September 1st, 2009 by RamonaBatesMD in Better Health Network, Opinion
Tags: Abortion, Healthcare reform, Obstetrics And Gynecology, Primary Care, Unintended Pregnancy
No Comments »
I’m going to wade right in here. I am not a fan of abortions, but neither am I of amputations. Both are sometimes necessary. To me, too often abortion opponents forget the mother. She is a life present before us. Her care should not be forgotten.
I have been listening and reading the discussions over how the abortion coverage may sink health care reform. I think it would be a shame if this one issue does sink reform.
If my understanding of the Hyde Amendment (and it’s amendments over the years) is correct the Federal Government covers the cost of abortions in cases of rape or incest or when the life of the mother is at risk. It does not cover the cost when the health of the mother is at risk:
With these bans, the federal government turns its back on women who need abortions for their health. Women with cancer, diabetes, or heart conditions, or whose pregnancies otherwise threaten their health, are denied coverage for abortions. Only if a woman would otherwise die, or if her pregnancy results from rape or incest, is an abortion covered. The bans thus put many women’s health in jeopardy.
I agree with opponents who do not wish to cover abortions for simply any reason (i.e. the timing for a pregnancy is not good, etc). Abortion should never be used for birth control. That should be done using birth control pills, condoms, abstinence, etc.
Currently, the only abortions available under Medicaid are the ones mentioned above. I think it’s a shame that distinctions can not be made to provide coverage for a woman who’s HEALTH would be negatively affected by her pregnancy. All insurance policies should do so in my opinion.
Opponents of abortion want language that would prohibit any private insurance company that accepts federal funds from offering to policyholders abortions other than those already eligible under Medicaid.
Sources
How Abortion Could Imperil Health-Care Reform by Michael Scherer; Monday, Aug. 24, 2009; Times.com
What is the Hyde Amendment? (July 21, 2004); ACLU
*This blog post was originally published at Suture for a Living*
August 31st, 2009 by MotherJonesRN in Better Health Network, Opinion
Tags: Democrat, Government-run Healthcare, Healthcare reform, Howard Dean, Nurse Ratched's Place, Nursing
No Comments »
I hate it when I can’t get into conversations that are happening on my own blog. My job at UGH (undisclosed government hospital) has a way of getting in the way of my real life. Jeanne T. has asked a lot of valid questions about healthcare reform. She also asked me to answer some of her questions. Here we go:
Have you read HR: 3200?
I have not read all of H.R. 3200 – America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. Reading War and Peace is more entertaining than reading a congressional bill, so I only got through about 150 pages of text before my brain cells started imploding. However, I did learn a few things about the proposed legislation. No one is going to kill your grandma or reduce Medicare benefits. This new legislation will save money by cutting billions of dollars in overpayments to insurance companies and eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse. Maybe that’s why the insurance industry is spending billions of dollars to defeat this bill.
Question: Do you currently have money taken out of your paycheck
for Social Security?
Do you believe that you will receive Social Security assistance when you pass the age of 65, 70?
What is the reason that you and I will not receive Social Security checks?
Answer: Do I have money taken out of my check for Social Security? Is the Pope Catholic? The good people at UGH take money out of my check every two weeks for Social Security, and I know that I’ll never see that money again.
I’m a nurse for life, which means I’m not going to retire. In other words, I’m going to die with my Nurse Mates on. Unfortunately, I believe that my peers are going to receive meager monthly social security checks after they retire. I know where you are heading with this question. “If the government can’t run the Social Security Administration, what makes you think that they can run a public health care system?” It’s all President Franklin Roosevelt’s fault. The social security system is the ultimate Ponzi scheme, and Roosevelt set it up as a safety net to help out old folks just before they died. The average life expectancy back when Social Security was set up was around 60 years old. President Roosevelt got messed up because he thought he we would always have more money coming in than going out. He didn’t know that our life expectancy was going to go up, and he had no idea that future administrations were going to tack on more entitlement programs. Now Roosevelt’s Ponzi scheme is out of control, not so much because of government mismanagement, but because we aren’t dying off quick enough to make the system work. Hey, wait a minute. Maybe we need to rethink those death panels. Just sayin’.
Question: Can the US government run a public health insurance agency?
Answer: Yes, I believe our government can do whatever we have the will to do. We put a man on the moon didn’t we? If those blood sucking, profit driven, insurance companies who make their money by keeping us away from healthcare providers can run insurance companies, why can the US government? Uncle Sam wants to keep us around until we’re too old to work so we can keep paying into the social security system. See above.
Question: How do you feel about politicians writing healthcare reform versus healthcare professionals?
Answer: I think that healthcare providers are in a better position to understand the lingo and the fine details that go into healthcare bills, but that doesn’t necessarily make them more trustworthy when they champion causes. The letters “MD” does not mean anything if the person lacks integrity. In my opinion, Dr Howard Dean is a man of great integrity. By the way, there are three nurses in Congress: Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), and Lois Capps (D- CA). I’ve had the honor of meeting each one of these fine ladies. They rock! Johnson and Capps support public option healthcare reform. McCarthy’s website reports that she supports H.R. 3200 – America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.
That’s it for part one. I’ll write part two later. Like I said, working at UGH has a way of getting in the way of my personal life. It’s been nice talking to you. Keep the conversation going while I’m working this weekend at UGH.
*This blog post was originally published at Nurse Ratched's Place*
August 31st, 2009 by DrRich in Better Health Network, Health Policy, Opinion
Tags: Advance Directives, Death Panels, End Of Life Care, HR 3200, Medical Orders, Section 1233
No Comments »
DrRich does not visit Facebook, much less have a page there. This is because his college-aged children have informed him that he is too old for Facebook. (They tell him that Twitter is the appropriate social network for people of his age, whose brains are clogged with moraines of proteinaceous deposits left by a receding intellect, a pathology which causes the old dears to go off on wild tangents whenever they have more than 140 characters to work with. “Just look at your blog, Dad,” they point out.)
In any case, having not personally viewed Sarah Palin’s Facebook page, DrRich is not sure whether she specifically identified Section 1233 of the House healthcare reform bill – the part of the bill dealing with “Advance Care Planning Consultation” – as the specific hiding place of the now-famous “death panels.”
But whether or not Ms. Palin herself pointed to Section 1233, that’s the section most politicians and most commentators assumed she was talking about (presumably based on the observation that 1233 mentions the words “end-of-life care”). And subsequently, in an attempt to appease the rising anger of the multitude, our elected representatives announced they have decided to remove this offending section from any pending healthcare legislation.
And of course, this decision itself has created a backlash. Supporters of Section 1233 – including many physicians, most advocates of thoughtful end-of-life planning, and all critics of Ms. Palin (who would find it objectionable if she found a cure for cancer) – point out that end-of-life planning in general, and Section 1233 in particular, have nothing whatever to do with death panels. They insist that Section 1233 is badly needed, as it would encourage valuable discussions between doctors and patients on issues related to end-of-life care.
DrRich agrees there are no death panels in Section 1233. He also agrees that encouraging discussions on end-of-life care between patients and their doctors ought to be a good thing. And if it were not for covert healthcare rationing he would probably be enthusiastic about it.
But recall that covert rationing is the “dark matter” of the healthcare universe; it’s the unseen stuff that binds together all the far-flung parts into a coherent whole, and explains all the otherwise inexplicably bizarre behaviors we observe there. Covert rationing corrupts everything it touches, even the good things. So anti-fraud efforts are corrupted into bludgeons to force doctors to place strict compliance with absurd processes above patient care. And clinical guidelines (ostensibly tools to inform and advise clinicians) are corrupted into ruthlessly enforced and legally binding clinical directives from on high.
As a general proposition, we should be vigilant for disguised efforts to corrupt what is useful and good about our healthcare system into instruments of covert rationing. And so we should be concerned about potential mischief from Section 1233 even though it contains no death panels.
Almost as a matter of principle, we should be suspicious whenever public officials desperate to reduce healthcare costs suddenly become passionate and vocal advocates for preserving the individual patient’s autonomy. In this case, we should closely examine our leaders’ enthusiasm for end-of-life planning. For it looks to DrRich like Section 1233 attempts to convert the relatively benign instrument of advance directives into something potentially much more ominous.
In concept, advance directives are good things. Advance directives allow patients to establish beforehand, generally by means of a written document, what types of medical treatments they would want and not want should they develop a serious, life-threatening illness that leaves them unable to express their wishes. Advance directives are supposed to provide guidance to physicians who, functioning in their fiduciary capacity, are charged with acting in their patients’ best interests, even if the patient can no longer express a preference.
Advance directives can spare patients from being subjected to treatments they would consider demeaning, undignified, wasteful, painful or otherwise undesirable should they become incapacitated at a later date. Therefore, well-constructed advance directives should always operate to preserve the individual patient’s autonomy.
However, advance directives are often less than perfect. In particular, they may express a patient’s imperfect knowledge, or they may be imperfectly expressed.
A relatively young and robust individual often cannot know how he/she will feel a couple of decades into the future, when illness strikes and it is time to exercise an advance directive. This imperfect knowledge is a function of human nature. When you poll people with the question, “On a scale of 1 to 10, what value would you assign to the quality of your life if you were permanently confined to a wheelchair?” you will get a much different answer if you ask able-bodied individuals than if you ask people who actually are confined to a wheelchair. The same thing holds when you ask different age groups how they would value life as an elderly, partially incapacitated person. Young people might say they would clearly find life no longer worth living; old people more often are happy enough to go on with their imperfect life as long as they can. Healthy and young people often view the prospects of disability or advanced age with horror; those who actually become disabled (or old) most often find continued meaning there; often they’ll even tell you they have found a more focused and profound sense of meaning than when they were young and healthy.
So there is an inherent risk in signing an advance directive at an age and in a state of health when it may be difficult to visualize how you will actually feel about life years hence, “when the time comes.”
Furthermore, advance directives may contain unavoidable ambiguities that will require interpretation at the time they are acted upon. For instance, many advance directives contain language to the effect that a patient might want to avoid, say, being attached to a ventilator “unless there is a reasonable expectation of a meaningful recovery.” In the heat of battle, what’s a reasonable expectation? What’s a meaningful recovery? How does a physician interpret this language in an elderly patient who has just had a big stroke and needs a ventilator, and in whom (with a ventilator) there’s a 70% chance of surviving, but an 80% chance of recovering with a permanent paralysis? Is this a reasonable expectation of a meaningful recovery?
Experienced doctors know that for a patient who is currently incapacitated and unable to express a preference, a prior advance directive may not perfectly express their present ideas about aggressive treatments, and even if it does, it likely expresses them with some degree of ambiguity. So the doctor may take many other factors into account – their personal knowledge of the patient, the opinions of close family members as to what the patient would want done, and the odds of a long-term recovery if the aggressive therapy being considered is used. Then the physician will negotiate with responsible family members to find an approach that seems most nearly to meet the patient’s presumed desires. The advance directive is often extremely important in making these decisions, but it is not necessarily definitive. The appropriate use of an advance directive requires the doctor to act as a true patient advocate, to selflessly place the desires expressed in the written directive in context with everything else that might affect the patient’s wishes, and then make a recommendation that, to the best of his/her ability, honors those wishes.
The point being that advance directives are not designed – and cannot be designed – to be strictly enforced. They are documents that virtually always will require some degree of interpretation on the scene.
But the appropriate use of advance directives becomes problematic under a system of covert rationing.
Insurance companies have conducted major PR campaigns to push advance directives. And the federal government (even without Section 1233) requires Medicare-certified hospitals to inform all patients about advance directives at the time of every hospital admission. (This is usually done by the admissions clerk who takes your insurance information and has you sign all the releases and forms that give the hospital permission to treat you. These clerks are often fine people, but their explanation of the legally-required advance directive document too often takes the form, “This is a paper that tells the doctors not to keep you alive on a machine like a vegetable.”)
One would have to be credulous indeed to believe that the enthusiasm with which the feds and insurance companies have embraced advance directives arises from their fervor for the patient’s autonomy and personal dignity. Their enthusiasm clearly stems from their desire to cut costs, especially costs at the end-of-life.
But despite years of efforts by the government and insurers, the results have greatly disappointed them. The large majority of Americans have not succumbed to all the overtures urging them to adopt advance directives as a means of protecting their end-of-life autonomy against the greedy and unfeeling physicians, who will always insist on torturing them to the bitter end.
Some insurers have reacted to this disappointment by adopting somewhat more coercive approaches, offering, for instance, to refuse to reimburse doctors and hospitals that provide care against the wishes expressed in an advance directive (thus making advance directives a binding document rather than a general expression of desires). Furthermore, for years physicians have been generally coerced into placing the interests of the third party payers first, which at least threatens to influence how they will interpret the inevitable ambiguities in advance directives. So, as sad as it is to say it, as long as we are operating within a regime of covert healthcare rationing, patients should consider adopting advance directives only very circumspectly, if at all.
DrRich believes that Section 1233 threatens to greatly magnify this problem. Section 1233 “allows” the physician or nurse practitioner providing the end-of-life counseling to fashion an “actionable medical order” that expresses the patient’s desires related to end-of-life care. This order will be widely distributed “across the continuum of care” (presumably electronically, so that everybody taking care of this patient, anywhere and forever, will know about this order).
This, it seems to DrRich, is the real problem with Section 1233, though it is a problem he has not heard anybody else mention. Section 1233 takes the advance directive, which ideally is a guidance document that the physician ought to take into strong consideration when deciding what treatments to offer a patient who is very sick and incapacitated, and converts it into an “actionable medical order.”
A medical order is not subject to interpretation. It’s an order.
Now, DrRich has never heard before – in all his many years in medicine – of an “actionable” medical order. But “actionable” is a legal term of art that indicates that a particular circumstance is appropriate for legal action. So Section 1233 at least implies that a doctor who elects to follow the sense rather than the letter of this actionable medical order (as one does in dealing with a mere advance directive) may be exposing herself to a lawsuit or other legal action, if not by the patient or patient’s family, then by the government.
Furthermore, DrRich finds it notable that Section 1233 does not say or imply that this actionable medical order is to be invoked only if the patient is incapacitated (which is the case for advance directives). What happens, under Section 1233, if a presently sick patient seems to be of sound mind, and (as not infrequently happens) wants to change his mind when push comes to shove? It would not be inconsistent with Section 1233 to treat the actionable order as legally mandatory even under this circumstance.
And for a doctor on the scene to change that actionable medical order, and replace it with a new one that expresses the patient’s present wishes, might not be a simple or straightforward matter. For Section 1233 also spells out what particular steps must be taken to produce a legal, actionable end-of-life order. This detailed process may be fine if it is undertaken when the patient is completely healthy, and time is not of the essence, and there is no active emergency going on. But what if time is a factor in a presently sick patient who wants to change the order? What if that patient is of sound mind, but ill enough that he does not have the luxury to sit through the procedures prescribed in Section 1233? Would it be possible to legally change this patient’s prior actionable medical order under these circumstances?
Now, DrRich is fully aware that supporters of HR 3200, and especially supporters of Section 1233, will call him a confabulationist for dreaming up this interpretation of the proposed law.
But this interpretation, DrRich submits, is entirely consistent with the actual language in the bill. DrRich also finds it consistent with the spirit of 15 years of efforts, by government and the insurance industry, to browbeat doctors into making all their medical decisions with the strictest possible interpretations of legal, regulatory and financial rules foremost in their minds, whatever that may mean to patient care. And it is certainly consistent with covert rationing.
Section 1233 offers to create a new legal and regulatory consideration – the actionable medical order – that must be navigated when one is interpreting patients’ end-of-life wishes. This new consideration, viewed in the context of a growing desperation to reduce spending on end-of-life care, throws a whole new light on what is currently called an advance directive.
Apparently (for who knows what the legislators will end up doing?), Section 1233 is no longer going to be included in a final healthcare reform bill. But DrRich finds it implausible that provisions similar to those found in Section 1233 will disappear altogether. Perhaps they will re-appear as a last-minute amendment to a farm subsidy bill, or to Cap and Trade legislation, or to a Congressional tribute to Billy Mays. One way or another, similar language is likely to show up again in legislation, and likely it will still provide for actionable end-of-life orders, or some other form of advance directives on steroids.
Until these questions are finally sorted out by our elected representatives, DrRich will tell anyone who asks him that they need to be extremely careful when somebody approaches with an offer to counsel them on their end-of-life rights, so as to preserve their end-of-life autonomy. Beware healthcare workers bearing clipboards.
*This blog post was originally published at The Covert Rationing Blog*
August 30th, 2009 by DrRob in Better Health Network, Opinion
Tags: Flu, H1N1, Infectious Disease, Influenza, Primary Care
No Comments »
My newest podcast is up on iTunes (go here for the web-based version). It’s the first of a two (maybe more) part series on influenza – covering flu in general. We have been seeing a significant number of cases of the flu over the past week, which is extremely unusual for this time of year. Epidemic flu goes around between November and Late April, with sporadic cases appearing at other times. What we have seen so far is not sporadic, so it probably represents pandemic flu (H1N1).
I did a poll on Facebook, asking what people thought of the H1N1 situation. The overwhelming majority responded that they felt the press and the government were hyping it way too much. This really surprised me – not that people would think that, but that a majority of people felt this was the case. It may have related to how the question was phrased or what the other choices were, but still this number betrays a lack of worry about the H1N1 virus.
This worries me.
I don’t think the fear of the H1N1 is misplaced. The normal flu kills over 30,000 people per year, and the H1N1 is expected to infect 3 times more people than the usual flu (for reasons I will go into in the next podcast). The implication of this is that even if this flu is “nothing special” it will kill over 90,000. Put in perspective, prostate cancer killed 27,000 men and breast cancer killed 41,000 women in 2008. A “normal” potency H1N1 virus could then kill more than both of these combined.
Thankfully, the cases we’ve seen so far have not been severe, but still there have been 522 deaths already from the H1N1 in the US. But in 1918, the virus mutated around this time of year and became significantly more deadly. I think those who get it now are actually probably fortunate.
The warnings about pandemic influenza are not hype. But the cynicism about the government and the press are widespread. Some of the more “unconventional” thought (read into that word generously) espouse conspiracies by the government. Here’s one example of this:
It’s man-made. It can be used as a biological weapon. It was developed as an AIDS vaccine-related organism. It was extracted from AIDS patients. It is responsible for virtually all of the symptoms which AIDS patients suffer from. The AIDS virus is at best a co-factor, and not even such a strong co-factor as to bring on all of the symptoms of AIDS. This particular organism, the micoplasma, is associated with this upper respiratory flu-like illness. And it’s also associated in its pathogenic process with a whole variety of other symptoms that mimic AIDS.
This guy is totally nuts extreme, but the theories on the Internet of this flavor abound.
Unfortunately, the religious right Obama-haters have seized on this as anything from a means to push universal health to a weapon to sterilize the US populace. I can assure you that this has nothing to do with Biblical thought and everything to do with the vulnerability of some people to fear-mongering. I even had one patient ask me what I thought about the sterilization theory. I reassured her that I had just gotten mine – although sterilization is no longer an issue for me as it has already been done with my consent. She laughed and went ahead with the vaccine.
But less extreme people still feel this is far too much hype for the severity of the disease. This scrutiny puts the CDC in a bad situation. The only thing that would vindicate their dire warnings is the exact thing they are trying to prevent: a deadly pandemic. Conversely, the more they succeed in preventing this problem, the more people will cast aspersions on them.
Take it seriously, folks. It’s like a massive storm forming in the tropics – it could be deadly and it could be a dud. Either way, we need to do whatever it takes to minimize the damage.
*This blog post was originally published at Musings of a Distractible Mind*
August 30th, 2009 by DrWes in Better Health Network, Opinion
Tags: Healthcare reform, Obama, Politics
No Comments »
“There are few people who are not ashamed of their love affairs when the infatuation is over.”
– François, Duc De La Rochefoucauld
The end of an infatuation is always rather sad – we have many expressions for it, “the bloom is off the rose” comes to mind. Falling out of love is often a moment of maturity, a moment of coming out of an illusion – never wholly welcome.
We have had many decades of uncritical, wholesale adolescent-style adoration, heartbreak and hate towards our politicians. We have been capable of sustaining illusions and uncritical thought with support from a similarly dazzled media. This has been done for years on both sides of the aisle. This kind of idealism says that we have finally found the man (party) who will (choose one) solve our problems, understand us, have complete integrity, be able to function in a trustworthy and honest fashion. This idealism comforted us by putting some in black hats and some in white. The comforts of certainty, zeal and clarity, even if untrue, are hard to resist. How long we can sustain this with any one politician or party depends on the filter we have, and how much attention we are paying. This is how crushes are sustained, in romance and in politics.
There are signs on the ground that we are beginning to grow up. We are beginning to understand that the corruption, self-interest, special interests and spin exist symbiotically on both sides of the aisle. With the deeply personal debate on health care and its associated reform costs, our need for honesty and successful policy to save our country is suddenly more important to us than the comfort of bedtime stories. This is political maturity.
What are the signs of this? Take for example, the publics’ realization that our representatives have not read a bill in its entirety. This conversation did not even occur as little as ten years ago – we assumed a level of expertise by our elected officials, or we didn’t care, but somehow, and this is the point, the illusion was maintained. In retrospect, I would imagine few bills were ever read page by page – and that the fact that they are not now is nothing new. What is new is that we now care about this. What is new is that we now see that legislation has a direct impact upon us. What is new is that we realize this congressional neglect shelters corruption in the form of deals, earmarks and policy that the public would not support if there was transparency. And we now see that there is transparency not provided by a beneficent body of elected officials or trusted news sources, but rather there is transparency because of the internet. It is unprecedented that we can summon chapter and verse of any bill onto our own computer – almost in real time.
This is a game-changer.
We are now (as voters) in a position to demand that legislation (including I daresay health-care reform) occur in incremental, transparent, understandable terms that voting citizens can vet themselves. Not thousands of pages of nearly incomprehensible gobbledygook. Anything short of that has become unacceptable, in part because we are also now able to contact our representatives at a moments notice. In years to come, we will now look back and see the final lipstick-on-the-collar moment in our relationship with Congress as the ramming through of the unread, un-vetted Stimulus Package.
The bloom is off the rose. It’s time for a new kind of politics: a mature, unprecedented realism.
Politicians should dismiss the public as “not ready for this” at their own risk.
“When patterns are broken, new worlds can emerge.”
-Tuli Kupferberg
*This blog post was originally published at Dr. Wes*
