Rumors rumors rumors...
Mission Hospital is buying the assets of South Coast Medical Center.
Interesting ain't it?
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Concerns about the stability of the health care delivery system in California and USA
Can someone in gov't actually do the math?
Let me get this straight, we have unemployment doubling and therefore more demand for gov't provided healthcare by unemployed people.
Then, we're supposed to be confident that the private insurers are paying doctors and hospitals?
HUH?
How are the private insurers supposed to be paid if there are fewer covered lives?
So, no wonder the doctors and hospitals can't balance their budgets. The insurers are insolvent!
Let me get this straight, we have unemployment doubling and therefore more demand for gov't provided healthcare by unemployed people.
Then, we're supposed to be confident that the private insurers are paying doctors and hospitals?
HUH?
How are the private insurers supposed to be paid if there are fewer covered lives?
So, no wonder the doctors and hospitals can't balance their budgets. The insurers are insolvent!
State fines three O.C. hospitals for safety problems
State fines three O.C. hospitals for safety problems
Anaheim General, Western Medical and Fountain Valley broke rules that put patients at risk.
By JENNIFER MUIR
The Orange County Register
Comments 2 Recommend 0
Three Orange County hospitals are being fined for breaking hospital licensing rules that put patients at risk of injury or death, the California Department of Health reported Tuesday.
For Anaheim General Hospital, which treats many of the county's poorest residents, it's the latest blow in a string of safety concerns that include losing a national quality accreditation and two other administrative penalties by the state health department. Anaheim General was cited for poor food handling practices that could have sickened patients throughout the hospital's campuses, including preparing food with dirty equipment and storing it at unsafe temperatures, according to a state report.
Fountain Valley Regional Hospital received its second health department penalty because a nurse administered oral medicine intravenously, causing a patient's heart to stop beating and brain to swell. And Western Medical Center in Santa Ana received its first-ever state penalty for failing to appropriately investigate a report that a staff member assaulted a psychiatric patient, causing a black eye.
Fountain Valley and Western Medical plan to appeal, spokespeople said.
The hospitals are among 10 in the state sanctioned today by the California Department of Health, which started issuing administrative penalties in 2007 to medical facilities that are out of compliance with state licensing requirements, potentially causing patients injury or death. Since then, the agency has given out 71 administrative penalties to 49 hospitals across the state.
Each of the hospitals was fined $25,000 for violations that occurred in 2007 and 2008, and each has taken steps to correct the problems.
"As consumers, we have to be aware of the fact that there are medical errors that take place in hospitals," said Kathleen Billingsley, deputy director of the California health department's Center for Health Care Quality. "One of the important things, for me, is to realize that if I went to one of these particular facilities, I would feel very confident that the hospital had addressed the issue."
Here's what happened at each hospital:
Fountain Valley Regional Hospital and Medical Center
In May of 2008, a nurse mistakenly gave oral anti-seizure medication through an IV. The errors caused the patient to go into cardiopulmonary arrest, which caused brain swelling, ultimately leaving the patient "obtunded," or mentally dull, according to a state report.
The hospital immediately reported the issue to the state, the California Board of Registered Nurses and the staffing agency through which the nurse was employed, hospital spokesman Ben Russo said in a prepared statement.
"The hospital notified the staffing agency that the nurse is not permitted to return to work at Fountain Valley Regional Hospital and Medical Center," the statement said. "We take seriously our responsibility to deliver quality, safe health care services."
The hospital also has required training for nursing staff, created new procedures and done self auditing.
It was the second such sanction given to Fountain Valley Regional. In June, the hospital was cited for leaving a sponge inside a patient during surgery.
Western Medical Center Santa Ana
In November 2007, a psychiatric patient complained that a staff member slapped her across the face, causing her to bruise under her right eye. The patient later told a therapist that a staff member "punched my face then he tried to get me to eat my fist."
Family members were not immediately notified and the hospital didn't properly investigate the allegation, according to the report. Hospital staffers didn't report the case to police for 16 days, and a director said that because of the patient's psychological presentation, he did not know if the patient's story was "delusional or not."
The staff member involved in the alleged attack never was identified, spokeswoman Shelle Malm said. Since then, the hospital has set up a process to immediately notify the appropriate people when something like this happens and has done extensive staff training, Malm said
"We take all of these allegations seriously," she said. "We failed to report the allegations in a timely manner."
Anaheim General Hospital
The hospital was cited in February 2008 for several food violations that "had the potential to expose patients to a hospital-acquired food borne illness, which may result in nausea and vomiting, thereby further compromising the medical status of inpatients."
Inspectors described pre-cooked turkey breast being stored in a broken refrigerator, left-over sausages sitting in a tray of congealed fat, moldy bagels and a rubber blender gasket being covered in "a green, slime-like substance," according to the state report.
The hospital was cited for lacking a fulltime person responsible for managing dietary services at the hospital's Anaheim and Buena Park campuses, storing food at unsafe temperatures in Buena Park and failing to properly monitor the cooling down of potentially hazardous food.
Since being cited, the hospital has hired a full time dietician, educated staff on food safety and repaired broken equipment, the report said.
"Since then we've had a management change, and the hospital continues to provide excellent care," says James Young, chief executive for Pacific Health, which owns Anaheim General.
Contact the writer: 714-796-7813 or jmuir@ocregister.com
Anaheim General, Western Medical and Fountain Valley broke rules that put patients at risk.
By JENNIFER MUIR
The Orange County Register
Comments 2 Recommend 0
Three Orange County hospitals are being fined for breaking hospital licensing rules that put patients at risk of injury or death, the California Department of Health reported Tuesday.
For Anaheim General Hospital, which treats many of the county's poorest residents, it's the latest blow in a string of safety concerns that include losing a national quality accreditation and two other administrative penalties by the state health department. Anaheim General was cited for poor food handling practices that could have sickened patients throughout the hospital's campuses, including preparing food with dirty equipment and storing it at unsafe temperatures, according to a state report.
Fountain Valley Regional Hospital received its second health department penalty because a nurse administered oral medicine intravenously, causing a patient's heart to stop beating and brain to swell. And Western Medical Center in Santa Ana received its first-ever state penalty for failing to appropriately investigate a report that a staff member assaulted a psychiatric patient, causing a black eye.
Fountain Valley and Western Medical plan to appeal, spokespeople said.
The hospitals are among 10 in the state sanctioned today by the California Department of Health, which started issuing administrative penalties in 2007 to medical facilities that are out of compliance with state licensing requirements, potentially causing patients injury or death. Since then, the agency has given out 71 administrative penalties to 49 hospitals across the state.
Each of the hospitals was fined $25,000 for violations that occurred in 2007 and 2008, and each has taken steps to correct the problems.
"As consumers, we have to be aware of the fact that there are medical errors that take place in hospitals," said Kathleen Billingsley, deputy director of the California health department's Center for Health Care Quality. "One of the important things, for me, is to realize that if I went to one of these particular facilities, I would feel very confident that the hospital had addressed the issue."
Here's what happened at each hospital:
Fountain Valley Regional Hospital and Medical Center
In May of 2008, a nurse mistakenly gave oral anti-seizure medication through an IV. The errors caused the patient to go into cardiopulmonary arrest, which caused brain swelling, ultimately leaving the patient "obtunded," or mentally dull, according to a state report.
The hospital immediately reported the issue to the state, the California Board of Registered Nurses and the staffing agency through which the nurse was employed, hospital spokesman Ben Russo said in a prepared statement.
"The hospital notified the staffing agency that the nurse is not permitted to return to work at Fountain Valley Regional Hospital and Medical Center," the statement said. "We take seriously our responsibility to deliver quality, safe health care services."
The hospital also has required training for nursing staff, created new procedures and done self auditing.
It was the second such sanction given to Fountain Valley Regional. In June, the hospital was cited for leaving a sponge inside a patient during surgery.
Western Medical Center Santa Ana
In November 2007, a psychiatric patient complained that a staff member slapped her across the face, causing her to bruise under her right eye. The patient later told a therapist that a staff member "punched my face then he tried to get me to eat my fist."
Family members were not immediately notified and the hospital didn't properly investigate the allegation, according to the report. Hospital staffers didn't report the case to police for 16 days, and a director said that because of the patient's psychological presentation, he did not know if the patient's story was "delusional or not."
The staff member involved in the alleged attack never was identified, spokeswoman Shelle Malm said. Since then, the hospital has set up a process to immediately notify the appropriate people when something like this happens and has done extensive staff training, Malm said
"We take all of these allegations seriously," she said. "We failed to report the allegations in a timely manner."
Anaheim General Hospital
The hospital was cited in February 2008 for several food violations that "had the potential to expose patients to a hospital-acquired food borne illness, which may result in nausea and vomiting, thereby further compromising the medical status of inpatients."
Inspectors described pre-cooked turkey breast being stored in a broken refrigerator, left-over sausages sitting in a tray of congealed fat, moldy bagels and a rubber blender gasket being covered in "a green, slime-like substance," according to the state report.
The hospital was cited for lacking a fulltime person responsible for managing dietary services at the hospital's Anaheim and Buena Park campuses, storing food at unsafe temperatures in Buena Park and failing to properly monitor the cooling down of potentially hazardous food.
Since being cited, the hospital has hired a full time dietician, educated staff on food safety and repaired broken equipment, the report said.
"Since then we've had a management change, and the hospital continues to provide excellent care," says James Young, chief executive for Pacific Health, which owns Anaheim General.
Contact the writer: 714-796-7813 or jmuir@ocregister.com
Monday, February 16, 2009
Did OctoMom delivery at Kaiser Bellflower influence Senator Lou Correa to vote yes on higher state taxes?
It is my understanding that Senator Lou Correa's wife is an obstetrician/gynecologist at Kaiser.
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/pubs/799fmly.htm
Apparently her name is Dr. Esther Reynoso or Dr. Esther Correa or Dr. Maria Correa or Dr. Maria Reynoso or Dr. Maria Esther Reynoso.
She is a Kaiser Pemanente obstetrician at the Kaiser Permanente facility where Nadya Suleman delivered!
See:http://www.ucomparehealthcare.com/drs/california/obstetrics_and_gynecology/Maria_E_Reynoso.html
Notice that the facility where she is assigned is where....OCTOMOM DELIVERED!!!
We heard earlier in the last week that Kaiser Permanente Bellflower was requesting a special increase in their hospital reimbursement from Medi-Cal for the octuplet delivery.
Now, we hear that Senator Lou Correa was holding out on his vote for the tax increase...then we hear that Lou Correa was voting for the tax hike AFTER he received a concession on "public safety and health funding".... is that health funding for Kaiser where his own wife gets paid her salary???
Was Lou Correa's vote for higher taxes just so that his wife or her group would get paid for the OctoMom delivery???? (MUSIC!)
Check the California State Medical Board web site to confirm the identity and license status of Dr. Maria Esther Reynoso, MD
Physician InformationLicensee Name:MARIA ESTHER REYNOSO, MD
License Type:PHYSICIAN AND SURGEON
License Number:G80949
License Status:LICENSE RENEWED & CURRENT
Public Record Actions:NONE AVAILABLE ON WEB SITE ]
To find out what information is and is not available on the Web site, please click here.)
Original Issue Date:APRIL 05, 1995
Expiration Date:FEBRUARY 28, 2011
Address:9449 E IMPERIAL HWYDOWNEY, CA 90242
County:LOS ANGELES
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/pubs/799fmly.htm
Apparently her name is Dr. Esther Reynoso or Dr. Esther Correa or Dr. Maria Correa or Dr. Maria Reynoso or Dr. Maria Esther Reynoso.
She is a Kaiser Pemanente obstetrician at the Kaiser Permanente facility where Nadya Suleman delivered!
See:http://www.ucomparehealthcare.com/drs/california/obstetrics_and_gynecology/Maria_E_Reynoso.html
Notice that the facility where she is assigned is where....OCTOMOM DELIVERED!!!
We heard earlier in the last week that Kaiser Permanente Bellflower was requesting a special increase in their hospital reimbursement from Medi-Cal for the octuplet delivery.
Now, we hear that Senator Lou Correa was holding out on his vote for the tax increase...then we hear that Lou Correa was voting for the tax hike AFTER he received a concession on "public safety and health funding".... is that health funding for Kaiser where his own wife gets paid her salary???
Was Lou Correa's vote for higher taxes just so that his wife or her group would get paid for the OctoMom delivery???? (MUSIC!)
Check the California State Medical Board web site to confirm the identity and license status of Dr. Maria Esther Reynoso, MD
Physician InformationLicensee Name:MARIA ESTHER REYNOSO, MD
License Type:PHYSICIAN AND SURGEON
License Number:G80949
License Status:LICENSE RENEWED & CURRENT
Public Record Actions:NONE AVAILABLE ON WEB SITE ]
To find out what information is and is not available on the Web site, please click here.)
Original Issue Date:APRIL 05, 1995
Expiration Date:FEBRUARY 28, 2011
Address:9449 E IMPERIAL HWYDOWNEY, CA 90242
County:LOS ANGELES
Friday, February 13, 2009
South Coast Medical Center closures in the wake of Mission Hospital's purchase
Friday, February 13, 2009
Hospital ward's closure forces dire decisions
Patients in subacute unit in Laguna Beach will have to be moved 30 miles from their loved ones.
By COURTNEY PERKES
The Orange County Register
Comments 1 Recommend 1
Richard Thompson, a retired dentist, drives three miles every day to visit his son at South Coast Medical Center, where he sings Lawrence Welk songs with him and brushes his teeth.
His son, Bobby, has the mental capacity of an 8-year-old, breathes with a ventilator and eats through a feeding tube. He asks nurses for his father every morning, and they assure him he'll be coming.
But soon, Richard fears those visits won't be so easy. He was notified last week that the Laguna Beach hospital will close the unprofitable subacute ward, forcing his son and 20 other patients to move to hospitals or nursing homes miles away or in Los Angeles County.
"I'm 81 and not really one who should be driving the freeways everyday, but I will if that's what I have to do," Thompson said. "He really suffers when I'm not around. They tell me at the hospital that he'll say, 'Dad' all morning long."
Thompson and other families received notice shortly before an announcement that Mission Hospital would purchase South Coast for $35.7 million. The sale of the nonprofit hospital must be approved by the state attorney general's office. The families say they plan to fight the closure by lobbying the state as well as Mission, which is owned by St. Joseph Health System.
Officials at both hospitals said the closure of the subacute unit has nothing to do with the sale.
South Coast spokeswoman Alicia Gonzalez said costs of hospital expenses had been under review for a year, long before the hospital was put on the market. She said 80 percent of subacute patients are covered by state Medi-Cal and many hospitals have stopped offering long-term care.
For years, Adventist Health-owned South Coast has been losing money and closed the maternity ward last year.
"This was a unit they've been looking at for awhile," Gonzalez said. "It just did not make sense to continue."
Several relatives of displaced patients said doctors have told them they need more specialized care than a nursing home can provide. The nearest options are Chapman Medical Center, 24 miles away in Orange or Kindred Hospital, 38 miles away in Brea.
Bill Moseley said his 74-year-old father is still alive after a car accident eight years ago because of access to the hospital's operating room and intensive care unit.
"His nurses all say if he wasn't in a hospital, he'd be dead," Moseley said. "Our dad had a couple life-threatening episodes, but because he was in the hospital here he was able to get the right care he needed."
Others are still reeling from the notification.
"It was a total shock because there had been no discussion or indication that anything like that was being considered," said Wally Schminke, 82, who visits his wife, Corinne, twice a day. "It will cut my visits to one a day, for sure. To me, it's just incredible there would be no facility in such a populous area as South Orange County."
Schminke of San Clemente said his wife suffered a stroke three years ago that left her bedridden and breathing with a tracheotomy. He reads her horoscope from the newspaper, articles from fashion magazines and comics. She can't speak, but when her children and grandchildren visit, her face lights up.
"It's going to diminish the amount of visits. Those are important for her morale," he said.
Yvonne Toppses will celebrate her husband Tony's 42nd birthday Saturday at South Coast with cupcakes for nurses, movie rentals and a phone call from his parents in New York. Tony, a former biomedical engineer, has spent two years there because of multiple sclerosis.
Toppses, who lives in Aliso Viejo, quit her job and spends every day keeping her husband company. She hasn't told him yet about the pending move because she doesn't want to depress him.
"They're saying this closure isn't contingent on the sale, but obviously the numbers look much better on paper after a closure," she said. "This is against the mission statements for both Adventist and St. Joe's."
Contact the writer: 714-796-3686 or cperkes@ocregister.com
Hospital ward's closure forces dire decisions
Patients in subacute unit in Laguna Beach will have to be moved 30 miles from their loved ones.
By COURTNEY PERKES
The Orange County Register
Comments 1 Recommend 1
Richard Thompson, a retired dentist, drives three miles every day to visit his son at South Coast Medical Center, where he sings Lawrence Welk songs with him and brushes his teeth.
His son, Bobby, has the mental capacity of an 8-year-old, breathes with a ventilator and eats through a feeding tube. He asks nurses for his father every morning, and they assure him he'll be coming.
But soon, Richard fears those visits won't be so easy. He was notified last week that the Laguna Beach hospital will close the unprofitable subacute ward, forcing his son and 20 other patients to move to hospitals or nursing homes miles away or in Los Angeles County.
"I'm 81 and not really one who should be driving the freeways everyday, but I will if that's what I have to do," Thompson said. "He really suffers when I'm not around. They tell me at the hospital that he'll say, 'Dad' all morning long."
Thompson and other families received notice shortly before an announcement that Mission Hospital would purchase South Coast for $35.7 million. The sale of the nonprofit hospital must be approved by the state attorney general's office. The families say they plan to fight the closure by lobbying the state as well as Mission, which is owned by St. Joseph Health System.
Officials at both hospitals said the closure of the subacute unit has nothing to do with the sale.
South Coast spokeswoman Alicia Gonzalez said costs of hospital expenses had been under review for a year, long before the hospital was put on the market. She said 80 percent of subacute patients are covered by state Medi-Cal and many hospitals have stopped offering long-term care.
For years, Adventist Health-owned South Coast has been losing money and closed the maternity ward last year.
"This was a unit they've been looking at for awhile," Gonzalez said. "It just did not make sense to continue."
Several relatives of displaced patients said doctors have told them they need more specialized care than a nursing home can provide. The nearest options are Chapman Medical Center, 24 miles away in Orange or Kindred Hospital, 38 miles away in Brea.
Bill Moseley said his 74-year-old father is still alive after a car accident eight years ago because of access to the hospital's operating room and intensive care unit.
"His nurses all say if he wasn't in a hospital, he'd be dead," Moseley said. "Our dad had a couple life-threatening episodes, but because he was in the hospital here he was able to get the right care he needed."
Others are still reeling from the notification.
"It was a total shock because there had been no discussion or indication that anything like that was being considered," said Wally Schminke, 82, who visits his wife, Corinne, twice a day. "It will cut my visits to one a day, for sure. To me, it's just incredible there would be no facility in such a populous area as South Orange County."
Schminke of San Clemente said his wife suffered a stroke three years ago that left her bedridden and breathing with a tracheotomy. He reads her horoscope from the newspaper, articles from fashion magazines and comics. She can't speak, but when her children and grandchildren visit, her face lights up.
"It's going to diminish the amount of visits. Those are important for her morale," he said.
Yvonne Toppses will celebrate her husband Tony's 42nd birthday Saturday at South Coast with cupcakes for nurses, movie rentals and a phone call from his parents in New York. Tony, a former biomedical engineer, has spent two years there because of multiple sclerosis.
Toppses, who lives in Aliso Viejo, quit her job and spends every day keeping her husband company. She hasn't told him yet about the pending move because she doesn't want to depress him.
"They're saying this closure isn't contingent on the sale, but obviously the numbers look much better on paper after a closure," she said. "This is against the mission statements for both Adventist and St. Joe's."
Contact the writer: 714-796-3686 or cperkes@ocregister.com
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Senate Stimulus IS the health care BILL
Read this story from Bloomberg!
Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan: Betsy McCaughey
Email Print A A A
Commentary by Betsy McCaughey
Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama’s stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy.
Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.
Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version).
The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.
But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”
Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.
New Penalties
Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)
What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.
The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.
Elderly Hardest Hit
Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.
Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).
The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.
In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.
Hidden Provisions
If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.
The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).
Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. “If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,” he said. “The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.”
More Scrutiny Needed
On Friday, President Obama called it “inexcusable and irresponsible” for senators to delay passing the stimulus bill. In truth, this bill needs more scrutiny.
The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It produces almost 17 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. Yet the bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn. This stimulus is dangerous to your health and the economy.
(Betsy McCaughey is former lieutenant governor of New York and is an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The opinions expressed are her own.)
To contact the writer of this column: Betsy McCaughey at Betsymross@aol.com Last Updated: February 9, 2009 00:01 EST
Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan: Betsy McCaughey
Email Print A A A
Commentary by Betsy McCaughey
Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama’s stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy.
Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.
Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version).
The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.
But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”
Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.
New Penalties
Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)
What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.
The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.
Elderly Hardest Hit
Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.
Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).
The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.
In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.
Hidden Provisions
If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.
The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).
Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. “If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,” he said. “The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.”
More Scrutiny Needed
On Friday, President Obama called it “inexcusable and irresponsible” for senators to delay passing the stimulus bill. In truth, this bill needs more scrutiny.
The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It produces almost 17 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. Yet the bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn. This stimulus is dangerous to your health and the economy.
(Betsy McCaughey is former lieutenant governor of New York and is an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The opinions expressed are her own.)
To contact the writer of this column: Betsy McCaughey at Betsymross@aol.com Last Updated: February 9, 2009 00:01 EST
Sunday, February 8, 2009
OC Register Op/Ed piece on the Healthcare Scam in our national politic
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Sally Pipes: Stimulus no fix for health insurance
The stimulus package has money for government health programs, but that's not the way to make coverage more affordable
By SALLY C. PIPES
President, CEO of the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco. Her new book is "The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care: A Citizen's Guide."
Comments 1 Recommended2
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger raised the ire of many in California by calling for $1.1 billion in cuts to Medi-Cal, the state health care program for the poor, as part of an effort to head off a projected $42 billion budget deficit over the next 17 months.
The federal government is now throwing him a lifeline. A cool $32 billion from the massive economic stimulus bill winding its way through Congress was designated for California. About a third of that is earmarked for Medi-Cal relief.
But a bailout of Medicaid (the federal version of Medi-Cal) with no checks and balances to ensure funds are spent as specified only kicks health care reform further down the road. It also shows that both state and federal policy-makers are still falling prey to myriad misconceptions on health policy. Until our leaders gain a hold on what is and isn't true in the health care debate, we'll continue to suffer through ineffective – and often harmful – reform efforts.
Among these myths is the notion that tens of millions of Americans don't have access to health care. The U.S. Census Bureau puts the number of uninsured Americans at 46 million; of those, 6.6 million live in California, according to the California HealthCare Foundation.
But there's more to those figures than meets the eye.
•Fourteen million of the 46 million counted as uninsured nationwide are eligible for Medicaid, Medicare, or SCHIP (a children's program) – they just haven't signed up.
•Thirty-one percent of California's uninsured have annual incomes over $50,000. Nationally, 18 million of the uninsured have household incomes above that level. Is it really fair to count as uninsured folks who can afford policies but have elected not to purchase them?
•Further, 44.7 percent of uninsured Californians are not even American citizens. It's unlikely that even a fully nationalized health system would insure noncitizens.
Throwing more money at Medi-Cal won't address the fundamental reason why many Californians are uninsured. As long as insurance is prohibitively expensive because of mandates and regulations on insurers, people will go without it.
Medi-Cal and Medicare are, in fact, largely responsible for skyrocketing private health insurance premiums because the reimbursement rates for government programs are well below market rates. This means that the privately insured must make up the difference, creating higher costs for everyone not on the government dole. In fact, research shows this hidden tax on those with private insurance adds about 10 percent to premiums.
Here in California, private health care providers subsidized Medicare to the tune of $45 billion in 2004. By shifting so many of its costs to the private sector, Medicare is hardly a model of cost-effectiveness.
So how should we lower health care costs? Many policy-makers believe that updated health information technology is a silver bullet for the task. The federal stimulus package contained about $20 billion for improving America's health IT infrastructure. Gov. Schwarzenegger is on record as stating that health IT "can lead to dramatic savings."
The savings from computerizing medical records sound significant. A RAND Corp. study estimated that revamped health IT would save approximately $77 billion a year nationally.
Unfortunately, those savings would only be realized after 15 years and only if the system were properly implemented. Considering that Americans spend around $2.3 trillion a year on health care, the absolute best-case scenario for cost-savings is about 3.3 percent.
Bailing out failing state programs and investing in dubious initiatives will prove a dead end for health care reform. If lawmakers are serious about lowering health costs, expanding access to care and perhaps even stimulating the economy, they'd be well-served to reform the federal tax code.
Currently, only businesses enjoy a tax deduction for health insurance expenses for their employees who get their insurance paid for with pretax dollars. If that deduction were extended to individuals – or if individuals received a refundable tax credit for purchasing their own insurance – many more would be able to obtain coverage. And costs would go down, as consumers would have the power to shop around for a policy that best meets their needs.
Closer to home, California could abolish its "sick tax" on the contributions individuals make to federally exempt Health Savings Accounts. Today, California is one of four states that taxes contributions to an HSA. Since 2004, Californians have paid some $162 million in unjustified taxes on their HSAs. With those funds, Californians could have saved for future health expenses or shopped around for the best deal on medical services. Instead, their money has been plowed back into the inefficient government system.
Both state and national leaders are interested in using the economic crisis to advance health reform. Whether that's wise is debatable. But it's critical that their deliberations heed the facts of the health care debate. If they don't, we'll continue to suffer through ill-gotten policies that waste time, money and lives and lead us down the path to a government-run health care system – "Medicare for All."
Sally Pipes: Stimulus no fix for health insurance
The stimulus package has money for government health programs, but that's not the way to make coverage more affordable
By SALLY C. PIPES
President, CEO of the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco. Her new book is "The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care: A Citizen's Guide."
Comments 1 Recommended2
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger raised the ire of many in California by calling for $1.1 billion in cuts to Medi-Cal, the state health care program for the poor, as part of an effort to head off a projected $42 billion budget deficit over the next 17 months.
The federal government is now throwing him a lifeline. A cool $32 billion from the massive economic stimulus bill winding its way through Congress was designated for California. About a third of that is earmarked for Medi-Cal relief.
But a bailout of Medicaid (the federal version of Medi-Cal) with no checks and balances to ensure funds are spent as specified only kicks health care reform further down the road. It also shows that both state and federal policy-makers are still falling prey to myriad misconceptions on health policy. Until our leaders gain a hold on what is and isn't true in the health care debate, we'll continue to suffer through ineffective – and often harmful – reform efforts.
Among these myths is the notion that tens of millions of Americans don't have access to health care. The U.S. Census Bureau puts the number of uninsured Americans at 46 million; of those, 6.6 million live in California, according to the California HealthCare Foundation.
But there's more to those figures than meets the eye.
•Fourteen million of the 46 million counted as uninsured nationwide are eligible for Medicaid, Medicare, or SCHIP (a children's program) – they just haven't signed up.
•Thirty-one percent of California's uninsured have annual incomes over $50,000. Nationally, 18 million of the uninsured have household incomes above that level. Is it really fair to count as uninsured folks who can afford policies but have elected not to purchase them?
•Further, 44.7 percent of uninsured Californians are not even American citizens. It's unlikely that even a fully nationalized health system would insure noncitizens.
Throwing more money at Medi-Cal won't address the fundamental reason why many Californians are uninsured. As long as insurance is prohibitively expensive because of mandates and regulations on insurers, people will go without it.
Medi-Cal and Medicare are, in fact, largely responsible for skyrocketing private health insurance premiums because the reimbursement rates for government programs are well below market rates. This means that the privately insured must make up the difference, creating higher costs for everyone not on the government dole. In fact, research shows this hidden tax on those with private insurance adds about 10 percent to premiums.
Here in California, private health care providers subsidized Medicare to the tune of $45 billion in 2004. By shifting so many of its costs to the private sector, Medicare is hardly a model of cost-effectiveness.
So how should we lower health care costs? Many policy-makers believe that updated health information technology is a silver bullet for the task. The federal stimulus package contained about $20 billion for improving America's health IT infrastructure. Gov. Schwarzenegger is on record as stating that health IT "can lead to dramatic savings."
The savings from computerizing medical records sound significant. A RAND Corp. study estimated that revamped health IT would save approximately $77 billion a year nationally.
Unfortunately, those savings would only be realized after 15 years and only if the system were properly implemented. Considering that Americans spend around $2.3 trillion a year on health care, the absolute best-case scenario for cost-savings is about 3.3 percent.
Bailing out failing state programs and investing in dubious initiatives will prove a dead end for health care reform. If lawmakers are serious about lowering health costs, expanding access to care and perhaps even stimulating the economy, they'd be well-served to reform the federal tax code.
Currently, only businesses enjoy a tax deduction for health insurance expenses for their employees who get their insurance paid for with pretax dollars. If that deduction were extended to individuals – or if individuals received a refundable tax credit for purchasing their own insurance – many more would be able to obtain coverage. And costs would go down, as consumers would have the power to shop around for a policy that best meets their needs.
Closer to home, California could abolish its "sick tax" on the contributions individuals make to federally exempt Health Savings Accounts. Today, California is one of four states that taxes contributions to an HSA. Since 2004, Californians have paid some $162 million in unjustified taxes on their HSAs. With those funds, Californians could have saved for future health expenses or shopped around for the best deal on medical services. Instead, their money has been plowed back into the inefficient government system.
Both state and national leaders are interested in using the economic crisis to advance health reform. Whether that's wise is debatable. But it's critical that their deliberations heed the facts of the health care debate. If they don't, we'll continue to suffer through ill-gotten policies that waste time, money and lives and lead us down the path to a government-run health care system – "Medicare for All."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
