<<<<< (from this post) treatment a doctor and patient deem advisable to save that patient’s life or preserve or improve the patient’s health, but which exceeds the standard imposed by the government, will be denied even if the patient is willing and able to pay for it
With all the talk surrounding the constitutionality of
ObamaCare, no one is really looking at the details of the bill,
itself. What is much more troubling, in my opinion,
than the individual mandate, whether via "commerce" or
the power to tax without representation, is the very existence of the
Independent Payment Advisory Board ( IPAB for short). This is Sarah Palin's "death
panel" and it is as real as rain. In my memory, Governor Palin
was the first to tell us about this board. While you can find information
telling you which section of ObamaCare created this board, the fact of
the matter remains that this 15 member panel of non-medical types was created and funded in the Stimulus Act of 2009,
a full year before ObamaCare became law. It's sole reason for existence is the containment medical costs and its power to do so is nearly unlimited, as per the dictation of the ObamaCare Tax Act.
One of the more
egregious elements embedded within the power structure of IPAB is its
independence. Congress cannot amend an IPAB decision except by a 3/5
majority vote (it only takes a 2/3 vote to amend the Constitution and you
know how often that happens). For all practical purposes, then,
this advisory board's decisions are not reviewable, certainly not amendable. And, like the EPA,
neither are its decisions subject to judicial review. Judiciary review
is expressly prohibited by the reform law.
The board's sole responsibility is to control costs. The ObamaCare tax law provides for IPAB
directives that limit what ordinary citizens and their health insurance
coverage can pay for medical treatment so as to prevent it from keeping up with
the rate of medical inflation.
To implement these recommendations, the federal Department of Health and Human Services is empowered to impose so-called “quality” and “efficiency” measures on health care providers. Doctors who violate a “quality” standard by prescribing more lifesaving medical treatment than it permits will be disqualified from contracting with any of the health insurance plans that individual Americans, under the Obama Health Care Law, will be mandated to purchase. Few doctors would be able to remain in practice if subjected to that penalty.
This means that treatment a doctor and patient deem advisable to save that patient’s life or preserve or improve the patient’s health, but which exceeds the standard imposed by the government, will be denied even if the patient is willing and able to pay for it. Obama Health Care Law specifically directs the board to make “recommendations to slow the growth in national health expenditures” for private—not just governmentally funded—dollars devoted to health care. These recommendations are supposed to limit what ordinary citizens and their health insurance coverage can pay for medical treatment to force it below the rate of medical inflation.
To implement these recommendations, the federal Department of Health and Human Services is empowered to impose so-called “quality” and “efficiency” measures on health care providers. Doctors who violate a “quality” standard by prescribing more lifesaving medical treatment than it permits will be disqualified from contracting with any of the health insurance plans that individual Americans, under the Obama Health Care Law, will be mandated to purchase. Few doctors would be able to remain in practice if subjected to that penalty.
This means that treatment a doctor and patient deem advisable to save that patient’s life or preserve or improve the patient’s health, but which exceeds the standard imposed by the government, will be denied even if the patient is willing and able to pay for it. Obama Health Care Law specifically directs the board to make “recommendations to slow the growth in national health expenditures” for private—not just governmentally funded—dollars devoted to health care. These recommendations are supposed to limit what ordinary citizens and their health insurance coverage can pay for medical treatment to force it below the rate of medical inflation.
Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics/ Mona Charen/ J Smithson./
____________________
End Notes:
http://digg.com/newsbar/Politics/obamacare_explained_very_well_via_reddit_com
ReplyDeleteFrom what I can read, the general conservative consensus with regard to a revised healthcare plan, we have this (from the conservatives):
ReplyDeletePre-existing conditions are "in."
Moving the age of family coverage to age 26 from age 22 cost the insurance companies next to nothing, so it is "in."
Contraception is already as cheap as cheap can be.
And the GOP will actually address affordability, something Obama did not do.
The 30 million now "covered," these will go into Medicare/Medicaid. I am 67 and I know something about Medicare. as a program, it 39 trillion in the hole. Stealing half a trillion from Medicare as Obama did, adding 30 million to the program and making no provisions for the tens of thousands of additional doctors needed for this program is an idiot's plan. If you think medicare is THE answer, then you are the one who does not understand America, my friend.
Personally, I want the GOP to solve this healthcare problem. For darned sure, the Democrats do no understand how. Like I keep saying, they don't even know how to author a working budget.
Paul, your link failed me on my first effort, but it took me to the site you had in mind, on my next effort. Without getting into any of the mechanics of this new tax law, I want to demonstrate just how nonsensical is the writing of this law - no wonder no one read the thing before it was passed by the Democrats. Here is a portion of the law. As you read, imagine 2,700 pages of this gibberish and know that the panels described in the following are non-medical in their composition. Also, not one word of the following was written by a doctor or anyone in the medical profession. Understand that as one reads the larger tax law, the word "doctor" is hard to find. I am not sure the word appears in the document, certainly not in a majority sense and this is supposedly a medical bill. Clearly,this medical tax law should have, at least, been reviewed by medical personnel, but no, that did not happen.
ReplyDeletefrom page 669 in the Obama Care Tax Law Concerning Medical Expending and Frugal Patient Care, found here: http://digg.com/newsbar/Politics/obamacare_explained_very_well_via_reddit_com
My comments are bracketed.
‘‘(c) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the Institute is to assist patients, clinicians, purchasers, and policy-makers
[no "doctors." Understand that the use of the word "doctor" would require a doctor. While "clinicians" allows for "doctors," such is not required. Obama intends to use nurses and health care providers INSTEAD of doctors]
in making informed health decisions by advancing the quality and relevance of evidence
[relevance as relates to the opinion of unqualified, not medical types concerning matters of cost control and compliance]
concerning the manner in which diseases, disorders, and other health conditions can effectively and appropriately be prevented, diagnosed, treated, monitored, and managed through research and evidence synthesis that considers variations in patient subpopulations, and the dissemination of research findings with respect to the relative health outcomes, clinical effectiveness, and appropriateness of the medical treatments, services, and items described in subsection (a)(2)(B).
‘‘(d) DUTIES.—
‘‘(1) IDENTIFYING RESEARCH PRIORITIES AND ESTABLISHING
RESEARCH PROJECT AGENDA.—
[at the top of the list, "priorities" include cost issues as the first consideration]
‘‘(A) IDENTIFYING RESEARCH PRIORITIES.—The Institute
shall identify national priorities for research, taking into
account factors of disease incidence, prevalence, and burden in the United States (with emphasis on chronic conditions),
[again, "burden" has much more to do with cost than it does with "chronic conditions" ]
gaps in evidence in terms of clinical outcomes, practice variations and health disparities in terms of delivery and outcomes of care, the potential for new evidence to improve patient health, well-being, and the quality of care, the effect on national expenditures associated with a health care treatment, strategy, or health conditions, as . . . . . .
[What is critical, here, is that clinical outcomes and "disparities in terms of delivery and outcomes of care" have nothing to do with the patient's doctor . . . . . . nothing. And, in every case in this tax law, the doctor is omitted from the actual decision making process. In the doctor's private practice of medicine, he no longer is free to make diagnosis that is not prescribed by a non-medical board of supervisors.]