Editor's Desk
Consultations to the Editor
A letter from Betsy McCaughey to the New York Times correcting its inaccurate reports of her positions on health care reform.
This is a letter from Betsy McCaughey to the New York Times protesting its inaccurate reports of her positions on health care reform as stated by her publicly, at least twice in The American Spectator, and elsewhere. As the Times has thus far neglected to publish two of her letters to its correspondence column, we publish it here to set the record straight on what she has said.
Dear Editor:
Re: "Words and Meaning" (August 22) and "False Death Panel Rumor" (August 14). Both articles misrepresent my views and, worse, fail to inform the public about why the House health bill (H.R. 3200) is coercive to seniors. I support helping the uninsured gain coverage, but a provision in the bill would use Medicare reimbursement policy to force seniors to undergo the kind of end of life consultation government deems appropriate, whether the patient and family want it or not. Last week, the Senate Finance Committee realized how wrong this would be and ripped a similar provision from their health bill draft.
The August 14 article claims that the legislation "simply aims to provide Medicare coverage for once-every five year conversations with doctors" over end of life care. Wrong. The bill prescribes what must be covered in the consultation (pages 425-30), a matter that should be left to patients and doctors. Worse still, the legislation states that the Medicare system will rate a doctor's "quality" and adjust reimbursement based on the percentage of the doctor's patients who create living wills and the percentage who adhere to them (p. 432). Paying doctors for consultations is fine. Penalizing them based on their patients' choices is wrong.
The "adhere to" part is especially dangerous. Some people say "they'd never want to be on a ventilator," but when the time comes, they choose it over death. Under the House bill, doctors would incur penalties when families don't adhere to end of life plans -- a horrible conflict of interest.
As a patient advocate, I see these difficult situations and know that government should not be involved. As you can see, my concerns are unrelated to and do not mention "death panels." Your "Words and Meaning" column incorrectly identifies me as a "proponent of the 'death panels'" interpretation. Even Jon Stewart made it clear I had not made such a claim.
Betsy McCaughey
Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths
P.S. To the public editor and staff, the August 22 article also incorrectly claims that I am a Republican.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (21) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Articles From Editor's Desk
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/08/26/consultations-to-the-editor
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Herbert Hoover's Long-Awaited Magnum Opus
- Uncle Sam and the Chinese Dragon
- Evolve or Die
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
james| 8.26.09 @ 9:34AM
Measured and necessary response, but of course this is a complete waste of time and effort. You might as well send a letter to Nancy Pelosi explaining what's wrong with leftism. It is time for all of us to stop arguing with these tin-pot dictators (and their throne-sniffers at the Times) and start pushing back hard.
crmang| 8.26.09 @ 10:47AM
I would argue it is never a waste of time to correct misrepresntations of one's own statements. Particularly now in the internet age. As Ms. McCaughey's letter is published on this site, whether the New York Times publishes it or not, it is now accessible for all to read.
Besides, correcting the New York Times is fun, not to mention a full time job!
Magiies| 8.26.09 @ 10:59AM
She's right when she says sometimes you think and plan one thing and then change your mind - my husband and I drafted living wills and durbale powers of attorney in the event something happens (we're in our 40's) - in mine was a provision that I did not want to be kept alive via ventilators......lo and behold my father inlaw had a massive cardiovascular accident that required replacement of his aortic arch that he not only survived but survived specifically because the doctors had him on a ventilator, in an induced coma, for almost a week.....without its use, he would have certainly died. After a week in the induced coma, extubation, a week on the cardiac care unit floor and then two weeks in rehab, he's home and doing remarkably well (at 77 no less) --- his experience made me change my living will and leave it as my husband makes decisions based on the best options available (he's a doctor so he understands the ramifications of the decisions made) and he KNOWS my wishes, thus I don't need to spell out explicit details of what to do or not to do since every circumstance is different and what might be a short-term need (ventilator) can make the difference between life and death.
Tom| 8.26.09 @ 11:06AM
One must always set the record straight. While it may not be read or acknowledged immediately, it will be read in time.
bobmontgomery| 8.26.09 @ 11:49AM
Perhaps in addition to immediately correcting the record, the long -term goal of getting to the root of the problem would include whispering in the ear of the Columbia School of Journalism that the funds are going to start drying up because the dream of its faculty and graduates - the destruction of prosperity in America - is finally beginning to be realized.
Bob| 8.26.09 @ 2:27PM
Don't any of you deal with facts? Here they are:
It's not page 432; it's Section 1233(b)(3)(A)2.
For purposes of reporting data on quality measures for covered professional services furnished during 2011 and any subsequent year, to the extent that measures are available, the Secretary shall include quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that have been adopted or endorsed by a consensus-based organization, if appropriate. Such measures shall measure both the creation of and adherence to orders for life-sustaining treatment.
In other words, H.R. 3200 adds living will consultations and adherence to the 153 quality measures that are already part of the Physician Quality Reporting Initiative (PQRI). Doctors get an incentive for reporting this data (2.0% this year).
McCaughey says this provision will give doctors incentive to deny care and let patients die against their wishes. In her nightmare scenario, you sign a living will saying you don't want to be kept alive on a ventilator, then come to the hospital four years later with some serious trauma. Facing death, you change your mind and decide you'll take the ventilator, but the doctor says, "Uncle Sam will slap me if I don't adhere to your living will, so I'm not hooking you up."
But Section 1233(b)(3)(A) causes no such thing. This provision only calls for the doctors to report their assistance in creation of and adherence to living wills. They get their incentive for reporting. Even if a doctor goes ape and doesn't consult on or adhere to a single living will, as long as she faithfully reports that non-adherence, she gets her PQRI incentive.
Under Section 1233(b)(3)(A), the only person deciding that a patient will die—or live, or fight to live, or get treatments A, B, and C but not D—is the patient. The patient chooses to have an advanced care planning consultation (which, under HR 3200, Medicare pays for). The patient writes down her wishes in a living will, a document the patient can modify at any time. And if the patient comes to the hospital and can't express her wishes, the doctor has her wishes on paper to follow, whatever those wishes may be... or at least may have been when that document was signed.
Perhaps if you death panel people were more educated, you'd be able to read and comprehend this provision. As I've said before, I don't like the Democrat health care initiative because it does little to lower the cost of health care to this country. But misrepresentation of these kinds of provisions only serves to make Republicans look dumb.
Bohred| 8.26.09 @ 2:59PM
First off use quotes:
"For purposes of reporting data on quality measures for covered professional services furnished during 2011 and any subsequent year, to the extent that measures are available, the Secretary shall include quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that have been adopted or endorsed by a consensus-based organization, if appropriate. Such measures shall measure both the creation of and adherence to orders for life-sustaining treatment. "
Secondly, anytime you measure something you influence it.
"adherence to orders for life-sustaining treatment"
Wow, sounds like coercion to me. Just look at Holland's euthanasia scandals.
Bob| 8.26.09 @ 3:12PM
Bohred -- your living will or advanced care directive can say to keep you alive by any means and therefore is not coercion. The physician will get reimbursed whether or not the hospital follows these directives. So it is NOT a matter of money to the physician. Reporting that the directives are not being followed gets the physician as much as if they are being followed. This is the same as all of the other 123 measures.
Besides it says "adherence to orders for LIFE-SUSTAINING treatment", not LIFE ENDING treatment.
Again, you seem to assume that an advanced care directive only says you should be killed when in more than half of the cases it says to keep you alive.
So, Bohred, THIMK.......
Book 'em Dano| 8.26.09 @ 4:31PM
The core argument is why should there be any stipulation for "end of life care" counseling, if not to later regulate and restrict access to such care.
If in the Liberal Utopia, where all goods and services are provided free, then by all means one should be "entitled" to never-ending medical procedures.
Thus the inclusion of this section is completely unnecessary, which in turn begs the question to be asked "why is it in here"?
What appears to be the most obvious answer is that future "directives", "mandates" and "sales-pitches" will be mandated by the next "Health Care Czar", "Death Panel", "Budget/Cost Appropriations Department" or any other NEWSPEAK title the statists wish to name it.
Nobama| 8.26.09 @ 6:14PM
ObamaCare is one big DEATH PANEL!
Government out of health care!!
BOB THE ASTROTURF TROLL| 8.26.09 @ 6:21PM
Who SHOULD you believe, Doctor Betsy McCaughey, a trusted physician and patient advocate or a stupid, lying astroturf nobody troll named "bob?"
Gee, that's a tough one. Screw you, "bob."
Osamas Pajamas| 8.26.09 @ 10:24PM
Hey. It took all of five minutes for the healthcare hijackers to come up with "KennedyCare" as a new name for OhBummerCare and a socialized medicine memorial for Teddy Kennedy. KennedyCare and Teddy Kennedy. Let's bury both of these turkeys right now --- they stink --- and throw in Nazi Pelosi, Dingy Harry Reid, and Dirty Byrd.
Pingback| 9.1.09 @ 3:36AM
Betsy McCaughey and the Letter the New York Times Won’t Publish | Tea Party of North links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Joe| 9.3.09 @ 1:06PM
I'm glad to see you guys so welcoming of "Bob" on your message board! It's so wonderful that you guys want to discuss this important issue calmly and respectfully! Only when we listen to eachother will we come up with real solutions, and I'm thrilled to find some conservatives that agree with me :-) I love you guys.
But let me inject my opinion here to get those wheels of intelligent debate rolling right along. As far as I can tell from the bill, the government wants to make sure that doctors are adhering to the living wills, which, you know, is a good idea. If I say "Please don't pull the plug on me", I'd like a law that makes sure my doctor doesn't pull the plug on me. And that's what this bill does. Maybe "Life Panels" is the more appropriate term?
As for families, Betsy is bemoaning those that will not have their wishes honored if they want their relative to live. But, it's the PATIENT'S wishes that will be honored - the family only has a say when no living will exists. So, Betsy may feel bad for the families, but sorry, it's the law. Again, if you wanted to be kept alive and your family decided they'd rather have you dead to collect your assets, would you want the government to side with them? This bill protects patients. Period.
And one more thing. We live in America, people. In a democracy WE are the GOVERNMENT. Sure, it has it's problems, but as long as we can vote for representatives, the government is not a "them", it's an "us". I would prefer government healthcare over private healthcare (a "them" to be sure) any day of the week.
I know my tone has been sarcastic, as I've been reacting a bit to the tone of this board. But I do respect your opinions - I just disagree with them...immensely.