president who can matter-of-factly accuse doctors of routinely removing a child's tonsils solely for financial gain has newfound trust in a doctor's or some hospital employee's ability to consult and even help draw up legal documents regarding end-of-life issues.

If this is all just a misunderstanding about whether this provision is mandatory or not, it can be resolved readily. Let's see if the supporters of the provision are willing to add language to the bill making it clear that there is no requirement that these consultations take place. Better still, they should drop this provision from the bill and let patients discuss these matters with their families, their clergy, lawyers who have expertise in living wills and powers of attorney, or whomever else they desire.

So is this a conspiracy to kill off granny? No. Will seniors be forced to make decisions they don't want to make? No. But will "practitioners" be encouraged to have end-of-life discussions that include when it might be best for patients to allow their life to end earlier than it has to? Of course. And seniors have a right to be satisfied that there is not, at the heart of this process, undo consideration given to cost-cutting.

In the end, it depends on how comfortable one is with having the government in the middle of this process. That is what this discussion is really all about.

Fred D. Thompson, a former Tennessee Republican senator, hosts a nationally syndicated radio show (www.fredthompsonshow.com).

Page 425 (end of life counseling)

I received several emails over the last few days concerning page 425 of the House Bill on Health Reform, HR 3200, which outlines mandatory end of life "options" counseling.

Technically, it appears on the surface to allow doctors (and other "providers") to charge for the counseling. But, yes, it's mandated counseling and in the wrong hands, it might encourage withholding of care more than some of us would like -- and certainly more that others might like.

Can you imagine a more personal and private subject? The subject should be broached by your family doctor. But it appears that every doctor who sees Medicare patients will be responsible. I can imagine the emotional undertones of different doctors as they recite the standardized language and present the forms to be signed! And then, the counseling will be reported to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, with the appropriate modifying code.

I object to the mandated repeat counseling when someone gets sick, the inclusion in the "Medicare and Me" handbook with language to be formalized by the Secretary and forms for the counseling. I've mentioned before how "hot" an issue this could be, even with my limited exposure to the debate.

I hope that someone with sensitivity is in the Secretary's office, assisting with decisions on the literature and forms.

Congressman Henry Cuellar on Planned Parenthood

Went to this morning’s McQueeney, Texas meeting where Henry Cuellar was met with an overwhelming group of constituents upset over what's happening in Washington, DC.

Rep. Cuellar told us that he voted in favor of Planned Parenthood funding yesterday because they give care to “mothers” and he does everything he can do to support mothers. (I suggested that we go to any PP office today and that I bet no mothers come out of the building.)

The people of Guadalupe County- maybe 100 to 150? - turned out to protest the health bill and tax and cap. There were some tough questions about gas prices and about whether private insurance will survive.

People laughed when Cuellar said the bill is “revenue neutral.”

Believe it or not, the man was adamant that he has good private insurance and that he wants to keep *his* private insurance! Why not put all the government employees on Medicare or the VA (depending on their background). Why do we give and give so that our employees can have better benefits than we can afford?

He constantly talked about organizations and corporations that supported the bills, ignoring that the constituents in front of him do not. He handed out paper after paper (how green is that?) supporting the health bill and tax and cap.

He talked against the Blue Dogs, but did say that he wouldn’t allow Pelosi to bring the bill to a vote by bypassing the Committees.

Myth: doctors take out tonsils needlessly

Then, there's the charge that doctors will needlessly take tonsils out. First, it's unlikely that your Family Physician or Pediatrician does surgery. Second, I don't think the ENT's are getting paid for these anymore, unless they jump through hoops to prove that they're not over-doing it.

AP: In trying to rally support for health care overhaul, Obama described a patient who sees a physician for a sore throat, or a parent who brings in a child with a sore throat.

"Right now, doctors a lot of times are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that's out there. ... The doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, 'You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid's tonsils out,'" Obama told a prime-time news conference.

The president added: "Now, that may be the right thing to do, but I'd rather have that doctor making those decisions just based on whether you really need your kid's tonsils out or whether it might make more sense just to change — maybe they have allergies. Maybe they have something else that would make a difference."

Video and here.

Obama Press Conference Transcript

The transcript of the press conference is on line at the Washington Post.

However, if you want an annotated version, try this blog.

Thoughts on Obama's health speech July 22, 2009

Why doesn't the President just say that the Executive branch employees in his Administration will get rid of their insurance and go on Medicare???

Not a doggone thing that the President is talking about tonight - except for the taxes, the increased bureaucracies and the requirements that Pharmacy companies discount meds - is in the Bills that are being proposed by the House or the Senate.

The government is not paying for those private insurance costs -- the tax cuts for insurance is not the burden that will break the federal budget.

(And by the way - the White House is the people's house. It's only being used by this man.)

Ann Coulter on government Health Care finance

On the other hand, there's Ann Coulter's take.

Give Ann a chance, here. She makes some very good points.

Addendum -- Including this one:

Now the Democrats want to force us all into one gigantic national health insurance plan that will cover every real and mythical ailment that has a powerful lobby. But if you have a rare medical condition without a lobbying arm, you'll be out of luck.

Governor Jindal reminds us how FEMA helped flood insurance

You may not be aware that the only way to buy flood insurance is through FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. In fact, the Agency draws the lines for the Flood Plains and so, decides whether you need flood insurance.

Executive Order 12127

President Carter's 1979 executive order merged many of the separate disaster-related responsibilities into the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Among other agencies, FEMA absorbed: the Federal Insurance Administration, the National Fire Prevention and Control Administration, the National Weather Service Community Preparedness Program, the Federal Preparedness Agency of the General Services Administration and the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration activities from HUD. Civil defense responsibilities were also transferred to the new agency from the Defense Department's Defense Civil Preparedness Agency.
John Macy was named as FEMA's first director. Macy emphasized the similarities between natural hazards preparedness and the civil defense activities. FEMA began development of an Integrated Emergency Management System with an all-hazards approach that included "direction, control and warning systems which are common to the full range of emergencies from small isolated events to the ultimate emergency - war."

As we learned in 2005, the centralized bureaucracy is not the most efficient method of responding to the disasters of flooding. (It might have helped if the former Governor had allowed earlier response.)

Governor Jindal discusses possible "bipartisan" health care reform measures, here.

Health Care Reform: Tax and Spend (and abortion on tax dollars)

(Editorial correction: Sermo was not begun by the AMA. It is a private group, possibly funded originally by pharmaceutical companies. But, no one there knew the funding source.)
(The vote is now nearly 11,000, and still against the new plan.)

How about a simple solution to the rising government expenditures for health care: don't "force Congress" (See President Obama's press statement video, here. At 6 minutes 40 seconds, he says "force Congress.") to spend more money!

Or, we could try Biden's plan to spend more so we won't go bankrupt as we bankrupt the insurance companies and increase the numbers of people on government-paid health care and increasing mandates that health care funding cover more and more "benefits."

The AMA started a blog-type website that can only be accessed by licensed physicians in the US. 94% of the 2949 docs who have responded to the poll on that site, Sermo, oppose the AMA's endorsement of the current House plan. 96% say that the AMA does not speak for them. The top concerns that the doctors have include interference in the doctor-patient relationship (34%) and malpractice/tort reform (32%).

I've already sent my request to the AMA Board of Trustees to rescind their endorsement. CBS news reports that

"Separately, the White House urged Speaker Nancy Pelosi to toughen the emerging bill so it will hold down the future increases in Medicare payments to doctors, hospitals and other providers. The request, in a letter from Budget Director Peter Orszag, came one day after Congress' top budget official warned that as drafted, the legislation fails to slow the growth in health care costs nationally."

The House Bill still doesn't have a bill number. It's gone from 300 pages to 600 pages, to the current 1018 pages. It's here http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

All of the Democrat-controlled committees in the House and the Senate have blocked amendment after amendment that would have limited or blocked taxpayer funding of abortion. This is at the same time that the House Finance Services legislation passed, which will allow tax money to pay for abortions in the District of Columbia!

The House's plan will make it impossible to have private insurance if you don't have it at the time the plan passes and those plans will be restricted from changing, except for adding costly benefits that the House mandates. They won't be able to charge anyone any copays for "preventive services" - well child care, physicals and colonoscopies, etc. These requirements will bankrupt the insurance companies.

Everyone who does not have a plan at the time the House "reform" goes into effect will be forced onto the public plan on day one. If they don't sign up, they pay a fine of 2% of their income - this is in addition to the new employer tax and the new "surcharge" tax on the rich - or as Speaker Pelosi says, "a very few people will help with the revenue stream."

(Cross posted to Comal County GOP blog)

Obama cancels meeting of President's Council Bioethics

I wonder whether the new commission/committee/council will have even one pro-life member? Will Robert P. George (one of only 3 or 4 conservative bioethicist with tenure at a major university), for example, have a spot?

And remember the fuss and bother when some of the members of President Bush's Council were replaced in March, 2004? Bet there's none, now!

Obama Plans to Replace Bush’s Bioethics Panel
By NICHOLAS WADE

Members of the President’s Council on Bioethics were told by the White House last week that their services were no longer needed and were asked to cancel a planned meeting, a council staff member said Wednesday.

The council was disbanded because it was designed by the Bush administration to be “a philosophically leaning advisory group” that favored discussion over developing a shared consensus, said Reid Cherlin, a White House press officer.

President Obama will appoint a new bioethics commission, one with a new mandate and that “offers practical policy options,” Mr. Cherlin said.

$1 Trillion to cover 11 Million people

According to the Associated Press, 37 Million people would remain uninsured under the legislation discussed in Kennedy's Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. If there are 48 million uninsured, now (not, more below), then one trillion dollars to cover an additional 11 million people.

Can you imagine? There's no coverage at all for people who aren't eligible for Medicaid, but who make less than 150 percent of the Federal poverty level ($33,000 for a family of four.)

Of course, some of this cost comes from subsidizing families of four who make $110,000 a year. In fact, 60% of the cost will be in the subsidies for people who make 150% to 500% of the Federal poverty level.

(We won't mention the cost of regulating restaurant menues and forcing the placement of nutrition information on those menues and on notices next to each item on a buffet line. Or the as-yet uncounted costs to the chefs who must calculate and document their recipes in order to know those nutrition facts.)

Daschle/Dole/Baker! Health care on the fast track -along with the entire Nation's finance

Right after this Yellow Brick Award ceremony, I'm thinking that it may save my life for me to learn to use Twitter and Facebook. Now.

While President Obama is planning to take over the entire finance world ASAP, ABC is planning their all-day infomercial for Obama and his push - there is no "plan," yet - for health care "reform" by July 4. No opposing or alternate viewpoints will be allowed. They're even refusing to take a paid-for program in rebuttal, according to the Drudge Report.

ABC REFUSES PAID ADS OFFERING ALTERNATIVE VIEWPOINT FOR WHITE HOUSE HEALTH CARE PROGRAM
ABC is refusing paid ads for its health care program at the White House. Thus they're refusing even a paid-for alternative viewpoint.

Conservatives for Patients Rights requested the rates to buy a 60 second network spot immediately preceding the broadcast of the Town Hall meeting.

While looking for verification of this story, I came across several that report that former Senators Tom Daschle, Bob Dole and Howard Baker are working on a health care "compromise." (Come on! there's a reason they aren't Senators any more!)

See their report, "Crossing the Streams Lines" here.

So, we'll have a Secretary of the Treasury (who claims to be unable to do his own taxes using Turbo Tax) running Wall Street and all the banks. We'll have a known plagiarist and serial failed Presidential candidate (who also can't figure out that gifts and services are taxable) working with another serial failed presidential candidate (who took money for telling the world that he needs a little pharmaceutical help in the bed room) working to reign in the cost of doctors, hospitals, and those pharmaceutical companies. (The third player in the health care waters is Baker, another serial failed presidential candidate. It's just that no one's ever heard of him.)

But don't worry -- even if you are able to vote for a completely new House and a turnover of a good portion of the Senate in 2010, Obama will still run the Census out of his Committee to Reelect the President.

In the meantime, Obama is planning to cut Medicare fees to Hospice, hospitals and doctors while instituting a new tax on health care insurance benefits from employers, according to the Washington Post.

Why not? After all, Daschle had to pay taxes on his limo and driver and Geithner had to pay them on his kids' summer camp!


Addendum after skimming the report:
The "Crossing the Lines" report is full of calls for more regulation with a sprinkling of pablum.

First, they demand that everyone have health insurance. (Could be acceptable if we were allowed to chose between Major Medical and From-First-Dollar. And if it weren’t for the rest of the trash.)

They believe - or at least claim to believe - that it will pay for itself. (Who knew old white haired men could be so funny?)

How will the money be raised?

By a “trigger” to enforce cuts when costs reach a certain point and by not paying for those treatments that are considered less effective.

What are they going to do with all the men and women who insist on antibiotics, today, for their bronchitis? Will they protect the doc when the patient develops bacterial pneumonia?

How about my man in his mid-80’s with a 102 fever in the ER, a bladder infection, multiple falls that resulted in bruises and skin tears, and potassium at 2 (normal is 4)? Medicare would not allow me to actually admit him because he turned out not to be septic by their criteria. He ended up on “Observation” for 3 days while his wife and I tried to find some safe place for him to go after discharge and I tried to get a handle on his potassium. He left for the rehab hospital with a potassium of 2.6. On a heart monitor. Because Medicare rules threaten us with charges of “fraud and abuse.”

How about our local hospice? Obama has announced his intention to cut funding to hospice. I guess there’s not much efficacy in hospice. After all, the hospice patient is, by definition, expected to die within 6 months. However, hospice patients are less likely to present at the ER, with the costs of their care much less than hospitalization.

Force Medicare "reform" without proof that it will work?

The Washington Post reports on the latest findings of the "Medicare Payment Advisory Commission" (MedPAC) today. According to the WaPo, this is a "commission that advises Congress on the federal medical program for older Americans."

In other reports, there is mention that President Obama plans - at the same time - to cut Medicare and Medicaid funding by over $900 Billion dollars, to somehow expand the numbers of Americans who are given "guaranteed health care" under some government "public plan," and to pay for any expansion by taxing insurance benefits given by employers.

And it all has to be done in the next two weeks:

For months, Obama remained on the sidelines of the health-care debate because "he felt it was important to not be too proscriptive," Axelrod said in an interview. "Now we're into a different phase, where decisions are being made very quickly, so it's time to weigh in to a greater degree."

The Obama strategy, articulated in the speech here and in a series of private meetings, is to present each major stakeholder with an enticement in return for a bit of sacrifice.

Again, there's mention of "accountable care organizations," and how to force doctors into them. This time, we do learn that coercion will be necessary to form these organizations and that there's evidence that these sort of interventions don't save money or improve the health care of patients caught up in the schemes. In fact, some of these interventions are now considered wasteful and the first place to cut:

To illustrate what it might take to save Medicare, the commission describes how primary-care doctors, specialists and hospitals could be reorganized into "accountable care organizations" whose members would receive bonuses if the organizations met quality and cost targets. To ratchet up the incentives, health-care providers that fail to meet cost and quality targets could be penalized, the report says.

Even then, any projected savings would be highly uncertain, the report says. What is certain is that Medicare cannot maintain its current trajectory, it adds:

"If current spending and utilization trends continue, the Medicare program is fiscally unsustainable. . . . Part of the problem is that Medicare's fee-for-service payment systems reward more care -- and more complex care -- without regard to the quality or value of that care."

The report underscores the challenges facing President Obama and Congress as they seek to overhaul the health-care economy. The administration has put a spotlight on what it considers wasteful spending, but it has offered sparse details as to how it would change the incentives that produce the waste.

The report identifies some areas that are ripe for savings. MedPAC estimates that the government is paying private Medicare health plans -- which were supposed to save the government money -- much more than it should. In addition, the government could save money by adopting a more streamlined approval process for "follow-on biologics" -- products that imitate biotech treatments already on the market.

Getting doctors to join accountable care organizations may require pressure, MedPAC Executive Director Mark E. Miller told reporters: "If you want people to voluntarily organize, you may want to make sure that the current system isn't as pleasant a place to be."

The model for accountable care organizations resembles that of large, tightly managed physician groups, practices that have been the subject of demonstration projects, and Medicare's experience with those offers limited encouragement, according to the report. Measurable quality improved in the areas of care monitored, such as for diabetes and congestive heart failure. But "whether the demonstration has actually generated savings for the Medicare program is debatable," the report says.

Policymakers hope that money can be saved by better coordinating care. But, according to the MedPAC report, Medicare pilot programs intended to coordinate care for patients with chronic diseases -- programs that involved insurance companies and other private groups -- generally achieved modest quality improvements. Most of the programs cost Medicare more money than it would have spent without them, the report says.

Public Funding for Health Care in Real Life

I don't see how this will cut costs to the government for Medicare and Medicaid.

The group Physicians for a National Health Plan, published a link to an April, 2009 report from the Lewin group by Sheils and Haught outlines the expected effects on insured, employers, doctors and hospitals under various types of public plan financing. At Medicare rates, doctors would see their income go down if everyone is covered, and go down slightly if only the self-insured and small businesses were covered. In the long run, if the public option is offered to everyone, 119 million people would switch over from private insurance.

The numbers in the news say that the Kennedy-Dodd Bill before the Senate Finance Committee will offer Medicare plus 10% to doctors and hospitals - so those decreases are not quite accurate.



Here's a report on one example of just such an effect.

Real world experience comes from Hawaii's short attempt to cover all uninsured children. It also describes the increased Medicaid coverage in Hawaii in the last few years, and the Federally Qualified Health Clinics that give care to uninsured and underinsured.

Texas Medical Association Health Care Principles

Available for members on the TMA website, but looks okay to post here.

The TMA House of Delegates adopted the principles as official TMA policy in May. They include:

* Promote portable and continuous health care coverage for all Americans using an affordable mix of public and private payer systems.
* Promote patient safety as a top priority for reform, recognizing an effective mix of initiatives that combine evidence-based accountability standards, committed financial resources, and rewards for performance that incent and ensure patient safety.
* Adopt physician-developed, evidence-based tools for use in scientifically valid quality/patient safety initiatives that incentivize and reward the physician-led health care delivery team, and include comparative effectiveness research used only to help patient-physician relationships choose the best care for patients.
* Preserve patient and physician choice and the integrity of the patient-physician relationship.
* Incorporate physician-developed, evidence-based measures and preventive health and wellness initiatives into any new or expanded health benefit package to promote a healthier citizenry.
* Recognize and support the role of safety net and public health systems in delivering essential health care services within our communities to include essential prevention and health promotion public health services.
* Support the development of a well-funded, nationwide emergency and trauma care system that provides appropriate emergency and trauma care for all Americans.
* Support public policy that fosters ethical and effective end-of-life care decisions, to include requiring all Medicare patients to have an advance directive that a Medicare enrollee can discuss as part of a covered Medicare visit with a physician.
* Provide sustainable financing mechanisms that ensure the aforementioned affordable mix of services and create personal responsibility among all stakeholders for financing and appropriate utilization of the system.
* Invest needed resources to expand the physician-led workforce to meet the health care needs of a growing and increasingly diverse and aging population.
* Provide financial and technological support to implement physician-led, patient-centered medical homes for all Americans, including increased funding and compensation for services provided by primary care physicians and the services provided by non-primary care, specialist physicians as part of the patient-centered medical home.
* Through public policy enactments, require accountability and transparency among health insurers to disclose how their premium dollars are spent, eliminate preexisting condition exclusions, simplify administrative processes, and observe fair and competitive market practices.
* Reform the national tort system to prevent nonmeritorious lawsuits, keeping Texas reforms in place.
* Abolish the Medicare SGR annual update system and initiate a true cost-of-practice methodology that provides for annual updates in the Medicare Fee Schedule as determined by a credible, practice expense-based, medical economic index.
* Support the implementation of an interoperable National Electronic Medical Records System, financed and implemented through federal funding.
* Require payers to have a standard, transparent contract with providers that cannot be sold or leased for any other payer purposes without the express, written consent of the contracted physician. This principle, in effect, calls for a prohibition against so-called silent PPOs.
* Support efforts to make health care financing and delivery decision-making more of a professionally advised function, with appropriate standard setting, payment policy, and delivery system decisions fashioned by physician-led deliberative bodies as authorized legislatively.

AMA offers public plan compromise

One more post before I have to work, from the American Medical Association morning newsletter.

Unfortunately, I can't access most of the links:

AMA offers public plan compromise.

The AP (6/12, Tanner) reports that the American Medical Association "has long opposed government intrusion into healthcare and believes reform can be achieved by revamping private health insurance plans." Now, AMA President Dr. Nancy Nielsen "says the group wants details on Obama's proposal for a public health insurance plan to compete with private plans." She noted that the AMA "opposes any public plan that forces physicians to participate, expands the fiscally challenged Medicare program, or pays Medicare rates."

But, she explained that the group "remains open to the idea of a government-run health insurance plan, as long as doctors are not required to participate and the plan pays doctors more than Medicare does," CQ Today (6/12, Wayne) reports. Dr. Nielsen said that "doctors would accept a public plan that competes on a 'level playing field' with private insurers." She claimed that "at a minimum...the government should not require doctors to participate as a condition of retaining their Medicare billing privileges, and the plan must pay higher rates than Medicare does." Among "other variations of a public plan" that "the AMA 'is willing to consider,'" include Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad's (D-ND) proposal to "create a system of publicly owned insurance cooperatives in place of a government-run public plan."

AMA said to be open to considering Sen. Conrad's co-op proposal. CongressDaily (6/12) reports, "The American Medical Association wants to see details of Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad's (D-ND) compromise proposal for a public health insurance plan, the group told senators Thursday." The group's statement "could help an already promising compromise gain more traction." AMA Trustee Samantha Rosman told the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee at a roundtable meeting that "the AMA is open to consideration of a new health insurance option that is market based." She added that although "no legislative details have yet been put forth," the group is looking "forward to reviewing those ideas." Sen. Conrad's proposal includes that creation of "a nonprofit co-op that would serve as a public plan alternative to private insurance."

Chamber Of Commerce, insurance industry join AMA in push against public plan. In a follow-up to Wednesday's New York Times (6/10, Pear) article about the American Medical Association's (AMA) push to eliminate the public plan from the health reform legislation, Shirley S. Wang observed in the Wall Street Journal (6/11, Wang) Health Blog that the AMA is arguing that a public plan "threatens to restrict patient choice" by crowding out the private insurers. In this effort, they are joined by the US Chamber of Commerce, which "says it is concerned that the proposed mandate that employers help pay for insurance would add new costs to already struggling businesses." Finally, "private insurers also are pushing back against the idea of government-run exchanges where consumers could buy policies." In an update to the blog entry, Wang added, "The AMA later issued a statement saying it might be able to support some version of public plans being discussed."

Public plan debate sparks Democratic "civil war." The Politico (6/12, Brown) reports that President Obama's calls for a public health plan "has touched off an increasingly fierce Democratic civil war on Capitol Hill, as liberals fearful about squandering the chance to achieve that goal are taking aggressive steps to keep moderates in line." The Politico notes that Democratic strategist Joe Trippi "launched a campaign" accusing Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson (D) of "being a 'sellout' for special interests" when he spoke out against the concept. Meanwhile, bloggers on the Daily Kos "went on the attack" after the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way "cautioned Democrats on overreaching on a public plan." Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) "is the next target," the Politico reports.

In the Washington Post (6/12) 44 blog, Ben Pershing notes "the increasingly heated debate over healthcare reform...within the Democratic party," adding that the formation of a public plan option is a major point of contention.
From the AMA

Obama to address AMA House of Delegates. President Barack Obama will speak at the Annual Meeting of the AMA House of Delegates on June 15 in Chicago about the nation's need for health system reform. "President Obama has made health reform a top domestic priority, as has the AMA," AMA President Nancy H. Nielsen, MD, PhD, said. "[His] speech to AMA physicians shows that he values the input of those who dedicate their lives to caring for patients." The House of Delegates opens tomorrow, June 13, during which physicians and medical students from around the country will debate and set policy on health system reform and a variety of other matters that affect physicians and patients. The meeting runs through June 17.

HELP (the whole government prepaid health plan)

Appropriate (on several levels), the proposed plan for government mandated and government financed health care is called the "HELP" plan. The current draft (I think)in .pdf can be accessed, here.

The Kennedy "draft of a draft" was 167 pages long. This thing is over 600 pages and I've gotten through about 150 pages, so far.

You may hear about the Hawaii Prepaid Health Care Plan, or Hawaii's mandated employer-provided insurance plan instituted in 1974.

Here's an article that covers the problems with Hawaii PHCP, according to one author from that State. Please note that the uninsured in that State is still 10% and that many employers attempt to use employees for less than 20 hours a week, so that they don't come under the mandate.

Please see the part near the end that I've highlighted, concerning the mandated services (including in vitro fertilization, etc.) that increase the cost of health care and insurance in Hawaii.

Due to Hawaii's low uninsured rate of 9.6 percent, policymakers have been looking at our unique employer-mandated health insurance as a model to be followed at the state and even national level. Since 1974, Hawaii has implemented the Prepaid Health Care Act (PHCA), which contains two major directives: 1) That employers provide employees working 20 or more hours a week with health insurance; and 2) That any plan offered by insurers provide equal or better benefits offered by the plan with the most subscribers in the state.

For several reasons, expanding PHCA beyond Hawaii's borders would be a catastrophic mistake.

Fact: From a low of only 5 percent of uninsured residents in the 1980s, the number has nearly doubled to 10 percent today. According to the US Census Bureau, Hawaii's current uninsured rate is not statistically different from states like Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Maine, none of which implement employer-mandated insurance.

Conclusion: A low uninsured rate cannot be solely attributed to employer-mandated insurance. Mandating that employers provide coverage does not tackle the underlying problem of skyrocketing health care costs.

Fact: Employers find ways to save on costs by manipulating employee work hours. Following PHCA, the number of employees in the state working between 20 and 35 hours per week decreased while utilization of both employees working less than 20 hours and employees working over 36 hours increased. Evidence supports the claim that employers also drop employees altogether to avoid providing coverage, thereby increasing the rate of unemployment as well.

Conclusion: Requiring employers to cover employees working 20 or more hours has not eliminated, but merely shifted, the burden of health insurance costs to businesses while contributing to the growing uninsured rate.

Fact: Hawaii Medical Service Association (HMSA) is by far the largest provider in the state with 68 percent of the private market and 701,527 members as of May 2008. Kaiser is the second largest with a 20 percent share — thus, HMSA and Kaiser control nearly 90 percent of the state's insurance marketplace.

Conclusion: By requiring insurers' health plans to provide equal or better benefits offered by the plan with the most subscribers, PHCA protects HMSA's and Kaiser's majority control of the market, leaving little room for other insurers to enter the market. Lifting this restriction would introduce badly needed competition, which would go a long way in driving down expenses.

Fact: The state government mandates a wide range of benefits, including expensive and questionably necessary services such as in vitro fertilization and drug and alcohol addiction treatment, which highly inflate the cost of coverage.

Conclusion: Granting consumers the freedom to customize their own plans free of costly state requirements would allow them to prioritize cheaper, preventive services such as cancer screening. This would lower the price of coverage, leading to a larger number of both covered and healthier residents.

PHCA has effectively eliminated health insurance competition in the state, beleaguering citizens with growing expenses and lack of freedom in choosing the health plan that best fits their needs. Opening up the market within and outside the state (much like how consumers can already shop for auto insurance across state lines), in addition to eliminating expensive mandated benefits, would go a long way in restoring the purchasing power and choices of Hawaii's residents regarding the most important aspect of their lives — their health.

Pearl Hahn is a policy analyst at the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.

TriCommittee Health Care Bill Summarized

I'm still looking for the actual Bill(s), with the names of sponsors. Evidently the Kennedy Bill is going to be voted on next week.

In the meantime, the "Tri-Committee plan" is summarized, here.

Eliminates cost sharing, creates "accountable care organizations," allows employers to chose between offering coverage and "contributing funds on behalf of their uncovered workers," includes individual mandates (people must have one of the approved plans, except in "hardship"), Expands the National Health Service Corps, Expands Medicaid, and (according to the AMA) will force doctors who take Medicare to participate in the "Public Option."

UNITED STATES CONGRESS

Key Features of the Tri-Committee Health Reform Draft Proposal
in the U.S. House of Representatives
June 9, 2009


President Obama’s Commitment: The Tri-Committee bill fulfills the President’s commitment to health care reform via legislation that:

•
Reduces costs;
•
Protects current coverage and preserves choice of doctors, hospitals and health plans; and
•
Ensures affordable, quality health care for all.
Plan Overview:

•
Maintains the ability for people to keep what they have and minimizes disruption;
•
Invests in health care workforce to improve access to primary care;
•
Invests in prevention and public health programs;
•
Creates a new national health Exchange that permits States the option of developing a State or regional exchange in lieu of the national Exchange;
•
Establishes shared responsibility among individuals, employers, and government;
•
Offers sliding scale credits to ensure affordability for low and middle-income individuals and families;
•
Jump starts health care delivery system reforms to reduce costs, maintain fiscal sustainability, and improve quality; and
•
Expands authority to prevent waste, fraud and abuse.

Workforce Investments:

• Expands the National Health Service Corps;
• Boosts training of primary care doctors and expands pipeline of individuals going into health professions, including primary care, nursing and public health;
• Supports workforce diversity efforts; and
• Expands scholarships and loans for individuals in needed professions and shortage areas.

Prevention and Wellness:

• Expands Community Health Centers;
• Waives cost-sharing for preventive services in benefit packages;
• Creates community-based programs to deliver prevention and wellness services;
• Targets community-based programs and new data collection efforts to better identify and address racial, ethnic and other health disparities; and
• Strengthens state, local, tribal and territorial public health departments and programs.


Insurance Market Reforms:

• Ensures availability of coverage by prohibiting insurers from excluding pre-existing conditions or engaging in other discriminatory practices;
• Prohibits rating based on gender, health status, or occupation and strictly limits premium variation based on age;
• Establishes a new Health Insurance Exchange to create a transparent marketplace for individuals and small employers to comparison shop among private insurers and a new public health insurance option; and
• Introduces administrative simplification and standardization to reduce administrative costs across all plans and providers.
Ensuring Affordability and Access:

• Includes sliding scale affordability credits in the Exchange to support individuals and families with incomes between Medicaid eligibility levels and 400% of the federal poverty level (FPL); (NOTE: The average cost of family coverage today is 14% of a
family’s income at 400% of poverty.)
• Expands Medicaid for the most vulnerable, low-income populations and improves payment rates to enhance access to primary care under Medicaid; and
• Caps total out-of-pocket spending in all new policies to prevent bankruptcies from medical expenses.

Public Health Insurance Option:

• Enhances transparency and accountability by creating a new public health insurance option within the Exchange to offer choice and ensure competition;
• The public health insurance option is self-sustaining and competes on “level field” with private insurers in the Exchange; and
• When individuals “enter” the Exchange, whether on their own or as employees of a business that is purchasing in the Exchange, they are free to choose among available public and private options.
Benefits:

• Independent public/private advisory committee recommends benefit packages based on standards set in statute;
• Guarantees choice and fair, transparent competition by creating various levels of standardized benefits and cost-sharing arrangements, with additional benefits available in higher-cost plans; and
• Phases-in requirements relating to benefit and quality standards for employer plans.

Shared Responsibility:

• Once market reforms and affordability credits are in effect to ensure access and affordability, individuals are responsible for having health insurance with an exception in cases of hardship;
• Employers choose between providing coverage for their workers or contributing funds on behalf of their uncovered workers;
• Government is responsible for ensuring affordability of insurance through new affordability credits, insurance market and delivery system reforms and oversight of insurance companies; and
• Protects small businesses by exempting small low-wage firms and providing a new small business tax credit for firms providing health coverage.


Reforming the Health Care Delivery System and Ensuring Sustainability:

• Uses federal health programs (Medicare, Medicaid and the new public health insurance option) to reward high quality, efficient care, and reduce disparities;
• Adopts innovative payment approaches and promotes better coordinated care in Medicare and the new public option through programs such as accountable care organizations; and
• Attacks the high rate of cost growth to generate savings for reform and fiscal sustainability, including a program in Medicare to reduce preventable hospital readmissions.

Modernizing, Improving and Preserving Medicare:

• Replaces the currently flawed Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula that determines physician pay rates in Medicare;
• Increases reimbursement for primary care providers, improves the Part D program, and implements many other MedPAC recommendations;
•
Extends solvency by eliminating overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans, and refining payment rates for certain services;
•
Creates new consumer protections for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries;
• Improves low-income subsidy programs to ensure Medicare is truly affordable and accessible for those with lower incomes; and
• Eliminates cost-sharing for all preventive services.

Downgrading American Medical Care

That image above is from a report in the American Spectator by Betsy McCaughey (the former Lieutenant Governor of New York State) on the true cost of medical care in the United States. It demonstrates that Americans still pay approximately the same for combined food and medical care expenses. As food costs less of the family budget, more is spent on medical care. The reason is that food is less expensive, not that people don't buy food because they have to pay for medical bills.

She also points out that our US survival rates for cancer are much better than those in countries that have longer waiting periods and that spend less on health care.

Obama to push public health plan, forced physician participation

The New York Times is covering the opposition to a public health plan (government pre-paid health care) by the American Medical Association.

Within that article is the news that the Democrat leadership intends to not only implement a government insurance plan that would compete with private insurance companies, but the legislation would force doctors who already accept Medicare to accept this new plan, also.

America’s Health Insurance Plans, a lobby for insurers, said Tuesday that the government plan proposed by some Senate Democrats could “dismantle employer-based coverage and significantly increase costs for those who remain in private coverage.”

Under a proposal favored by many Democrats, doctors who take Medicare patients would also have to participate in the new public plan. Democrats say that requirement is needed to make sure the public plan can go into business right away with a large network of doctors.

The medical association said it “cannot support any plan design that mandates physician participation.” For one thing, it said, “many physicians and providers may not have the capability to accept the influx of new patients that could result from such a mandate.”

“In addition,” the A.M.A. said, “federal programs traditionally have never required physician or other provider participation, but rather such participation has been on a voluntary basis.”

Those who had Medicare supplements that paid for their drugs before the Medicare Part D plan was implemented will remember their surprise when they were forced out of their old plan and onto the new one. The big surprise came when they hit the "donut hole," or the level when they had to pay for all of their own prescriptions.

Imagine your boss has the choice between buying insurance, or (as in Massachusetts) paying a fine that is less and allowing you to be absorbed by the government plan.

Now, imagine that you can't find a doctor that is taking new patients. Or a doctor that can see those patients within a reasonable time frame.

Here in Texas, some Medicaid patients are assigned to clinics, not doctors. Their "primary care providers" are not doctors, but groups that hire nurse practitioners to see them, to take call, and to manage their care.

In fact, Rural Health Clinics are required by Federal law to hire Physician Assistants or Nurse Practitioners who *must* do a certain percentage of the visits and patient care - I believe it's 50%. In other words, the government forbids the doctor who owns the clinic from seeing all his own patients and keeping the patient load at a reasonable level. Just another example of unintended consequences of government interference.

Obama/Kennedy Health Care Reform in the works

(This is a cross post from the Comal County GOP blog. I believe the report is relevant to LifeEthics.org.)


(As you read this, remember that this is the same group who gave us No Child Left Behind and "accidentally" released a nearly-300 page report on the "site, location, facility, and activity" of all the civilian nuclear sites that the Obama Administration plans to report to the International oversite agency, with pretty little tables. That's the picture above.

And note that no one seemed to blink an eye at the claim that Germany has had government single payer health insurance "since the '20's. The President toured one of the medical facilities from the 30's just before D-day.)


Today, across the US, the Democratic National Committee sponsored small group meetings on Health Care Reform, called "Organizing for America." See this news report and this one, that shows the Daily Kos group is not happy.

Here in New Braunfels (at the public library, as announced in the News), our host and an "advocate planner" - see this definition here and this usage here - Dona Evans, told us that the purpose of the meeting was to support President Obama's "plan" - she passed out copies of this outline and showed us video from this press conference - or maybe it was the three principles of health care reform.

The meeting was very tightly planned. The paperwork and agenda were available to the hosts before the meeting, on line.

It also appears that our little meeting in New Braunfels, Comal County, Texas was worthy of one man who told us he met with Obama planners on the health care reform last November and December, and another man who said he was trained by Saul Alinski himself in Chicago in the '60's. I believe I identified a core of about 7 people who were DNC/OfA plants and who remained behind for over 30 minutes after the meeting broke up.


BTW, as I said at the beginning of the meeting, I'm not an opponent of "reform." As I said, I believe that every problem we mentioned today is a result of government interference. The President said that we've talked about the problem but haven't had reform for 60 years. I say that we had government interference that increased costs and hurt our chances of meeting the President's goals. Medicare in the 60's, HMO's in the '70's, HIPPA, DRG's, and now, the cover-from-first-penny drug benefit that caused many retirees to lose good private subsidies and leaves them responsible for the whole bill for much of the year.

Although no one at the meeting today seemed aware, Senator Edward Kennedy's staff released a "draft of a draft" of his Bill, a 177 page piece to be called "America Health Choices Act." The pdf is here.


Addendum (June 7, at 1:20 PM) - Actually, our agreement was that we do not believe that this is an emergency, that we do not want Congress to pass any bill before they go home for recess at the end of July, and we do not want to send our Health Care money to Washington or have our Health Care decisions made in Washington, at all. While some mentioned the fear of government (one young man quoted Jefferson), most spoke of experience and the history of Government interference.

Below, find the report that Ms. Evans sent out to all of us who attended the meeting, along with a few more - among them are the names of local docs who I assume is her daughter and son-in-law. (All of our email addresses were visible - I sometimes forget the "blind copy to" function, also, so I won't copy all the email addresses, here.)

26 people at our event plus an unknown number of protestors outside marching with signs.
0# of calls made at your event
3 service projects planned for Saturday, June 27th, again at 2:00 p.m. in the library: individual volunteers, blood drive and food drive

We had excellent support and publicity from the local newspaper.
An account of our event follows:


WOW! Democracy in action!

First let me express my appreciation to everyone who attended the Organizing for America kickoff meeting Saturday, June 6th, at the New Braunfels library. Also, thank you for the lively discussion and sometimes heated debate. We even appreciate those who showed up to march in protest of our meeting – that’s what free speech is all about.

When I volunteered to host the meeting, it is because I support what President Obama is attempting to do for our country, and because of my background and experience, I know firsthand that the current health care system is broken and needs to be fixed. I am not a Republican or a Democrat, I am an American who is a concerned citizen, mother of four, grandmother of two.

When I signed up to host the kickoff to organize support for President Obama’s plan, I naively thought everyone would want to improve the current system. What’s not to like about “improvement”?

Surprise! Surprise! Some folks are downright passionate about not supporting President Obama’s proposed health care reform. It’s a good thing that I truly believe, “The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the clash of differing opinions.”

It is my job to talk to patients everyday about their medical bills, because I am a medical billing and coding clerk in a busy doctor’s office who services both newborns and seniors, and all those ages in between. And I know, many people who live in the Comal Area cannot afford health care insurance, doctor’s visits, hospital care, and prescription drugs; and those who do have insurance are being impacted by increased premiums, co-pays, coinsurance, and deductibles and reduced coverage and benefits. I know that what President Obama says about the current system is true – it needs to be fixed.

We had twenty-six concerned citizens show up to talk about health care reform at the meeting. I don’t how many protesters were outside the library. But, I am told that as we consulted, they marched carrying signs of protest.

About the only thing everyone at the meeting agreed on is that we – those who were present -- don’t want an inefficient government health care system that lacks prudent oversight and necessary regulations and ends up costing taxpayers more than it should and delivering substandard services. More than once, the TARP bailout and lack of oversight, lax regulations, and abuse were mentioned.

Despite the fact that not everyone agreed on what should be done, or how it should be done, everyone had constructive and thoughtful comments and most shared their story about how the present health care system has impacted their lives.

The big question is how can we structure change around the three basic principles put forth by President Obama and his Vice President Joe Biden: 1) reduce costs, 2) guarantee choice, and 3) make sure quality health care is affordable and available to all Americans.

But how? That is the big question. I am an optimist; I truly believe that there is a solution for every problem. And I firmly believe that the American people, if informed, can make good decisions. I know that when informed passionate Americans unite around a cause they can make miracles happen.

Interestingly, I discovered, that most of the attendees who oppose President’s Obama’s health care proposal, have never read it. Their opposition seems to be based on one of two things: 1) what they heard on talk radio or network tv; and 2) their general fear of a nationalized health system. (Because everyone has heard that Canada’s system doesn’t work right either.)

Most of those who attended and voiced their opposition were unwilling to actually sit through a reading of the proposed plan – which we offered to do. Based on their reactions, I would say, their mind is made up; don’t confuse them with the facts. It was my hope that they would at least listen/read to what the plan actually contains, rather than what a radical radio talk show host claims it contains. I have listened to some of the radio talk shows and realized that they are more motivated by ratings than telling the truth.

What I got from those who were the most negative about health care reform is their fear. Many attendees agreed they fear governmental bureaucracy. Many are afraid that big government programs would waste money on inefficient administration and would end up providing substandard services. One lady said, “I love my country, but I fear my government.” Another man said he feared a dictatorship. Others just expressed concern that centralized services tend to be inefficient and wasteful.

Some attendees expressed fear of electronic medical records, where ones medical history would be accessible over the internet. Everyone agreed, that safeguards should be built into any national EMR system to ensure privacy. Some noted that an efficient, properly operating EMR system could save the government and private companies millions by eliminating the need for duplicate services, such as MRI’s, X-rays, and labs, being performed each time someone moves to a new locality and sees a new doctor or changes doctors.

Many of those who attended praised the U.S. Military health care service. One lady who was born in Germany touted the many benefits of its program (including dental care), which has successfully operated since the 1920’s, and where co-pays were recently raised to $10. I mentioned my own positive experience with the universal health care system operated in Hawaii. There was a consensus that it would be good to look at the countries and states that successfully insure all their residents and use those as an example on which the U.S. could model a new health care system for Americans.

One gentleman, who is a private contractor with a minority-owned company that bids on government contracts, suggested that insurance contracts be awarded to those companies that can provide the best services for the least amount of money on a regional basis – similar to construction contracts.

Several people shared stories of how their lives and the lives of their family had been negatively impacted as the result of a catastrophic illness or major surgery. They came to the meeting to genuinely see how they can support President Obama so that health care wouldn’t bankrupt families and cause them to have to choose between paying exorbitant doctors and hospitals bills or pay for food and rent.

However, most of the attendees had either had good experiences with U. S Medicare or the U.S. Military or reported they had received excellent services from both.

Almost everyone agreed, that instituting a regional system based on contracts, similar to the present contracted administration of Medicare Jurisdiction 4 system by Trailblazer Health, of which Texas is part of along with Oklahoma, Colorado, New Mexico, Arkansas and Indian Health, might be a way to avoid an inefficient centralized system.

Many attendees expressed concern over what the future might hold for their children and grandchildren. From a personal standpoint, I am now concerned because my youngest daughter who is the mother of a five year old is going to enter the military, not only because she loves her country and feels passionately about its defense, but also because she will get health care for her daughter as one of the benefits. Despite working for twenty years, she is unable to afford health care insurance through her employer.

Many attendees advocated a “single payer system”. I have to admit, I didn’t know what a single payer system is, so I looked it up. “Single-payer health care is a term used in the United States to describe the payment of doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers from a single fund. It is often mentioned as one way to deliver universal health care. The administrator of the fund is usually the government, but may be privately subcontracted similar to Medicare, the existing US system that is nearly a single-payer. Australia's Medicare, Canada's Medicare, and healthcare in Taiwan are examples of single-payer universal health care systems.”

Given the overwhelming positive comments about U.S. Medicare and the Military, that might be something to explore further.

One concern that came up more than once was the Medicare donut hole, which I recently experienced first hand. Here’s what Wikipedia says about that subject, The term "donut hole" (or "doughnut hole") refers to a coverage gap within the defined standard benefit under the Medicare Part D prescription drug program. Under the defined standard benefit package, there is a gap in coverage between the initial coverage limit and the catastrophic coverage threshold. Within this gap, the beneficiary pays 100% of the cost of prescription drugs before catastrophic coverage kicks in. The term "coverage gap" is preferred by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and prescription drug plans, but "donut hole" has been more widely adopted in the popular media.[citation needed]

On a more personal note, one of medications costs over $500 a month. So, when combined with my other medications, I had reached the coverage gap – the donut hole -- by May of this year. What that means very simply is, that those who are the most needy medically receive the least amount of help with their medicine.

On another topic, volunteerism, it was suggested and agreed that among other things, American volunteers are what make our nation great.

Organizing for America, a project of the Democratic National Committee, urged today’s attenders to return for a National Day of Community Service. Everyone was asked to take part in at least one of the following activities: 1) volunteer at some kind of health-related center, such as a clinic, hospital, or nursing home; 2) organize a blood drive; and/or 3) take part in a food drive, in support of the health care reform initiative.

It was agreed that we will meet again: Saturday, June 27th, at the New Braunfels public library to report in individual acts of volunteering in health-related centers. One opponent of healthcare reform suggested, involvement in Options for Women, the Pregnancy Assistance Center, or participation in the Texas Alliance for Life Walk in Seguin, June 20th.

Organizing for America will hold both a blood drive and food drive to be held at the New Braunfels library on June 27th, the National Day of Community Service, at 2:00 pm. Folks are urged to donate blood at that time, and to bring nutritious foods such as canned fruits and vegetables, juices, rice, beans, powdered milk, baby food, and diapers as a way of showing the group’s interest in and concern for the health of the local community.

During the coming weeks, everyone who supports President Obama’s health care reform plan is urged to share their personal story with their friends, neighbors, and coworkers as a way of increasing awareness and garnering support for change. That is what got President Obama elected, the promise of change. The status quo is not acceptable. The group unanimously recommends careful well thought out

If you haven’t read the plan put forth by President Obama and Vice President Biden, then please go to: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf download the entire nine page document, read it, and then decide for yourself. What do agree with? What do you disagree with? Would you like to hold an event that is expressly for debating the issues? We have well-informed advocates that are willing to do just that – advocate for President Obama’s proposed plan by going over the plan point by point to see where/if we can come to an agreement.

I have to confess, I am an Advocate Planner. I believe that the clash of differing opinions is not only healthy, it is imperative to generate the spark of truth. If you would like to attend the next meeting, or perhaps meet with members of OFA to discuss the merits of President Obama’s proposed plan for health care reform and support this initiative, please let me know: (email and phone at the link, above. BBN).