Latest Drugwonks' Blog
"His approval ratings slipping, President Barack Obama is retooling his message on health care overhaul, aiming to win over Americans who already have insurance."
Wait a minute. I thought the goal of reform was to cover people who did not have insurance and couldn't afford it or were denied coverage. Shouldn't the proposal be retooled as opposed to the message?
"Republicans say the heated debate is a sign of widespread public dissatisfaction with Obama's ideas. But with some of the anxieties spilling into angry disruptions and even threats, Democrats have accused Republicans of orchestrating the events to sabotage legislation. In an article published Monday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer wrote, "Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American."
Obama and his aides stayed away from such provocative language"
Right, they just set up a government website to collect information about political opposition and promising congressional Democrats that they would "punch back twice as hard" against opponents. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25891.html
Do they address the major flaws and impact of every proposal on the table.
No.
Last night CBS News reported, "When he was running for President, Barack Obama attacked pharmaceutical companies for charging too much for prescription drugs. But now he's teamed up with those same companies to promote his healthcare plan," and critics are accusing President Obama "of making a back-room deal that could end up costing seniors plenty." CBS added, "Initial reports said the White House agreed not to seek price controls on drugs for seniors on Medicare and would not support importing cheaper drugs from
So, no deal?
But on August 5th, the New York Times ran a front page article headlined,
"White House Affirms Deal on Drug Cost.”
It read in part,
So, deal?
Simple yes-or-no question: Does the President support "the deal" or does he not?
We have taken great pains to distance ourselves -- and those individuals who have attended town hall meetings of their own volition -- from the handful of individuals and one or two nut jobs who sought to shout rather than ask tough questions even as certain poitical operatives have sought to lump us, them and all into one seething hateful mob.
That is politics as usual.
But the editorial today by Speaker Pelosi and House Majority Leader Hoyer -- mostly unmentioned by the same media who covered the handful of angry Americans as if they were the vanguard of some neo-Bund movement -- calling those who assemble and organize against a misguided effort to increase government control over healthcare as "unAmerican.
Here is the key quote:
"An ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue. These tactics have included hanging in effigy one Democratic member of Congress in Maryland and protesters holding a sign displaying a tombstone with the name of another congressman in Texas, where protesters also shouted "Just say no!" drowning out those who wanted to hold a substantive discussion.
Let the facts be heard
These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades."
Those who oppose or criticize are part of an ugly campaign to drown out opposing views and suppress the facts. Thus we are unAmerican.
Have you been or are you now part of any campaign to oppose health care reform. If so, you are drowning out the facts. And if you were oppose health care reform you obviously endorse hanging opponents in effigy.
I think the exchange between Joseph McCarthy and Joseph Welch sums up the tactics and desperate moral compass of Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Hoyer with respect to enacting single payer healthcare reform. I can't generalize to anyone else ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_N._Welch
On June 9, 1954, the 30th day of the hearings, McCarthy accused Fred Fisher, one of the junior attorneys at Welch's firm, of association (while in law school) with the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), a group which J. Edgar Hoover sought to have the U.S. Attorney General designate as a Communist front organization (see Army-McCarthy hearings). Welch wrote off Fisher's association with the NLG as a youthful indiscretion and went after McCarthy for dragging the young man's name before a nationwide television audience with no prior warning or previous agreement to do so:
- "Until this moment, Senator, I think I have never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness. Fred Fisher is a young man who went to the Harvard Law School and came into my firm and is starting what looks to be a brilliant career with us...(L)ittle did I dream you could be so reckless and so cruel as to do an injury to that lad. It is true that he will continue to be with Hale and Dorr (Welch's law firm). It is, I regret to say, equally true that I fear he shall always bear a scar needlessly inflicted by you. If it were in my power to forgive you for your reckless cruelty I would do so. I like to think that I am a gentle man, but your forgiveness will have to come from someone other than me."
When McCarthy tried to go on the attack once more, Welch stepped in again and famously rebuked:
- "Senator, may we not drop this? We know he belonged to the Lawyers Guild...Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
McCarthy tried to ask Welch another question about Fisher, and Welch cut him off:
- "Mr. McCarthy, I will not discuss this with you further. You have sat within six feet of me and could have asked about Fred Fisher. You have brought it out. If there is a God in Heaven it will do neither you nor your cause any good. I will not discuss it further. I will not ask Mr. Cohn any more questions. You, Mr. Chairman, may, if you will, call the next witness."
Two items of note (courtesy of the Pink Sheet) that are urgently important, but getting little attention.
1. Non-Interference
The House health care reform bill passed by the Energy and Commerce Committee directs HHS to negotiate drug prices directly with manufacturers for the Medicare Part D program, but it does not authorize HHS to establish a national formulary.
That leaves the provision vulnerable to being stripped out as the bill proceeds through Congress -on the basis that it may not reduce costs.
The Congressional Budget Office, in past estimates, has consistently concluded that savings generated from direct government price negotiation under Part D would be negligible unless HHS could bring some bargaining leverage to the table.
In a 2007 analysis, then CBO Director (now OMB Director) Peter Orszag wrote: "Negotiation is likely to be effective only if it is accompanied by some sort of pressure on drug manufacturers to secure price concessions."
Specifically, "the authority to establish a formulary, set prices administratively, or take regulatory actions against firms failing to offer price reductions could give the [HHS secretary] the ability to obtain significant discounts."
He added that "in the absence of such authority, the Secretary's ability to issue credible threats or take other actions in an effort to obtain significant discounts would be limited."
2. Comparative Effectiveness
Although it was not introduced during the House Energy and Commerce Committee's markup of the health care reform bill, an amendment prepared by Rep. Donna Christensen, D-V.I., that would create a public-private institute to oversee comparative effectiveness research activities remains in play and could be a part of the final package that is voted on by the House.
Christensen was given the go-ahead to introduce the amendment during the markup, but time constraints kept the amendment, which was filed with the committee, from being introduced for consideration. A staffer for Christensen said the representative has a commitment from Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., to work on adding the amendment to the final House bill. The amendment would replace the current language in H.R. 3200 that places coordination of comparative effectiveness research activities within the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The current language creates an independent CER commission to oversee the center, recommend research priorities and conduct stakeholder outreach.
According to a fact sheet on Christensen's amendment, it would create an independent public-private institute governed by a board of directors consisting of the HHS secretary, the directors of AHRQ and the National Institutes of Health, and 20 additional members appointed by GAO representing a broad range of stakeholders, including patients and consumers, physicians, public agencies (CMS and state and federal health programs), private payers, drug and device manufacturers, non-profit health research organizations, quality measurement/decision support organizations and organizations conducting minority health research.
The amendment, co-sponsored by fellow committee Democrat Jay Inslee,
Support for Obama's approach to health care has dropped in the polls, and the White House sought to address some oft-repeated claims.Among them: Will Medicare benefits be cut? Will government bureaucrats ration care? Will the elderly get progressively less care and then have euthanasia presented as an option?
Sebelius answered: No, no and no.
She said the administration wants to save money in Medicare by eliminating unnecessary procedures and hospital readmissions, among other things, but that there was no desire to eliminate needed benefits. She contended that insurance companies already ration care and that Obama wants to give doctors more control, not less.
As for the euthanasia claim: "Nothing could be less true ... that is just not part of the conversation," Sebelius said.
The rumor has become widespread and seems to stem from a provision in the House bill that would require Medicare to pay for direct consultations with health care professionals. Sebelius noted that no one would be required to use the benefit and said it would help many families. "
Notice any response from people that might have information -- cited and sourced (contra the Sebelius generalities) to the contrary?
Nada.
Nice work, Erica. Is this on top of your AP salary?
Read article here
Read it here
Let's be clear: there is nothing Nazi-like about any of the healthcare proposals. Just writing that, makes me sick. What is even sicker is how the LaRouche zombies are able to insinuate themselves into rallies, meetings, etc. without being called on it. Which explains how Borat got made I guess.
In any event, it is up to those people and organizations who are genuinely concerned about a government takeover of healthcare to express those opinions with passion, conviction and through democratic action. And at that same time it might behoove them to call out those who would use the Nazis plan to exterminate the Jews as a metaphor for healthcare reform as beyond the pale of civilized discourse.
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Go to a doctor in Britain, you won't have to pay when you leave. It's the same at the hospital. All health services are publicly funded by the National Health Service, funded by taxes. For that reason, a survey revealed only two percent of people in the U.K. who had a medical problem did not seek treatment because of costs. Peter Pitts (ph) of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, a nonpartisan research group, says the upside to the U.K. health system is universal coverage.
PETER PITTS, CTR. FOR MEDICINE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST: The NHS delivers healthcare today in the classic British tradition of muddling through. It’s mediocre care for everybody.
PILGRIM: The British government sets the budget and is charged with determining what will and will not be paid for. Critics point out that cutting-edge drug treatments for Alzheimer's, cancer and other severe conditions are often not included on a list of medicines that the government agency known as NICE will allow for reimbursement. Peter Pitts says it's a system that has real shortcomings.
PITTS: You can either accept a one size fits all health care system, which really doesn't fit anybody all that well, which is really terrific if you're not sick or very sick. But once you have cancer or advanced stages of lots of diseases and you really need cutting-edge medicine that system is really not equipped to provide it with excellence as ours is here.
PILGRIM: Now a 2007 study found that 57 percent of the people in the U.K. said the system really needed significant overhaul. Some in the U.K. have decided to opt out of the national health system and pay for private medical coverage. It is available. But anyone taking on private medical care has to opt out of the national health system, so a telling point is in the last decade some British companies are actually offering private health care as a recruitment perk for their employees.
Video posting of the complete segment shortly.
On a related and very timely note, the Times of London reports today that:
“Medical leaders have warned that shortages of doctors, nurses and other clinical staff are putting the NHS under unsustainable pressure as a generation of health workers enters retirement amid cutbacks in junior doctors’ working hours.
The number of vacancies for hospital doctors, dentists, nurses and midwives has risen for the first time in five years as trusts struggle to recruit and retain staff. New data from the NHS Information Centre revealed that more than one in twenty medical and dental posts were vacant at the end of March, in some cases for months at a time, while thousands of nursing and midwifery posts were also unfilled.
Of the total number of vacant posts, one in five — 5,500 jobs — had been left unfilled for three months or more, suggesting long-term problems with recruitment. Senior staff leaving the service and the reluctance of younger people to replace them were blamed for the shortfalls as total vacancy rates increased across most staff groups. Doctors’ leaders have also warned that the European Working Time Directive, which from this month limits junior doctors to a maximum 48-hour week, could create shortages, leaving trusts to rely on temporary or locum staff.”
The complete Times story can be found here.
These times demand the Times (of London).
CMPI's Peter Pitts on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight from Psyclone WMS on Vimeo.
More comments on this shortly.
FDA NEWS RELEASE
FDA Commissioner Sets Out Vision on Enforcement to Support Public Health
Commissioner of Food and Drugs Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D., today outlined her commitment “to prevent harm to the American people” through swift, aggressive, and effective enforcement of FDA laws and regulations.
“The FDA must be vigilant, the FDA must be strategic, the FDA must be quick, and the FDA must be visible,” Commissioner Hamburg told a group of industry representatives, attorneys, consumers, and others attending a speech sponsored by the Food and Drug Law Institute in Washington, D.C. “We must get the word out that the FDA is on the job.”
Commissioner Hamburg said that some FDA enforcement actions over the past several years “have been hampered by unreasonable delays” and “in some cases, serious violations have gone unaddressed for far too long.” She added that the pathways for enforcement actions “can be too long and arduous when the public’s health is in jeopardy.”
Commissioner Hamburg highlighted six initial steps designed to hone the effectiveness and timeliness of the FDA’s regulatory and enforcement system:
– Set post-inspection deadlines. The FDA will establish a clear timeline for regulated industry to respond to significant FDA inspection findings, generally giving no more than 15 days to respond to such findings before the agency issues a warning letter or takes other enforcement action.
– Take responsible steps to speed the warning letter process. The FDA will streamline the warning letter process by limiting review of warning letters by the Office of Chief Counsel to those that present significant legal issues.
– Work more closely with FDA’s regulatory partners. In some cases, such as with food safety issues, state, local, and international officials can act more quickly than the FDA. When public health is at risk, the agency will coordinate with its regulatory partners to take rapid action.
– Prioritize follow-up on warning letters and other enforcement actions. The FDA will work quickly to assess and follow up on corrective action taken by industry after a warning letter is issued or major product recall occurs.
– Be prepared to take immediate action in response to public health risks. To better protect the public health, the agency is prepared to act more quickly and aggressively to deal with significant public health concerns and violations. Such actions may occur before a formal warning letter is issued.
– Develop and implement a formal warning letter “close-out” process.” If the agency can determine that a firm has fully corrected violations raised in a warning letter the agency will issue an official “close-out” notice and post this information on the FDA Web site. This will be an important motivator for corrective action by manufacturers.
By taking these steps, Commissioner Hamburg said, the FDA will ensure that “violative inspection results are taken seriously, that warning letters and enforcement actions occur in a timely manner and that steps are taken to protect consumers in cases where immediate enforcement action is not possible.”
Center for Medicine in the Public Interest is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization promoting innovative solutions that advance medical progress, reduce health disparities, extend life and make health care more affordable, preventive and patient-centered. CMPI also provides the public, policymakers and the media a reliable source of independent scientific analysis on issues ranging from personalized medicine, food and drug safety, health care reform and comparative effectiveness.
