While the various health care "reform" proposals do
not literally contain a "death panel" to consign
patients to the grave, any system of political rationing will
trade off treatment with expense. And no one interested in
his or her own medical care--or that of loved ones--really wants
such decisions to be made by politicians and bureaucrats.
Just look at nationalized systems for the result.
One of the most worrisome measures to emerge from the Baucus bill
is the proposal to reduce reimbursements for doctors who
prescribe the most expensive Medicare treatments.
According to the National Right to Life Committee:
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus's "Mark," released
September 16 is currently being considered in committee. The
bill contains a provision penalizing doctors based on how much
medical treatment they direct for senior citizens on Medicare.
It establishes that for at least five years (2015-2020),
Medicare physicians who authorize treatments for their patients
that wind up in the top 10% of per capita cost for a year will
lose 5% of their total Medicare reimbursements for that year.
How to deal with exploding Medicare costs and the dilemma of
"end-of-life" treatment are among the most vexing issues facing
us. But this provision risks creating a direct incentive to
arbitrarily reduce Medicare treatment for the sole
purpose to avoid being penalized by Washington. The
goal should be to eliminate unnecessary treatment and reduce the
cost of unnecessarily expensive treatment. It should not be
to reduce any and all treatment, come what may.
Even some supporters of the measure apparently recognize the
dangers.
Reports the National Right to Life Committee:
Although Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) voted against the Kyl
Amendment because he disagreed with its budget offsets
(required under the committee's rules), he earlier said, "As I
try to put my feet in the shoes of a doctor, I don't know how
you separate out overutilization that is really
overutilization. There is no way of knowing when you go through
the year, what you are going to do at the end of the year." He
warned that the provision could come back to "haunt us" in a
few years.
Sen. Conrad is right. He should reconsider his vote.
In not too many years he or a family member might be the retiree
being treated by a doctor worried about being penalized for
authorizing too much and too much expensive treatment. This
might not be a death panel per se. But the result,
especially if the policy becomes permanent, could be the
same--unnecessary and early death for people forced to rely on
the government for medical care.
