There is no doubt in my mind that the Obama Administration has made materially false statements regarding healthcare policy and issues. Equally as important, we see that the Obama Administration is not above pandering to the special interests: the pharmaceutical industry, the medical device manufactures, hospitals and others seeking improved reimbursement rates, the insurance industry; not to forget the American Medical Association, AARP the the unions like the SEIU.
So when the government comes out with a statement that less healthcare is better, are they acting as an honest broker or are they pandering to the special interests trying to curtail the costs insurers are paying for diagnostic tests?
According to the Washington Post …
“Breast exam guidelines now call for less testing”
“Women in their 40s should stop routinely having annual mammograms and older women should cut back to one scheduled exam every other year, an influential federal task force has concluded, challenging the use of one of the most common medical tests.”
Influential? Whose influence? A government that wants to reduce medical costs? Insurers who want to reduce the cost of preventative diagnostic care to improve their bottom line and executive bonuses? Famous medical institutions who rely on continued government funding?
“In its first reevaluation of breast cancer screening since 2002, the independent government-appointed panel recommended the changes, citing evidence that the potential harm to women having annual exams beginning at age 40 outweighs the benefit.”
How independent is this government-appointed panel? How were they appointed? Were they political contributors?
“Coming amid a highly charged national debate over health-care reform and simmering suspicions about the possibility of rationing medical services, the recommendations immediately became enveloped in controversy.”
WOW – you mean I am not the only one that has observed the government’s dishonesty and now view all government pronouncements with skepticism?
"We're not saying women shouldn't get screened. Screening does saves lives," said Diana B. Petitti, vice chairman of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which released the recommendations Monday in a paper being published in Tuesday's Annals of Internal Medicine. ‘But we are recommending against routine screening. There are important and serious negatives or harms that need to be considered carefully.’"
You would think that Petitti would be an oncologist, but she appears to be a medical policy wonk who has authored a book on cost-control titled “Meta-Analysis, Decision Analysis, and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Methods for Quantitative Synthesis in Medicine.”
Not all agree …
“But the American Cancer Society, the American College of Radiology and other experts condemned the change, saying the benefits of routine mammography have been clearly demonstrated and play a key role in reducing the number of mastectomies and the death toll from one of the most common cancers.”
"’Tens of thousands of lives are being saved by mammography screening, and these idiots want to do away with it,’ said Daniel B. Kopans, a radiology professor at Harvard Medical School. ‘It's crazy -- unethical, really.’"
Madness?
“The new guidelines also recommend against teaching women to do regular self-exams and concluded that there is insufficient evidence to recommend that doctors do the exams or to continue routine mammograms beyond age 74.”
Researchers, whose institutions are getting tens of millions of dollars in grants, are being subtly influenced by the need to produce results palatable to the government in order to keep the funding for follow-on projects. That is not saying that they are outright lying, but it does appear that they are spinning their research results in the public media while their scientific publications are more circumspect.
Cost versus benefit: benefit to whom?
“Some questioned whether the new guidelines were designed more to control spending than to improve health. In addition to prompting fewer doctors to recommend mammograms to their patients, they worried that the move would prompt insurers to deny coverage for many mammograms.”
Why I care …
First, I lost a very close friend to breast cancer. It all started with a self-detected lump … what did they say about not doing self-examinations? It was an ugly death as the cancer metastasized to her bones. And second, as we have plainly seen, our government lies with impunity, the mainstream media covers up those lies or buries the coverage and the whole process of healthcare and insurance is riddled with self-interest and corruption. It is a sad commentary on the government that they claim that they can pay for a significant portion of their healthcare initiative by eliminating the corruption that they are sure exists – but have done little to stem, year-after-year-after year.
Lying bastards ...
After the news story broke about the panels recommendations, the official government line became:
"A top federal health official said Wednesday that the controversial new guidelines for breast cancer screening do not represent government policy, as the Obama administration sought to keep the debate over mammograms from undermining the prospects for health-care reform."
"Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, in a written statement, said the new guidelines had 'caused a great deal of confusion and worry among women and their families across this country,' and she stressed that they were issued by 'an outside independent panel of doctors and scientists who . . . do not set federal policy and . . . don't determine what services are covered by the federal government.'"
Did anyone notice that it is this panel who recommends what Medicare, Medicaid and the new Obamacare plan will reimburse. By moving this screening test to a "Class C" item on the schedule, it is unlikely that this will be a reimbursed item when the panels recommendations are considered at reimbursement time. You will also notice that these are not doctors in the conventional sense -- doing what is right for individual patients, but cost-cutting and efficiency experts who are out to save the government and the insurance companies money. In fact, the official bio of Diana B. Petitti doesn't mentioned that she served as an official of Kaiser Permanente in Southern California as a cost-cutting, efficiency specialist -- in a company that is obsessed with wringing out all manner of costs in order to improve the bottom line. I have seen one of my best friends die because of their stupid mistakes that placed cost-containment above patient welfare.
Bottom line …
We can no longer trust our government to tell the truth – to act independently of the lobbyists, lawyers and other special interest groups. Our doctors are being constrained by “best practices” designed more to improve visitation through-put and contain costs than benefit patients. Their reimbursement rates are being cut to unprecedented levels – so much so that they can barely afford to spare the time to read the computerized medical records the government is promoting.
We need to elect politicians who will serve as honest brokers in keeping America strong, safe and healthy. No more pandering to the special interests to obtain or maintain political power. We need to throw the current crop of asshats out of office. 2010 and 2012 will be reform years.
What toxic government and corrupt politicians have wrought …
Trust has been so eroded as to make government pronouncements worthless. Ditto the pronouncements of the major American institutions. Who can you trust?
Can you trust the opinion of radiologists who stand to lose a significant portion of their income from mammography? Can you trust the American College of Radiology? Can you trust the American Cancer Society?
About mammograms, I might suggest that you discuss the matter with your trusted physician and follow their advice. It is their union (AMA) and the insurance companies that appears to be corrupt, all while individual doctors continue to offer personalized care to preserve and protect their patient’s health.
-- steve
Reference Links:
Comments