patriot eagle flag

hear ye word art

home button        news button        comments button        your freedom button

 

 

Death Panels in Obamacare

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare, called for the establishment of a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

The new institute’s purpose is to carry out “comparative clinical effectiveness research,” which is defined in the law as evaluating and comparing “health outcomes” and “clinical effectiveness, risks and benefits” of two or more medical treatments or services.

The purpose of the research is purportedly for the government to determine which treatments work best so that money is not spent on less effective treatments. There is also concern for preferential treatment based on race, ethnicity and so-called life preferences.

Obamacare contains largely unreported text that allows the health secretary to limit any “alternative treatments” of the elderly, disabled or terminally ill if such treatments are not recommended by the new research institute.

Reads that qualifier:

Paragraph (1) shall not be construed as preventing the Secretary from using evidence or findings from such comparative clinical effectiveness research in determining coverage, reimbursement, or incentive programs under title XVIII based upon a comparison of the difference in the effectiveness of alternative treatments in extending an individual’s life due to the individual’s age, disability, or terminal illness.

Paragraph (1) refers to the section that bars the health secretary from valuing the life of an elderly, disabled or terminally ill patient as lower than that of the younger or nondisabled patient.

The qualifier leaves the health secretary with the power to use government-provided research data to determine whether “alternative treatments” are effective in extending the life of the elderly, disables, or terminally ill.

Another section of Obamacare calls for the new institute to study the effectiveness of treatment in “subpopulations,” including “racial and ethnic minorities, women, age and groups of individuals with different comorbidities, genetic and molecular sub-types, or quality of life preferences.”

The effectiveness of such research has been widely called into question.

In a 2009 study, the CATO Institute raised concern about such government-funded research being politicized or influenced by lobbying.

“Unlike market-generated research, a federal comparative-effectiveness agency would be subject to political manipulation, which could block the generation of any useful research,” wrote CATO.

Continued CATO: “Such research necessarily poses a direct threat to the incomes of pharmaceutical manufacturers, medical device manufacturers and millions of providers. If a government agency produces unwelcome research, those groups will spend vast sums on lobbying campaigns and political contributions to discredit or defund the agency.”

During the “stimulus” debate, Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., fought the $1.1 billion spending on effectiveness research, spotlighting countries like Britain as cautionary tales.

“Think about this a moment,” Kyl said on the Senate floor. “Do you want Washington bureaucrats, such as those who brought you the AIG mess, making your health care decisions for you and your family?”

The Independent Payment Advisory Board is a group of bureaucrats that come between you and your doctor and decide what treatment you will and will not get. That is what Nancy Pelosi meant when she said they have to pass it before you will be able to see what was in it

Source:. http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/more-evidence-of-death-panels-in-obamacare/#mx7DsOm1UYu3Vm54.99