The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Stealth Care Stimulus

Text Size

A provision in the stimulus package that would authorize $1.1 billion in spending on "comparative effectiveness" medical research has some Republicans worried that it could be aimed at rationing care ahead of President Obama's push for universal health care.

Betsy McCaughey wrote about the issue on Monday, and Rep. John Shadegg now has a column up on Townhall on the subject. Amanda Carpenter also posted video of Shadegg discussing the provision.

Before going into the specifics of the provision, it's important to keep in mind that, philosophically, liberals believe that one of the reasons why health-care costs are so high in America is that doctors authorize expensive medical procedures and write prescriptions for high-priced drugs just to be on the safe side, leading to waste. Liberals argue that government-run health care is more efficient because such systems save money by doing a cost/benefit analysis of medicines and medical procedures and denying some types of treatment if it isn't deemed to be a good value. The flip side, of course, is that you end up with a system in which health care is rationed, and government bureaucrats are making decisions about what type of care is best, rather than doctors and their patients. An extreme example of this is Britain's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), which, as the NY Times reported in December, has effectively determined that it's worth $22,750 to extend somebody's life by six months. In his book Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis, Obama's former nominee for health-care czar, Tom Daschle called for the creation of a Federal Health Board, comprised of "independent experts" that would perform much the same function.

Now, as part of the stimulus bill, Rep. David Obey, the House appropriations chairman, added a provision, to create a "Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research." The new entity, which sounds similar to Daschle's idea of a Federal Health Board, would be tasked with, "assist[ing] the offices and agencies of the Federal Government, including the Departments of Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, and Defense, and other Federal departments or agencies, to coordinate the conduct or support of comparative effectiveness and related health services research;" and to "advise the President and Congress" on such matters.

It sounds benign, but as Shadegg notes:

Just read the words from the House Appropriations Committee's own report on the stimulus regarding this provision: "Those items, procedures, and interventions… that are found to be less effective and in some cases, more expensive, will no longer be prescribed." In reaction, 63 patient advocacy groups including the AIDS Institute, the Alzheimer's Foundation of America, and the American Association for Cancer Research, have written a letter to Congress, expressing their concerns. They explained that this provision could lead to "restrictions on patients' access to treatments and physicians' and other providers' ability to deliver care that best meets the needs of the individual patient."

It could also pave the way for further health-care rationing if President Obama gets his way in terms of overhauling the entire health-care system. For instance, President Obama's campaign health-care plan calls for subsidies to be given to Americans to purchase health-care from a government run exchange, choosing between a Medicare-like government plan and among private options. The government could mandate that any insurer participating in the government-run exchange must adopt the effectiveness recommendations of the Federal Coordinating Council, and the government could use its increased leverage in the health insurance market to pressure other insurers to go along. Congress could even go further, and pass a law saying that in order for an insurance policy to be eligible for the employer tax deduction, it must follow the same set of recommendations. All of this is spelled out in detail in Daschle's book, which was widely praised by Obama. But more relevant to the current debate, it's another example of how the stimulus package has been used by Democrats as a ruse to achieve some long-standing policy goals that aren't relevant to stimulating the economy.

View all comments (6) | Leave a comment

Cornelius Quinn| 2.11.09 @ 8:54PM

If this part of the crap-sandwich becomes law:

1.) it will be mandatory for ALL Americans &

2.) it will be used to try and confiscate the 2nd. Amendment rights of millions of LAW ABIDING citizens.

The Gun Owners of America estimate that over 150,000 veterans have had their 2nd Amendment rights illegally confiscated already, all because of PTSD and other mental 'disorders'. If every American's private health information is placed on this Marxist computer database, millions more citizens will be deemed a 'danger to themselves' because of such things including ADD & ADHD...2 things that scores of American children have been MIS-DIAGNOSED because "teachers" haven't been allowed to keep order in their own classrooms for nearly 20 years.

This isn't 'socialism' or 'communism' coming our way. This is full-frontal TYRANNY.

Wake up America!

drdoug| 2.11.09 @ 11:53PM

Dear Mr. Klein:

Clinton started this mess with HIPAA, and the mandates for online security and privacy, and it is being followed by the NPI codes required for all practitioners and billers of any insurance company. Soon all medical records are to be mandated electronic, some government or insurance database will be monitoring the NPI who bills what, when, how and why. Soon after an HMO or Government entity will dictate what procedures are supported by the "Evidence Base", cost cutting will strip away all incentive to produce anything, especially new drugs, and "Presto Chango", Single party payor or guarantor for health care.

Perhaps this is what those private Meetings sponsored by Sec of State Clinton were all about...the INCREMENTAL destruction of the remainder of health care as we know it by Hillarycare. Commrade Michael Moore would be proud to see what has become of our system, and is waiting with glee to see what happens next.
Hopefully he doesn't find out he will be sent to a re-education camp to cure his propensity to overindulge, or perhaps that this preexisting condition will limit or restrict coverage of the hypertension, diabetes, heart disease, and possible cancer to follow from his lifestyle choices. Sorry Mr Moore, that bypass surgery is reserved for someone who took better care of themself.

OOPS, I guess that would be the law of unintended consequences comming back again, to bite the hand that feeds it. This is why snakes ought to live in the wild, and not in the District, writing legislation.

ruth| 2.12.09 @ 5:14AM

This won't apply to the wealthy; they always get out of unpleasantries . This is just for us sheeple. Porker Moore will be able to buy any surgery he chooses.

Jennifer| 2.12.09 @ 10:11AM

This so-called health care plan is modeled off the one in Britain. British health care has gone to the logical extreme of demanding that British citizens donate their body parts to the National Health Service when they die -- mandatory organ donation, or socialist cannibalism. Spinned as, ‘presumed consent," means that if you're dead, the government gets to decide who will re-use your mortal remains.

Dan D.| 2.12.09 @ 5:57PM

Congress is pushing the stimulus through way too quickly.

With TARP we had a similar amount of urgency to pass a bailout for the banks and it turns out that the banks irresponsibly used the money to pay themselves bonuses for running their companies into the ground.

See what happens when government messes with the free markets? These companies were rewarded for their bad behavior.

As shameful as this activity was the government should have anticipated that Wall Street and the law of greed would need a check on it to make sure the bailout money was being spent in a worthwhile manner.

See what happens when we make decisions too quickly?

$789 billion is a lot of money to spend without much forethought and planning.

The goal of "creating or saving 3.5 million jobs" is worthy one, but exactly how is this going to be done?

Congress and President Obama have not satisfactorily explained how this bill is going to save and create jobs. Instead we are faced with inflammatory rhetoric saying that if we do not act now, we will be facing a catastrophe.

The whole idea behind our government is that drastic plans of actions need to be carefully scrutinized and not undertaken in a fear driven frenzy.

Dan Decker
http://www.weeklypoint.com