Let me get this straight. We're going to pass a health care plan:
(1)Written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it
(2)passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it
(3)signed by a president that also hasn't read it, and who smokes
(4)with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes
(5)overseen by a surgeon general who is obese
(6)financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What possibly could go wrong?
On a brighter note.............to all my blogger buds in Des Moines.........you can come out of your house now.........the snow has stopped falling!!!
Subscribe To Dr. J's SOAP Notes
Posts
All Comments
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Monday, December 21, 2009
Heart Attacks and Holidays
Not to put a damper on your time-off, but some studies tell us that death rates from heart attacks and stroke (as well as non-heart-related causes) spike during the holiday season. A national database with detailed information on the 53 million deaths that occurred in the US between 1973 and 2001 indicates that fatalities from heart disease hit a highpoint in December/January, with Christmas and New Year's Day having the highest numbers, according to a University of California at San Diego study. Researchers say there are several possible reasons for the spike. One of them being that people who are having heart trouble prior to the holiday season often put-off going to the doctor or look at the holidays as a reason to take a break from their exercise and diet programs. The lesson from this? Heart attacks don’t take holidays.
Not to put a damper on your time-off, but some studies tell us that death rates from heart attacks and stroke (as well as non-heart-related causes) spike during the holiday season. A national database with detailed information on the 53 million deaths that occurred in the US between 1973 and 2001 indicates that fatalities from heart disease hit a highpoint in December/January, with Christmas and New Year's Day having the highest numbers, according to a University of California at San Diego study. Researchers say there are several possible reasons for the spike. One of them being that people who are having heart trouble prior to the holiday season often put-off going to the doctor or look at the holidays as a reason to take a break from their exercise and diet programs. The lesson from this? Heart attacks don’t take holidays.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Medicare Buy-in Encounters Strong Opposition
If you're confused about the healthcare reform proposal in the US Senate to allow citizens aged 55 and 64 years to buy in to the Medicare program, you're in good company.
The details of the plan, first announced last week by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, as part of a compromise to win over senators opposed to a "public option" — a federal health insurance plan to compete with private insurers — are shrouded in secrecy.
Reid is waiting for the Congressional Budget Office to complete a cost analysis of the measure before providing specifics. Even the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, said he was "in the dark" about aspects of the plan.
What is known about the measure has engendered rapid and fierce opposition from healthcare providers, including the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, and America's Health Insurance Plans, mainly because Medicare reimbursement rates are inadequate.
In broad strokes, Reid's compromise would expand Medicare eligibility to people aged 55 to 64 years who are uninsured or paying high premiums in the individual market. Most of those with employer-provided coverage would not be eligible.
Buy-in Plan Condemned
The American Medical Association, which had supported the bill passed by the House of Representatives that would create a public option, was quick to condemn the Medicare buy-in idea.
"The AMA has longstanding policy opposing the expansion of Medicare given the fiscal projections for the future," AMA president J. James Rohack, MD, said in a statement. "Currently, the flawed Medicare physician payment formula will cause a drastic 21% cut to physicians caring for Medicare patients in January, and 22% of Medicare patients looking for a new primary care doctor are having trouble finding one."
The Mayo Clinic, often cited by Obama as a model of what healthcare reform might look like, condemned the buy-in proposal in stark terms. "The current Medicare payment system is financially unsustainable," the group said in a statement posted on the Mayo Clinic Health Policy Blog last week. "Any plan to expand Medicare, which is the government's largest public plan, beyond its current scope does not solve the nation's health care crisis, but compounds it.
"Expanding this system to persons 55 to 64 years old would ultimately hurt patients by accelerating the financial ruin of hospitals and doctors across the country. A majority of Medicare providers currently suffer great financial loss under the program. Mayo Clinic alone lost $840 million last year under Medicare. As a result of these types of losses, a growing number of providers have begun to limit the number of Medicare patients in their practices."
Writing in Monday's USA Today, American Hospital Association President Richard J. Umbdenstock described the buy-in plan this way: "Imagine living in a house with a crumbling foundation and trying to repair it by adding more bedrooms."
"Making millions of non-seniors eligible for Medicare, at the same time that millions more Baby Boomers are reaching retirement age, will further weaken the program and put many hospitals at tremendous risk," Umbdenstock said. "Their ability to provide other critical services their communities need — such as trauma care, emergency care, disaster readiness and more — would be jeopardized. And, one key reason health care costs are higher for everyone is that Medicare does not pay its fair share of the cost of care. Reform should end this 'cost shift,' not make it worse."
Health insurers, who opposed the House bill because of its inclusion of a government-run public option plan, quickly opposed the Senate buy-in idea. "This would add millions of new people to a program everyone agrees is going broke," a spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans said in a statement.
If you're confused about the healthcare reform proposal in the US Senate to allow citizens aged 55 and 64 years to buy in to the Medicare program, you're in good company.
The details of the plan, first announced last week by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, as part of a compromise to win over senators opposed to a "public option" — a federal health insurance plan to compete with private insurers — are shrouded in secrecy.
Reid is waiting for the Congressional Budget Office to complete a cost analysis of the measure before providing specifics. Even the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, said he was "in the dark" about aspects of the plan.
What is known about the measure has engendered rapid and fierce opposition from healthcare providers, including the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, and America's Health Insurance Plans, mainly because Medicare reimbursement rates are inadequate.
In broad strokes, Reid's compromise would expand Medicare eligibility to people aged 55 to 64 years who are uninsured or paying high premiums in the individual market. Most of those with employer-provided coverage would not be eligible.
Buy-in Plan Condemned
The American Medical Association, which had supported the bill passed by the House of Representatives that would create a public option, was quick to condemn the Medicare buy-in idea.
"The AMA has longstanding policy opposing the expansion of Medicare given the fiscal projections for the future," AMA president J. James Rohack, MD, said in a statement. "Currently, the flawed Medicare physician payment formula will cause a drastic 21% cut to physicians caring for Medicare patients in January, and 22% of Medicare patients looking for a new primary care doctor are having trouble finding one."
The Mayo Clinic, often cited by Obama as a model of what healthcare reform might look like, condemned the buy-in proposal in stark terms. "The current Medicare payment system is financially unsustainable," the group said in a statement posted on the Mayo Clinic Health Policy Blog last week. "Any plan to expand Medicare, which is the government's largest public plan, beyond its current scope does not solve the nation's health care crisis, but compounds it.
"Expanding this system to persons 55 to 64 years old would ultimately hurt patients by accelerating the financial ruin of hospitals and doctors across the country. A majority of Medicare providers currently suffer great financial loss under the program. Mayo Clinic alone lost $840 million last year under Medicare. As a result of these types of losses, a growing number of providers have begun to limit the number of Medicare patients in their practices."
Writing in Monday's USA Today, American Hospital Association President Richard J. Umbdenstock described the buy-in plan this way: "Imagine living in a house with a crumbling foundation and trying to repair it by adding more bedrooms."
"Making millions of non-seniors eligible for Medicare, at the same time that millions more Baby Boomers are reaching retirement age, will further weaken the program and put many hospitals at tremendous risk," Umbdenstock said. "Their ability to provide other critical services their communities need — such as trauma care, emergency care, disaster readiness and more — would be jeopardized. And, one key reason health care costs are higher for everyone is that Medicare does not pay its fair share of the cost of care. Reform should end this 'cost shift,' not make it worse."
Health insurers, who opposed the House bill because of its inclusion of a government-run public option plan, quickly opposed the Senate buy-in idea. "This would add millions of new people to a program everyone agrees is going broke," a spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans said in a statement.
Thursday, December 03, 2009
New information regarding routine mammograms and pap smears was presented today in the senate. The following is a newsclip from today.
December 3, 2009 — In a 61 to 39 vote, the US Senate today approved an amendment to its massive healthcare reform bill that would guarantee coverage of much-debated mammograms and other preventive screenings for women without any cost-sharing on their part.
The bill's primary sponsor, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), had introduced the measure in response to the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) announcing last month that it no longer recommends routine mammograms for women aged 40 to 49 years. The USPSTF also stated that mammograms for women aged 50 years and older be performed every 2 years instead of annually. A number of medical societies and expert groups, including the American Cancer Society, have objected to the new recommendations.
Congressional Republicans point to the latest USPSTF guidelines as a preview of healthcare rationing that would occur if Democratic healthcare reform legislation passes. The Senate bill had originally required health plans to cover preventive services such as mammograms that were recommended by USPSTF and several other organizations.
The amendment offered by Sen. Mikulski would require both private and public health plans to cover preventive care and screenings specifically for women that are recommended not only by the USPSTF, but also by the Health Resources and Services Administration, a federal agency charged with expanding access to healthcare for the underserved. As a result, said Sen. Mikulski, the amendment would give all American women the same coverage for preventive care and screenings that female federal employees enjoy. And coverage for mammograms would be guaranteed.
"We don't mandate that you have a mammogram at age 40," she told the Senate earlier this week. "But if your doctor says you need one, you are going to get one."
The Senate accepted an amendment by Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) to the Mikulski amendment to strengthen the guarantee of mammograms. The Vitter amendment states that required coverage of breast-cancer screening and prevention under the Senate healthcare reform bill will reflect USPSTF recommendations prior to those released last month.
Amendment Also Addresses Pap Tests
According to Sen. Mikulski, her amendment also would guarantee coverage of cervical cancer screenings. That promised coverage also addresses fears of healthcare rationing in light of a recommendation last month by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) for less frequent cervical cancer screening. Previous ACOG guidelines had called for annual Pap tests for women ages 21 to 29 years as well as those younger than 21 years who have been sexually active for at least 3 years. ACOG now recommends biennial Pap tests for women starting at age 21 years regardless of sexual history and continuing through age 29 years. In addition, the new guidelines state that low-risk women aged 30 years and older should have Pap test every 3 years as opposed to every 2 to 3 years if they have negative tests 3 years in a row.
Sen. Mikulski said the cost of her amendment, $940 million over 10 years, would be funded from surplus funds in the Senate reform bill.
December 3, 2009 — In a 61 to 39 vote, the US Senate today approved an amendment to its massive healthcare reform bill that would guarantee coverage of much-debated mammograms and other preventive screenings for women without any cost-sharing on their part.
The bill's primary sponsor, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), had introduced the measure in response to the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) announcing last month that it no longer recommends routine mammograms for women aged 40 to 49 years. The USPSTF also stated that mammograms for women aged 50 years and older be performed every 2 years instead of annually. A number of medical societies and expert groups, including the American Cancer Society, have objected to the new recommendations.
Congressional Republicans point to the latest USPSTF guidelines as a preview of healthcare rationing that would occur if Democratic healthcare reform legislation passes. The Senate bill had originally required health plans to cover preventive services such as mammograms that were recommended by USPSTF and several other organizations.
The amendment offered by Sen. Mikulski would require both private and public health plans to cover preventive care and screenings specifically for women that are recommended not only by the USPSTF, but also by the Health Resources and Services Administration, a federal agency charged with expanding access to healthcare for the underserved. As a result, said Sen. Mikulski, the amendment would give all American women the same coverage for preventive care and screenings that female federal employees enjoy. And coverage for mammograms would be guaranteed.
"We don't mandate that you have a mammogram at age 40," she told the Senate earlier this week. "But if your doctor says you need one, you are going to get one."
The Senate accepted an amendment by Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) to the Mikulski amendment to strengthen the guarantee of mammograms. The Vitter amendment states that required coverage of breast-cancer screening and prevention under the Senate healthcare reform bill will reflect USPSTF recommendations prior to those released last month.
Amendment Also Addresses Pap Tests
According to Sen. Mikulski, her amendment also would guarantee coverage of cervical cancer screenings. That promised coverage also addresses fears of healthcare rationing in light of a recommendation last month by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) for less frequent cervical cancer screening. Previous ACOG guidelines had called for annual Pap tests for women ages 21 to 29 years as well as those younger than 21 years who have been sexually active for at least 3 years. ACOG now recommends biennial Pap tests for women starting at age 21 years regardless of sexual history and continuing through age 29 years. In addition, the new guidelines state that low-risk women aged 30 years and older should have Pap test every 3 years as opposed to every 2 to 3 years if they have negative tests 3 years in a row.
Sen. Mikulski said the cost of her amendment, $940 million over 10 years, would be funded from surplus funds in the Senate reform bill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)