January 15th, 2011 by DrWes in Health Policy, Opinion
No Comments »
From CBS News:
President Obama is planning to hand the U.S. Commerce Department authority over a forthcoming cybersecurity effort to create an Internet ID for Americans, a White House official said here today.
It’s “the absolute perfect spot in the U.S. government” to centralize efforts toward creating an “identity ecosystem” for the Internet, White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Howard Schmidt said.
That news, first reported by CNET, effectively pushes the department to the forefront of the issue, beating out other potential candidates including the National Security Agency and the Department of Homeland Security. The move also is likely to please privacy and civil liberties groups that have raised concerns in the past over the dual roles of police and intelligence agencies.
No, they’re not talking about a national ID card, just an international internet ID. The announcement came at an event today at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, where U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and Schmidt spoke. The Obama administration is currently drafting what it’s calling the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace, which Locke said will be released by the president in the next few months. (An early version was publicly released last summer.)
“We are not talking about a national ID card,” Locke said at the Stanford event. “We are not talking about a government-controlled system. What we are talking about is enhancing online security and privacy and reducing and perhaps even eliminating the need to memorize a dozen passwords, through creation and use of more trusted digital identities.”
Imagine: Anyone registered with such a cyber-ID who conferences with their doctor via a “secure server” can also be tracked by the government with such a mechanism. And the issue of not needing more than one password? While convenient, the ramifications of multiple accounts being compromised if a data leak were to occur remains with such a mechanism. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Dr. Wes*
January 10th, 2011 by RyanDuBosar in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News
No Comments »
Repealing healthcare reform has become a way of stockpiling ammunition for the campaign trail. The Republican-led House has scheduled a repeal of healthcare reform for Wednesday, Jan. 12, and they’d garner as allies some but not all 13 Democrats that voted against healthcare reform to begin with. The House’s quixotic vote would then promptly die in the Democrat-held Senate.
But recording votes on repeal would put pressure on already vulnerable lawmakers, as well as give a quick boost to incoming ones. A Gallup poll shows 46 percent of Americans want healthcare reform to be repealed, 40 percent don’t want repeal.
Unfortunately, not only can’t the law be passed, it would add $230 billion to the federal debt by 2021, according to the Congressional Budget Office. House Speaker John Boehner said, “I don’t think anyone in this town believes that repealing Obamacare is going to increase the deficit,” although Republicans have already exempted a repeal of the healthcare law from new rules prohibiting legislation from adding to the federal debt. (Politico, Kansas City Star, [Aurora, Ill.] Beacon-News, USA Today, CNN)
*This blog post was originally published at ACP Internist*
January 10th, 2011 by DavedeBronkart in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News
No Comments »
In December, the Society for Participatory Medicine’s executive committee appointed health law attorney David Harlow to represent the Society in public policy matters. Regular readers of HealthBlawg::David Harlow’s Health Care Law Blog know what a patient-centered, participatory thinker David is. This is his first report.
I am delighted to offer my first report as Public Policy Committee Chair for the Society of Participatory Medicine. I encourage all of you who are not yet Society members to join, and I encourage new and old members to consider volunteering to help with the wide range of public policy issues facing us today.
Over the past couple of months, the Public Policy Committee has gotten its sea legs. We are beginning to add the Society’s voice to the national discourse on patient engagement in a formal manner. As planning for health reform and related initiatives becomes more concrete, it is clear that patient engagement and patient-centeredness are key issues to be considered. For example, it was encouraging to hear Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Don Berwick speak about the “Triple Aim” at the Accountable Care Organization (ACO) workshop this fall, and explicitly link the achievement of the triple aim — better care for individuals, better health for populations, and reduced per-capita costs — to patient engagement and empowerment.
There will be many opportunities for the Society to engage with policymakers, payors and provider organizations as this work continues. CMS and its many related organizations, as well as many provider and private sector payor organizations recognize that without maintaining a focus on the patient at the core, health reform and related health IT initiatives cannot be successful. We’ve kicked things off on two fronts — ACOs and Stage 2 Meaningful Use rules. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at e-Patients.net*
January 3rd, 2011 by EvanFalchukJD in Health Policy, Opinion
No Comments »
Unconstitutional? How can the mandate to buy health insurance be unconstitutional? It must be some kind of misguided resistance to progressivism. Or maybe it’s someone finally taking a stand against a power-grabbing government program.
But it’s actually about something else entirely. And if you don’t know what it is, you won’t understand why the Virginia court ruled the way it did. Here’s the secret:
The U.S. Constitution grants to the federal government certain powers. These are things like raising an army, controlling currency and establishing courts. It also gives it the power to regulate interstate commerce, through something called the “Commerce Clause.” Everything else is the domain of the states.
Notice that the Commerce Clause only gives the federal government power over interstate commerce. The word “interstate,” in 1789, was probably easy to understand. Since the original 13 states were more like little countries, than part of one big country, the idea of trading goods from one state to another was identifiable as a special kind of thing. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at See First Blog*
November 29th, 2010 by Shadowfax in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News, Opinion, Research
No Comments »
GOP hardliners soon to be in control of the House have made repeal of the detested healthcare reform law a cornerstone of their agenda, despite the impossibility of actually being able to repeal it, politically, at least until an election or two has passed, and despite the fact that their ascent to power had more to do with the terrible economy and high unemployment than any mandate to repeal the law.
It seems that, finally, there may be movement towards increased public support for the law. A new McClatchy poll shows a majority of Americans now in favor of the law:
A majority of Americans want the Congress to keep the new health care law or actually expand it, despite Republican claims that they have a mandate from the people to kill it, according to a new McClatchy-Marist poll.
The post-election survey showed that 51 percent of registered voters want to keep the law or change it to do more, while 44 percent want to change it to do less or repeal it altogether.
Driving support for the law: Voters by margins of 2-1 or greater want to keep some of its best-known benefits, such as barring insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. One thing they don’t like: the mandate that everyone must buy insurance.
Of course, it is the mandate that makes the whole thing hang together. And it’s hardly news that people like the individual provisions and protections found within the law. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Movin' Meat*
