Priced Out The Economic and Ethical Costs of American Health Care Uwe E. Reinhardt; Reviewed by Christopher M. Hughes, MD

Stunning Healthcare Overture from Bipartisan Group of US Senators – 2007

Healthcare Legislation in This Congress? – Michael Barone (usnews.com)

I followed Ezra Klein’s link to this letter from 10 Senators, 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats, written just two years before President Obama took office! Read it, as it is stunning how far the Republican Choo Choo has gone around the bend. [Courtesy USNews.com and Michael Barone.]

Now Wyden and nine other senators, five Democrats and five Republicans, have sent the following letter to Bush. Very interesting.

In addition to Wyden, the letter was signed by Republicans Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Robert Bennett of Utah, Trent Lott of Mississippi, Mike Crapo of Idaho, and John Thune of South Dakota, and Democrats Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Ken Salazar of Colorado, Maria Cantwell of Washington, and Herb Kohl of Wisconsin.

The text of the letter follows:

February 13, 2007

The Honorable George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:

As U.S. Senators of both political parties we would like to work with you and your Administration to fix the American health care system.
Each of us believes our current health system needs to be fixed now. Further delay is unacceptable as costs continue to skyrocket, our population ages, and chronic illness increases. In addition, our businesses are at a severe disadvantage when their competitors in the global market get health care for “free.”
We would like to work with you and your Administration to pass legislation in this Congress that would:
1)Ensure that all Americans would have affordable, quality, private health coverage, while protecting current government programs. We believe the health care system cannot be fixed without providing solutions for everyone. Otherwise, the costs of those without insurance will continue to be shifted to those who do have coverage.
2)Modernize Federal tax rules for health coverage. Democratic and Republican economists have convinced us that the current rules disproportionately favor the most affluent, while promoting inefficiency.
3)Create more opportunities and incentives for states to design health solutions for their citizens. Many state officials are working in their state legislatures to develop fresh, creative strategies for improving health care, and we believe any legislation passed in this Congress should not stymie that innovation.
4)Take steps to create a culture of wellness through prevention strategies, rather than perpetuating our current emphasis on sick care. For example, Medicare Part A pays thousands of dollars in hospital expenses, while Medicare Part B provides no incentives for seniors to reduce blood pressure or cholesterol. Employers, families, and all our constituents want emphasis on prevention and wellness.
5)Encourage more cost-effective chronic and compassionate end-of-life care. Studies show that an increase in health care spending does not always mean an increase in quality of outcomes. All Americans should be empowered to make decisions about their end of life care, not be forced into hospice care without other options. We hope to work with you on policies that address these issues.
6)Improve access to information on price and quality of health services. Today, consumers have better accessto information about the price and quality of washing machines than on the price and quality of health services.
We disagree with those who say the Senate is too divided and too polarized to pass comprehensive health care legislation. We disagree with those who believe that this issue should not come up until after the next presidential election. We disagree with those who want to wait when the American people are saying, loud and clear, “We want to fix health care now.”
We look forward to working with you in a bipartisan manner in the days ahead.

Skyrocketing costs! Competetive disadvantage! Universal access to health care! Class warfare! Inefficient US health care! Wellness! Prevention! Cost effectiveness! Compassionate end of life care! Expanding palliative care services! Health care in the US is broken!

Who knew Jim DeMint was a socialist before he was a Tea-Partier?

Money or Your Life – NYTimes.com

Critics of the Affordable Care Act argue that many Americans neither want nor need health insurance, and that it forces them to pay for coverage against their will. But just as the government collects taxes to pay police officers and firefighters, the individual mandate compels Americans to pay for a service they may not immediately want but could at any time desperately require.

Much of the debate has focused on the role of government in everyday life. I don’t discount the value of that question, but my focus is on real needs. I treat patients with $20,000 chemotherapy injections or monthly doses of IV immunotherapy that cost $10,000 a bag. If they don’t receive these drugs my patients will die, so to me, the most pressing issue here is compassion. Without change, the patients will resemble the man with leukemia, human beings without insurance terrified that their lives aren’t worth what it will cost to save them, all because of a broken but fixable system.

Crowds at conservative rallies have, astoundingly, cheered the idea that uninsured people should, if they become ill or badly hurt, be left for dead. It’s easy to imagine such a thing in the heat of a rhetorical moment. But the reality is, I hope, harder to embrace. Because reality means a real person — you, me, someone we know — condemned to a possibly preventable death because, for whatever reason, they don’t have insurance.

My patient with leukemia is dead. He got the best care money could buy, but his disease only briefly went into remission and he went home on hospice care. Should he, because he did not buy insurance, have been denied this chance for a cure?

The Affordable Care Act is not the health care solution everyone wants, but when patients wish for death panels as a response to leukemia, something needs to be done, and soon. This plan would help any patient facing a tough diagnosis not view treatment as a choice between his money or his life.

Theresa Brown is an oncology nurse and the author of “Critical Care: A New Nurse Faces Death, Life, and Everything in Between.”

I have had similar discussions with those who are not in healthcare as their profession. They cannot seem to see the distinction between cutting people off who did not buy insurance, for whatever reason, and actually carrying out this virtual death sentence. We, as medical professionals, just cannot do this. Therefore, we need to figure out how to have universal access to care and universal insurance coverage. ObamaCare is a very good start.

Professionalism, the Invisible Hand, and a Necessary Reconfi… : Academic Medicine

Our third duty in the Charter on Medical Professionalism is to be good stewards of resources. This brief article makes the case for explicit and detailed education for medical students on this critical aspect of health care.

The first two months of medical school (with preexisting courses taxed to create this curricular space) will be devoted to the economics of care. This block will involve multiple pedagogical approaches from traditional didactics and problem-based learning to simulation and social networking. Instructors will range from topic experts to patients and members of the public whose lives are being bludgeoned by health costs. Preceptorships will be community based and will focus on student experiences in educating the public on the cost of both schooling and health care. Once this competency is mastered, students will begin to meet with patients upon discharge (clinic or hospital) to explain all charges. There will be no traditional “patient care” contact until students are fully able to decode and explain the highly cryptic billing statements that encumber patients. As students enter the biomedical side of their training, patient meetings will begin to add explanations of diagnoses and treatment options to those of cost. No student will be admitted to the care side of the educational continuum until he or she is fully able to explain to patients what has been done to them and why. As students move into residency training, they periodically will be shifted from their clinical responsibilities into the discharge process to recheck on their decoding and explaining competencies. National boards will reflect this new mandate. So, too, will CME requirements, which will include mandatory credits in cost competency. Cost will be defined as a major burden of treatment, with “burden of treatment” a major reframing of how we conceptualize and approach health care.³

We seek to provide a system of training that will produce true patient-centered practitioners, a bona fide revolution in what it means to practice medicine, a physician workforce prepared to lead, and a true profession willing and able to regulate itself on behalf of the public.

Subsidiarity (Catholicism) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Subsidiarity (Catholicism) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Paul Ryan has referred to his philosophical bent as having more to do with subsidiarity than Ayn Rand. I consider myself well read, especially about theology, Catholic or other, but I was not familiar with this term, so here is the Wikipedia section on the Catholic take on it:

The principle of subsidiarity was developed by German theologian Oswald von Nell-Breuning.[2] His work influenced the social teaching of Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno and holds that government should undertake only those initiatives which exceed the capacity of individuals or private groups acting independently. Functions of government, business, and other secular activities should be as local as possible. If a complex function is carried out at a local level just as effectively as on the national level, the local level should be the one to carry out the specified function. The principle is based upon the autonomy and dignity of the human individual, and holds that all other forms of society, from the family to the state and the international order, should be in the service of the human person. Subsidiarity assumes that these human persons are by their nature social beings, and emphasizes the importance of small and intermediate-sized communities or institutions, like the family, the church, labor unions and other voluntary associations, as mediating structures which empower individual action and link the individual to society as a whole. “Positive subsidiarity”, which is the ethical imperative for communal, institutional or governmental action to create the social conditions necessary to the full development of the individual, such as the right to work, decent housing, health care, etc., is another important aspect of the subsidiarity principle.

The principle of subsidiarity was first formally developed in the encyclical Rerum Novarum of 1891 by Pope Leo XIII, as an attempt to articulate a middle course between laissez-faire capitalism on the one hand and the various forms of communism, which subordinate the individual to the state, on the other. The principle was further developed in Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Quadragesimo Anno of 1931, and Economic Justice for All by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
“ It is a fundamental principle of social philosophy, fixed and unchangeable, that one should not withdraw from individuals and commit to the community what they can accomplish by their own enterprise and industry. (Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, 79) ”

Since its founding by Hilaire Belloc and Gilbert Keith Chesterton, Distributism, a third way economic philosophy based on Catholic Social teaching, upholds the importance of subsidiarity.

The Church’s belief in subsidiarity is found in the programs of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, where grassroots community organizing projects are supported to promote economic justice and end the cycle of poverty. These projects directly involve the people they serve in their leadership and decision-making

So, as Inigo Montoya would say, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” I think we have centuries worth of ample evidence that charity cannot provide health care to nations, that economic justice and ending poverty are not possible through devolved local or institutional efforts. Some things require government, and Paul Ryan and so many others like to pretend that if we just “get out of the way,” all of this will take care of itself. Never has, never will.
– Sent using Google Toolbar

Medical Professionalism Charter Principles | ABIM Foundation

Medical Professionalism Charter Principles | ABIM Foundation:

Principles of the Charter

The principles and responsibilities of medical professionalism must be clearly understood by both the profession and society. The three fundamental principles below are a guide to understanding physicians’ professional responsibilities to individual patients and society as a whole. 1. Primacy of Patient Welfare 2. Patient Autonomy 3.Social Justice

Primacy of Patient Welfare
The principle is based on a dedication to serving the interest of the patient. Altruism contributes to the trust that is central to the physician-patient relationship. Market forces, societal pressures, and administrative exigencies must not compromise this principle.

Patient Autonomy
Physicians must have respect for patient autonomy. Physicians must be honest with their patients and empower them to make informed decisions about their treatment. Patients’ decisions about their care must be paramount, as long as those decisions are in keeping with ethical practice and do not lead to demands for inappropriate care.

Social Justice
The medical profession must promote justice in the health care system, including the fair distribution of health care resources. Physicians should work actively to eliminate discrimination in health care, whether based on race, gender, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, religion, or any other social category.

We talk a lot about professional responsibilities within the medical profession. I think the first two principles of patient welfare and autonomy are uncontroversial (though not always easy!).

The last one, social justice, is just as critical, and I would argue largely uncontroversial around the world both within the medical profession and in societies as a whole. Only in America is this principle questioned, and only in a vocal and politically powerful segment of the population.

I think many physicians, especially our conservative fellow physicians, would be surprised (and disappointed) that every major medical organization in the US (and globally), and almost certainly their own specialty organization, have already endorsed the Charter, warts – social justice in their view – and all!

– Sent using Google Toolbar

Vatican Reprimands U.S. Nuns Group – NYTimes.com

Vatican Reprimands U.S. Nuns Group – NYTimes.com:

I often credit the nuns who taught me at St. Francis Elementary for the social justice subroutine that was programmed into me, and still runs, continuously. So, way to keep at it, Sisters!

The Vatican’s assessment, issued on Wednesday, said that members of the group, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, had challenged church teaching on homosexuality and the male-only priesthood, and promoted “radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith.”

The sisters were also reprimanded for making public statements that “disagree with or challenge the bishops, who are the church’s authentic teachers of faith and morals.” During the debate over the health care overhaul in 2010, American bishops came out in opposition to the health plan, but dozens of sisters, many of whom belong to the Leadership Conference, signed a statement supporting it — support that provided crucial cover for the Obama administration in the battle over health care.

The conference is an umbrella organization of women’s religious communities, and claims 1,500 members who represent 80 percent of the Catholic sisters in the United States. It was formed in 1956 at the Vatican’s request, and answers to the Vatican, said Sister Annmarie Sanders, the group’s communications director.

Word of the Vatican’s action took the group completely by surprise, Sister Sanders said. She said that the group’s leaders were in Rome on Wednesday for what they thought was a routine annual visit to the Vatican when they were informed of the outcome of the investigation, which began in 2008.

“I’m stunned,” said Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of Network, a Catholic social justice lobby founded by sisters. Her group was also cited in the Vatican document, along with the Leadership Conference, for focusing its work too much on poverty and economic injustice, while keeping “silent” on abortion and same-sex marriage.

“I would imagine that it was our health care letter that made them mad,” Sister Campbell said. “We haven’t violated any teaching, we have just been raising questions and interpreting politics.”

– Sent using Google Toolbar