Buddhists stole my clarinet... and I'm still as mad as Hell about it! How did a small-town boy from the Midwest come to such an end? And what's he doing in Rhode Island by way of Chicago, Pittsburgh, and New York? Well, first of all, it's not the end YET! Come back regularly to find out. (Plant your "flag" at the bottom of the page, and leave a comment. Claim a piece of Rhode Island!) My final epitaph? "I've calmed down now."

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Baucus earns his healthcare industry funding

Joan Walsh, Salon.com, Tuesday September 29, 2009 18:30 EDT

On "The Ed Show" Monday night I said Montana Sen. Max Baucus had to decide whether he represented Montana or the insurance industry. Tuesday he made his choice, voting against both public option amendments to the healthcare reform bill in the Senate Finance Committee.

All the Democrats who voted against the public option should be ashamed, but Baucus most of all. The Senate Finance Committee chair's reasoning was bizarre. According to Salon's Mike Madden, whose coverage today was terrific, Baucus admitted "the public option would help hold insurance companies' feet to the fire," then added, "But my first job is to get this bill across the finish line."

No, Sen. Baucus. Your first job is voting for what will work to extend healthcare to more Americans and reduce costs. (And Harry Reid, you might want to have a little talk with your boy from Montana, since it's my understanding the Senate majority leader is in charge of getting the bill across the finish line.)

So let's get this straight: Baucus admits the public option would "hold insurance companies' feet to the fire," but he voted against it? Is there any clearer evidence that Baucus is in the pocket of the health insurance industry? Between 2003 and 2008, according to the Washington Post, Baucus took $3 million from the health and insurance sectors, 20 percent of his total contributions. And he collected half of that money in just the last two years, as the committee he chaired began holding hearings on healthcare reform.

It's possible Democrats can't muster the votes, or the procedural savvy, to pass a bill with a public option, even though a majority of senators, and a decisive majority in the House, support it. But we don't know that yet. It's not Baucus' role to prejudge what can or can't ultimately prevail, when the real action is probably going to come in the conference committee that reconciles what the more liberal House passes with what the Senate decides on. In the meantime, the Obama administration will have to leave the political sidelines and decide which arms to twist: Democrats shilling for the insurance industry, or the progressives who've pledged not to vote for a bill without a public option. There's plenty of political drama yet to come, Max. You didn't decide the bill's outcome with your self-contradictory vote today.

The harder I struggled to understand Baucus' nonsensical self-defense, only one meaning seemed possible: Baucus didn't vote against the public option despite the fact that it would "hold insurance companies' feet to the fire," but because it would. His insurance industry contributors got their money's worth today, but the people of Montana did not. Montana is one of the states with the least health-insurance competition -- 75 percent of its residents are covered by Blue Cross-Blue Shield, according to a 2007 American Medical Association report.

The public option isn't dead, no matter how hard Baucus or Democratic disappointments Blanche Lincoln and Kent Conrad fought to kill it on Tuesday. Not coincidentally, the Institute for Southern Studies reports that Conrad's North Dakota and Lincoln's Arkansas are, like Montana, among the worst states for insurance-company concentration, with 89 percent of North Dakotans and 75 percent of Arkansans covered, again, by Blue Cross-Blue Shield. These are the states where competition from the public option is needed the most.

After the Senate Finance Committee voted, the White House issued a statement saying President Obama still believes in the public option. Sen. Tom Harkin told Bill Press on Tuesday that the public option can pass the Senate "by a comfortable margin." I'm not sure that's entirely true, but Harkin is right to push Reid to include the option in the Senate's version of the bill, and force opponents to muster the votes to strip it out. How would Baucus vote, when a majority of Senate Democrats are sure to reject such a move? There's still time for Baucus to serve his constituents, not the insurance industry, but it's a shame he didn't do so on Tuesday.

-- Joan Walsh

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Rick Scott profits off the uninsured

A leading foe of healthcare reform owns a chain of clinics aimed at people who would benefit from a public option

-- By Tristram Korten Sep. 30, 2009 Salon.com

For months now multimillionaire healthcare entrepreneur Rick Scott has been at the center of the aggressive campaign to derail healthcare reform in Washington, D.C. Reprising the role he played nearly 20 years ago, when as the head of a national hospital chain he helped kill Clintoncare, the former hospital-chain executive founded the group Conservatives for Patients' Rights, raising $20 million to fight Obamacare, including $5 million of his own money. The tall, lean Scott, whose shiny bald head swivels in exasperation at the idea of government involvement in healthcare, even stars in its nationwide ad campaign comparing Democratic proposals to socialized medicine. Through this group, he has fomented the conservative strategy to disrupt town hall-style healthcare meetings around the country by shouting down elected officials. (CPR sent schedules of the meetings to so-called Tea Party activists.) He can justifiably claim some of the credit for the Senate Finance Committee's two votes Tuesday against a public option. But in Rick Scott the right has found a frontman whose baggage threatens to overwhelm his message.

A linchpin of Scott's 2009 campaign has been the use of anecdotes from abroad -- horror stories from Britain and Canada meant to illustrate how government-controlled healthcare systems "clearly kill people" by controlling their access to care, as he told Fox's Sean Hannity in June. He even funded a documentary titled "Faces of Government Healthcare" cataloging the horror stories of British and Canadian patients who were purportedly denied medical attention for life-threatening illnesses until it was too late.

Yet even as Scott makes the rounds of Congress and talk-show green rooms, a wrongful death lawsuit has been working its way through the Florida courts against a doctor employed by the chain of walk-in clinics Scott founded. Scott has repeatedly bragged that the 27-clinic, Florida-based company, Solantic, is an example of the free-market ingenuity needed to fix our ailing medical infrastructure. The lawsuit, however, alleges a Solantic doctor misdiagnosed a patient's deep-vein thrombosis as a sprained ankle, leading to a pulmonary embolism and death. That same doctor was reprimanded by the state for misdiagnosing deep-vein thrombosis in a patient who died two years earlier. It's the kind of anecdote you'd expect to hear in Scott's documentary -- except that it condemns a free-market system where profit and patient volume may take precedence over care.

And this isn't the first time that Scott's warnings about the ills of socialist medicine have found an ironic echo in his own healthcare business. Scott argues that socialized medicine rations care and strangles competition, yet just after his first stint as anti-reform spokesman in the 1990s, while he was running the world's largest healthcare company, he was accused of monopolizing markets and choking out the competition while slashing the chain's costs to the point that it affected patient care. And while he asserts that two of the core principles of healthcare reform are "accountability" and "personal responsibility," Scott ran a company that ultimately pleaded guilty to defrauding the government in one of the nation's largest Medicare frauds ever. Two executives went to prison, the company paid almost $2 billion in fines, and Scott was pushed out of the company. Before he could retake the political stage, he had to build his healthcare business all over again.

In the end, Scott's virulent opposition to Democratic healthcare proposals may simply be a business decision. The post-millennial incarnation of Rick Scott has plunged into several new healthcare businesses that could be adversely affected by reform. Among other healthcare businesses, Richard L. Scott Investments has invested in a pharmacy company, Pharmaca, where one of his employees sits on the board of directors. Drug manufacturers are opposed to a Medicare-type entity that could negotiate bulk purchases of drugs and drive down the cost of their products. More important, Scott's Solantic bills itself as a low-cost alternative to people who would otherwise go to emergency rooms for their immediate care needs -- i.e., the uninsured and people paying out-of-pocket expenses as a result of diminished insurance plans -- the very people reforms are intended to cover.

Solantic's very existence is an implicit acknowledgment that healthcare costs have not been reined in by free-market forces. Scott himself boasts that a person paying out of pocket will spend at least 10 times less at a Solantic clinic than in a hospital emergency room. That's because hospitals have to charge insured patients a premium to help cover the costs of the uninsured, who often can't pay the full price for medical care, and may skip out on paying altogether. (The Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank that supports a public option in healthcare reform, estimates there is an $1,100 cost shift to family premiums in order to cover the uninsured.) As insurance premiums rise as a result, businesses are turning to higher-deductible plans for their employees, which forces Americans who do have health insurance to pay more in out-of-pocket expenses.

Solantic makes its profit on the spread in this system. "He's there to catch everyone who doesn't have access to regular healthcare," says the Center for American Progress's Igor Volsky. "It's just a business opportunity."

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Richard Lynn Scott was raised in Kansas City, Mo. His father was a truck driver, his mother a department store clerk who sold encyclopedias door-to-door to augment their income. After high school he joined the Navy, then attended the University of Missouri, while working full-time at a grocery store. It was also during college that he exhibited his entrepreneurial drive, buying two doughnut shops for his mother to manage. Ultimately, he decided to become a lawyer, and attended the law school at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, staying in town afterward to practice at a large firm, Johnson & Swanson, where he represented hospitals in mergers and acquisitions. It's there that he began to see healthcare in terms of its business components and profit potential.

He had no medical background and never operated a hospital or ran a clinic, but at some point decided he wanted to own hospitals. In 1987 Scott made a failed bid on behalf of some investors to buy the Hospital Corporation of America, a hospital chain founded by members of the Frist family, including Dr. Thomas Frist Sr., the father of then-U.S. Sen. Bill Frist. But the Frists rejected the offer. The move, however, brought him to the attention of Richard Rainwater, a politically connected investor with ties to the Bush family. Rainwater had made a fortune investing for the wealthy, including George W. Bush. At one point Rainwater, who owned a big chunk of the Texas Rangers and brought Bush in as the team's managing partner, brought in Scott as an investor in the team as well.

In 1987 Rainwater and Scott partnered, and with the initial purchase of two hospitals in El Paso, Texas, formed the Columbia Healthcare Corp. They took their company public and used the money to buy hospitals at a fast clip, focusing on dominating specific markets by buying several hospitals in a region and closing the poor-performing ones. They slashed costs, cutting jobs and hours, and bought bulk supplies at discount. Wall Street rewarded them. By 1994 they had enough capital to buy Scott's original target, HCA. The combined company, rechristened Columbia/HCA, would grow to more than 340 hospitals, 135 surgery centers, 550 home health locations in 37 states and two foreign countries, making it the largest healthcare company in the world. Scott moved to HCA's corporate headquarters in Nashville, Tenn., as CEO.

Although Scott, through Rainwater, hobnobbed with politicos, he was not known as a political animal. He was a workaholic. His political contributions in those days were to trade groups like the Federation of American Health Systems, and to people associated with his business, like Bill Frist's Senate campaign. "I do not recall that he was a major political player back in either the '80s or early '90s, even though he had these connections to Bush through Rainwater," says R.G. Ratcliffe, a veteran political reporter for the Houston Chronicle, who has covered Texas politics, and Rainwater, for 30 years.

Scott himself was an unassuming man, even as his company made financial news across the country. Maggie Mahar, a journalist for the business magazine Barron's in those days, flew down to meet Scott in order to write a profile, but found a man so undynamic she had to change the focus of her story. "He was supposed to be a new up-and-comer, and I just didn't get it," she recalls. "Usually someone who runs a large corporation has a large personality, if not intelligence. With Scott there just wasn't enough there, so I wrote about whether tax breaks for nonprofit hospitals were unfair to for-profit hospitals."

Yet when the Clinton White House began aggressively pushing healthcare reforms, it was Scott who took up the role as frontman for his company, voicing opposition to industry groups and the media. "What's happening in Washington is not healthcare reform," he was quoted in the New York Times as saying to a group of Tampa hospital executives in 1994. "Healthcare reform is happening in the market place." Many suspect he was urged to do this by the Frists, who still retained much control of the company.

The Center for American Progress put together a video montage showing that Scott's talking points today are almost exactly the same as they were in 1993 and 1994. He was at the top of his game then, a man Time magazine praised in 1996 as one of the 25 most influential Americans, alongside Jerry Seinfeld and Sandra Day O'Connor. "In an industry notorious for waste and inefficiency, Scott aggressively consolidates operations and imposes cost controls," Time lauded in its article. One of the examples Time cited was Scott and Rainwater's investment in the two El Paso hospitals, followed by the purchase of a third nearby, which they promptly closed to drive up revenue at the other two.

Others were not so smitten. Journalist Mahar studied Columbia/HCA's business model for her book "Money-Driven Medicine: The Real Reason Healthcare Costs So Much." Hospitals were traditionally seen as a nonprofit business because they provide an essential service to society, Mahar explains. "Hospitals are a necessity like gas and electricity," she says. "We regulate those industries. We don't allow prices to skyrocket. The same thing in healthcare. We don't want hospitals gouging sick people." But in the 1980s, she says, ambitious investors began to see healthcare as a way to make money. Chief among them was Scott.

"What Rick Scott wanted, and his shareholders wanted, was for healthcare to be a growth industry where revenues go up every year," says Mahar, now a fellow at the public-policy think tank the Century Foundation. "I think it's basically impossible to achieve the level of profitability they wanted in the hospital business. You can't expect double-digit profits from a hospital. It's a very tough business. You need a lot of people. You need a good nurse-to-patient ratio to keep patients comfortable and respond to emergencies. And it's unpredictable; you don't know how many patients on a night shift are going to get sick. So you can't trim down to the bone. When you do, people die."

Columbia/HCA regularly posted double-digit growth that paid big dividends to shareholders. BusinessWeek recognized it as one of the 50 best-performing companies on the S&P 500. But in her book Mahar cites examples of how the cost cutting at Columbia/HCA impacted care. One technician complained of having to watch 72 heart monitors at one time. Nurses at an Indianapolis hospital complained to state authorities that babies in the neonatal unit were left unattended for up to three hours. In one case a nurse caring for seven infants was so busy she failed to hear an alarm when a baby stopped breathing; the child was saved when a parent rushed in. The state fined the hospital.

Other, bigger problems were looming. In the mid-1990s, aided by a former accountant who became a whistle-blower, the feds opened an investigation into suspicions that Columbia/HCA hospitals were routinely defrauding the government by inflating the expenses of procedures billed to Medicare, and paying illegal kickbacks to doctors who steered patients to Columbia/HCA hospitals. In July 1997, a year after Time's coronation, federal agents raided Columbia/HCA hospitals in more than half a dozen states, and carted away reams of paperwork. Some hospitals were discovered to have two sets of books, one reflecting the true costs for procedures and another with inflated expenses charged to Medicare. Four executives were indicted; two were found guilty and sent to prison. Rather than continue to fight the government, company executives decided to have Columbia/HCA plead guilty to 14 felonies. The hospital giant ended up paying $1.7 billion in fines and settlements.

Scott was not indicted in the scandal and has protested that he never condoned any illegal activity. He has asserted that federal agents never even interviewed him. But Columbia/HCA's board found him an unpleasant symbol of the problem and voted to oust Scott almost immediately after the scandal erupted in 1997, paying him a $9.88 million severance package, along with 10 million shares of stock worth up to $300 million at the time, to walk away.

Mahar lays much of the blame for Columbia/HCA's illegal acts at Scott's feet. He cultivated a corporate culture where profit was the most important thing, and, as she put it in her book, "executive salaries hinged not on such criteria as reducing infections or lowering death rates, but on meeting financial targets like 'growth in admissions and surgery cases.'"

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Scott was stung by his fall. He retreated into finance, starting the investment firm Richard L. Scott Investments in Connecticut, that bought stakes in a variety of industries, including a TV network devoted to health news (later acquired by Fox) and a computer security firm. But he clearly wanted to reestablish himself as a healthcare player.

A few years after his HCA ouster he got his chance when he and a former Columbia/HCA marketing executive named Karen Bowling conceived of a chain of urgent-care clinics. They collaborated on a business plan for a company that would provide a retail experience not unlike Starbucks or McDonald's -- convenient, affordable, with a focus on "customer satisfaction." In 2001 Scott funded it. The company, based in Jacksonville, Fla., was formed as a service to people who would otherwise visit overburdened emergency rooms with relatively routine problems, such as broken bones, sprains and minor infections, to patients who need to see their primary care doctor for matters such as immunizations and physicals but would have to wait days or even weeks for an appointment. The clinics were designed to be open 12 hours a day, seven days a week. Today, there are 27 Solantic clinics, all in Florida.

Karen Bowling is a cheery former Jacksonville TV reporter. She began working for Scott in the late 1980s when Columbia/HCA gobbled up the Jacksonville hospital where she was the marketing director. She has been a faithful Scott ally ever since, even leaving her job with Columbia/HCA when Scott was ousted. She worked for various of his companies before starting Solantic. "We both really believed healthcare should be more convenient for patients," Bowling says.

Bowling insists the majority of clients are insured, and just want the no-wait convenience of a Solantic clinic. But Scott's repeated emphasis on the cost savings for those paying cash implies the company sees the uninsured as a market to be tapped. "We're probably one-tenth to one-fifteenth the cost if you're just writing a check and going to the E.R.," he boasted to Texas Rep. Michael Burgess in a made-for-YouTube interview the congressman shot. And most press reports identify Solantic as targeting the uninsured. The New York Times described Solantic as a "chain of urgent care clinics which Mr. Scott promotes as inexpensive alternatives to emergency rooms, especially for the uninsured." And why not? With an estimated 45 million to 47 million Americans without health insurance right now, it would seem a smart business move. But just as happened with his first healthcare empire, Scott's newest business raises questions about the compatibility of a corporate bottom line with quality patient care.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

One of Scott and Bowling's initial hires at Solantic was Dr. David Yarian, the company's first regional medical director. His job was to create the clinical design for the urgent-care centers. Yarian lasted roughly five months. He clashed repeatedly with Scott over hiring practices. They also had philosophical differences about how to set up the clinics. Solantic initially designed them so that there would be one doctor and one physician's assistant on staff for 12-hour shifts to meet a steady stream of patients, Yarian says.

"The whole design was for people to get in and out quickly," Yarian says. "I believe the target was 50 patients a day based on a 12-hour day. But no clinic works that way, especially urgent-care clinics where people don't make appointments." The business is too unpredictable. "But Rick and Karen had never run a clinic. He wanted to turn it into a McDonald's. His whole point was volume and speed."

Yarian knew about Scott's past, and he worried that Scott was emphasizing profits over patients again.

"It was made very clear to me this was a numbers game," Yarian says. "The doctors were going to be evaluated on the number of patients they saw. This is exactly what happened at his hospitals."

After one clash too many, Scott and Bowling fired Yarian in November of 2001. Yarian sued for breach of contract and ended up settling with the company.

Scott, in a statement to Salon, declined to address Yarian's criticisms and dismissed him as a "disgruntled employee."

In 2004, three years after Yarian's brief tenure, Solantic hired Dr. Nadeem Maalouli as one of the doctors for its Orange Park clinic just outside Jacksonville. It's not clear if the company knew it at the time of his hire, but Maalouli was being investigated by state health officials for a botched diagnosis. In September 2002 Maalouli was working in a hospital emergency room when he treated a 32-year-old woman complaining of shortness of breath, chest pain and possibly blood-tinged sputum, according to a complaint by the Florida Department of Health. But after Maalouli examined her, the complaint states, he found her "normal." In fact, Maalouli had failed to detect the woman's deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Four days later the woman suffered a pulmonary embolism and died. In 2007 the state's Board of Medicine ultimately ruled that Maalouli's failure to detect the DVT had violated medical standards and reprimanded him. Maalouli agreed to pay a $15,000 fine and to take a continuing education course in detecting pulmonary embolisms.

That case was winding its way through the state's bureaucracy when Maalouli started at Solantic. (Maalouli through his lawyers declined to comment for this article). Then, on March 16, 2005, Tanieta Ogden Shuler, a 31-year-old Jacksonville woman, limped into his clinic, according to information taken from court and medical records. It was around 8 p.m., right before closing, and Shuler complained of a pain shooting from her right heel up the back of her leg. Dr. Maalouli, who was finishing a 12-hour shift, examined Shuler and diagnosed a sprained ankle. He recommended she keep her foot elevated, treat it with ice, and use crutches for the time being. Then he prescribed Motrin 800 and Darvocet for the pain.

Six days later Shuler followed up with a podiatrist who recommended an MRI to see why the pain was persisting, a task Shuler put off. The next day, at about 7 p.m. on March 29, Shuler was rushed to the emergency room at Memorial Medical Center, where she died. An autopsy revealed that Shuler suffered from DVT in her leg, which caused a pulmonary embolism.

In their lawsuit, Shuler's family asserts that Maalouli's examination fell below the accepted standard of care because he didn't send her off to get a sonogram or other tests to double-check his assessment (the clinics don't have sonograms). Maalouli's and Solantic's lawyers dispute that, saying all indications pointed to a sprained ankle, and that it's likely Shuler didn't even have the DVT when she came in to be examined.

Questions likely to come up at trial include whether the company's supposed emphasis on numbers pushed Dr. Maalouli to see Shuler as the clinic was closing, after he had worked a 12-hour shift, and whether Maalouli did not send her off for further tests because he might have lost a client to another facility.

Bowling declined to comment on this case because it is still in the court system. "It's important to say it hasn't gone to trial and it's outcome hasn't been determined yet," she says.

And of course, one wrongful death case, amid the 1.7 million visits to Solantic's 27 clinics, according to company statistics (counting multiple visits by the same patient), is not a condemnation of the entire business model. But it is an uncomfortable fact for Scott to deal with as he travels the world cherry-picking horror stories from countries that use government run systems.

After all, a doctor at a for-profit clinic that relies on high patient turnover, who is called to account for two alleged misdiagnoses ending in two deaths, is right up there with the examples from Scott's documentary -- the English woman denied routine pap smears for two years until she was diagnosed with fatal cervical cancer, or the Canadian man who had to wait 20 months for an appointment regarding his heart arrhythmia, and finally came to the U.S. for treatment.

Aside from the paradox the wrongful death suit puts Scott's example-rich campaign against socialized medicine in, it also counters his boast that Solantic is the kind of free-market exemplar that can fix our healthcare industry. Urgent care clinics provide a service, but only for the most uncomplicated procedures. Doctors don't review a patient's past medical history. There is no ongoing primary care offered. They have limited testing abilities. Other than X-ray machines the facilities don't have any advanced equipment. This is not the solution for the nation's uninsured.

"For very limited things it could work," says author Mahar. "But one problem with this transparent pricing is that if I go in with a terrible stomach pain, no one knows where this is in the price plan until they start examining me. How can they possibly tell me when I stagger in how much it will cost to treat me? Even something as simple as a headache, well I could have a tumor. Basically healthcare is not a commodity that can be neatly priced."

Even Bowling concedes it is no replacement for ongoing care from a physician. "I think people should rely on us for episodic care," Bowling explains. "As a policy we refuse patient requests to be the primary care physicians."

And Rick Scott has never proposed his own full-length healthcare plan, though he has ventured a few specific proposals -- transparent pricing by insurance companies and standardized forms for insurance submissions. Mostly, Scott knows what he's against.

Solantic's target customers -- not only the uninsured, but the self-employed, and small businesses seeking to provide insurance to employees -- are the ones advocates say would benefit most from some kind of affordable healthcare option, even if it was provided by the government. Reforms that would make sure every American had access to affordable health insurance might put Solantic's business plan in jeopardy, giving Scott incentive to gum up the works. "I think those kinds of clinics will become less popular as everyone becomes insured," notes the Center for American Progress's Volsky.

It was only after founding Solantic that Scott began to invest heavily in politics again. He moved from Connecticut to Naples, Fla., along with the bulk of his investment company, and became increasingly active in Republican activities. From 2004 through 2009, he has given $67,000 to Republican candidates and organizations, according to the Federal Election Commission, including $25,000 to the Republican National Committee in 2004, and another $28,000 in 2008.

Then, in February 2009, after the Obama administration announced that reforming healthcare was a priority, but before any concrete plans were announced, Scott reclaimed his mid-'90s soapbox. He charged in with his money and organizational support and helped the diminished GOP galvanize the anti-reform cause, quickly emerging as perhaps the most vocal and prominent conservative voice on the issue. He launched Conservatives for Patients' Rights, which promotes what it sees as the four pillars of healthcare reform -- choice, competition, accountability and personal responsibility. He chose to become its spokesman, appearing in a series of ads put together by Creative Response Concepts, the P.R. firm involved in the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign to discredit Sen. John Kerry's presidential bid. The healthcare ads have aired on CNN and Fox, as well as the Web site Politico.com, and he has penned opinion pieces on RealClearPolitics.com.

In mid-July Scott's group organized a conference call with 104 conservative leaders, plotting a strategy to drag out the healthcare debate in Congress until they have enough popular momentum against reform. Participants in the meeting came out energized. "This healthcare issue is D-Day for freedom in America," South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint was quoted in Politico.com as saying. "If we're able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."

For Scott that would no doubt be good for business.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Cantor To Uninsured Woman With Growing Tumors: Get ‘An Existing Government Program’ Or Find Charity

From Think Progress

At the Richmond Times-Dispatch “public square” forum yesterday, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) fielded open questions from his constituents on the health reform debate for the first time this summer.

Patricia Churchill relayed a story about a close family member who recently lost a high paying job and her health insurance. Churchill told Cantor that her relative was dying of stomach tumors and needs an operation as soon as possible. Cantor responded by suggesting that Churchill’s relative should seek “existing government programs” or find charity.

Cantor, who serves as the chief whip for his party, has said that he cannot support a health reform bill with a public option. But despite his political opposition to government insurance programs, Cantor then emphasized to Churchill that every American should be given an “option” for health care, including a government program:

CHURCHILL: I have a very close relative, a woman in her early forties, who did have a wonderful, high-paying job, owns her own home and is a real contributing member of society. She lost her job. Just a couple of weeks ago, she found out that she has tumors in her belly and that she needs an operation. Her doctors told her that they are growing and that she needs to get this operation quickly. She has no insurance. [...]

CANTOR: First of all I guess I would ask what the situation is in terms of income eligibility and the existing programs that are out there. Because if we look at the uninsured that are out there right now, there is probably 23, 24% of the uninsured that is already eligible for an existing government program [...] Beyond that, I know that there are programs, there are charitable organizations, there are hospitals here who do provide charity care if there’s an instance of indigency and the individual is not eligible for existing programs that there can be some cooperative effort. No one in this country, given who we are, should be sitting without an option to be addressed.

In an interview with ThinkProgress after the event, Churchill explained that her relative, who needs help now, probably won’t qualify for a low-income government program like Medicaid and that there are very long waiting periods for charity programs. Asked about Cantor’s response to her question, Churchill said, “it was helpful in a sense, but of course nowhere near as helpful as having this healthcare reform bill passed so that we could know that she could definitely go and get taken care of.”

Today, Cantor called for “scrapping” President Obama’s proposed public option insurance program

Labels: , , , , ,

Cantor to Uninsured Woman: Get a Government Option or Public Charity

Labels: , , , , , , ,

The Numbers and Health Care Reform

NY Times Editorial, Sept. 22

Two authoritative surveys in recent days have underscored why all Americans have a stake in successful health care reform. Too many people are being hit with relentlessly rising premiums or are at serious risk of losing their coverage to allow the status quo to continue.

A survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that, once again, health insurance premiums rose faster last year than either wages or general inflation. A study by the Treasury Department found that almost half of all Americans below Medicare age have gone without insurance at some point over the last decade.

The Kaiser study, conducted jointly with the Health Research and Education Trust, an affiliate of the American Hospital Association, found that the average premium for a family policy offered at work rose above $13,300 in 2009 — up from $5,800 in 1999. The average employer paid more than $9,800 of that, while the workers contributed more than $3,500. The workers were also hit with larger co-payments and deductibles, while their policies often offered fewer benefits.

The premium increase this year was a relatively modest 5 percent, far below the 13 percent rate in two previous years. But that still far outpaced a 3.1 percent growth in wages and a small decrease in inflation. Absent meaningful reform, worse is sure to come.

Kaiser estimates that, if increases revert to the average of the last 10 years, health insurance premiums in 2019 will average a whopping $30,800, which it calls “a very scary number.” More immediately, a fifth of the employers surveyed said they are very likely to increase the amount that employees pay for premiums next year.

Meanwhile, the Treasury Department’s study highlighted how vulnerable Americans are to losing their coverage.

It found that, between 1997 and 2006, 48 percent of nonelderly Americans went without health insurance for at least one month, 41 percent lacked coverage for at least six months and 36 percent were uncovered for a year or more. That happened during a decade of strong economic growth. The number of uninsured is likely to be higher over the next decade, the study warns.

The argument for reform seems clear. Americans without insurance need guaranteed access to coverage. Those with insurance need a guarantee that they will not be dropped by their insurers and will be able to buy an affordable policy if their employers decide to drop coverage. And ways must be found to slow the rise in health care costs and ease the burden of paying for insurance.

Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Protect Insurance Companies

Labels: , , , ,

When Getting Beaten By Your Husband Is A Pre-Existing Condition

It turns out that in eight states, plus the District of Columbia, getting beaten up by your spouse is a pre-existing condition...

Ryan Grim, Huffington Post, September 22

With the White House zeroing in on the insurance-industry practice of discriminating against clients based on pre-existing conditions, administration allies are calling attention to how broadly insurers interpret the term to maximize profits.

It turns out that in eight states, plus the District of Columbia, getting beaten up by your spouse is a pre-existing condition.

Under the cold logic of the insurance industry, it makes perfect sense: If you are in a marriage with someone who has beaten you in the past, you're more likely to get beaten again than the average person and are therefore more expensive to insure.

In human terms, it's a second punishment for a victim of domestic violence.

In 2006, Democrats tried to end the practice. An amendment introduced by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), now a member of leadership, split the Health Education Labor & Pensions Committee 10-10. The tie meant that the measure failed.

All ten no votes were Republicans, including Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming), a member of the "Gang of Six" on the Finance Committee who are hashing out a bipartisan bill. A spokesman for Enzi didn't immediately return a call from Huffington Post.

At the time, Enzi defended his vote by saying that such regulations could increase the price of insurance and make it out of reach for more people. "If you have no insurance, it doesn't matter what services are mandated by the state," he said, according to a CQ Today item from March 15th, 2006.

Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for an insurance industry trade group, America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), said that the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) has proposed ending the discrimination. "The NAIC has a model on this that we strongly supported. That model bans the use of a person's status as a victim of domestic violence in making a decision on coverage," he said.

During the last health care reform push, in 1993 and 1994, the industry similarly promised to end discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions.

Murray pushed to include the domestic violence concern in this year's comprehensive health care bill. "Senator Murray continues to believe that victims of domestic violence should not be punished for the crimes of their abusers. That is why she worked to include language in the Senate HELP Committee's health insurance reform bill that would ban this discriminatory and harmful insurance company practice," said spokesman Eli Zupnick.

In 1994, then-Rep. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), now a member of Senate leadership, had his staff survey 16 insurance companies. He found that eight would not write health, life or disability policies for women who have been abused. In 1995, the Boston Globe found that Nationwide, Allstate, State Farm, Aetna, Metropolitan Life, The Equitable Companies, First Colony Life, The Prudential and the Principal Financial Group had all either canceled or denied coverage to women who'd been beaten.

The Service Employees International Union asked members to write letters to Congress regarding the exclusion and have quickly generated hundreds, says an SEIU spokeswoman.

The relevant provision:

SEC. 2706. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPANTS AND BENEFICIARIES BASED ON HEALTH STATUS.

'(a) IN GENERAL.--A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may not establish rules for eligibility (including continued eligibility) of any individual to enroll under the terms of the plan or coverage based on any of the following health status-related factors in relation to the individual or a dependent of the individual:

(1) Health status.

(2) Medical condition (including both physical and mental illnesses).

(3) Claims experience.

(4) Receipt of health care.

(5) Medical history.

(6) Genetic information.

(7) Evidence of insurability (including conditions arising out of acts of domestic violence).

(8) Disability.

(9) Any other health status-related factor determined appropriate by the Secretary.

UPDATE: The eight states that still allow it are Idaho, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Wyoming, according to a report by the National Women's Law Center.

UPDATE II: Scratch the Tar Heal state from that list. North Carolina insurance commissioner Wayne Goodwin had his staff research the state's law and his attorneys concluded that insurers in that state would not be allowed to use domestic violence as a pre-existing condition. Group plans were specifically forbidden from using it thanks to a 1997 law, he said. For individuals and non-group plans, it's more complicated.

"Though there is not a specific statute for individual plans or non-group plans, there is another statute that our attorneys here tell us addresses this issue. For example, North Carolina law defines what a preexisting condition is. Now, here in North Carolina, it says a preexisting condition means - quote - those conditions for which medical advice, diagnosis, care or treatment was received or recommended within a one year period immediately preceding the effective date of the person's coverage." Domestic violence, he said, doesn't met the state's definition of a medical condition and so can't be used as a pre-existing condition.

Wyoming Department of Insurance staff attorney James Mitchell said the state's insurance laws do not ban insurers from using domestic violence as a pre-existing condition, but his staffers were unable to find cases of insurers having done so and he said they had not received any complaints. "We are not aware of any policies that have been submitted to us that addressed domestic violence as a pre-existing condition," he said. The remaining six states have yet to respond.

UPDATE TO UPDATE II: A few readers have noted that the ambiguity of North Carolina's law regarding individual and non-group plans could still leave domestic violence victims vulnerable to discrimination. And Commissioner Goodwin himself, in a Facebook note summarizing my conversation with him, does say "that North Carolina's law on this subject vis-a-vis individual/non-group plans could be clarified and made more direct, and that we should also consider the NAIC national model law on the subject, too. The legislature doesn't return until May 2010, so there is time to work on the best way to clarify this issue for folks while educating them in the meanwhile."

He posted his response on the FB page of journalist Christine Tatum, who had posted a link to this story and asked her friends to contact him. Goodwin noted on her wall that allowing insurance companies to discriminate against domestic violence victims is a tragedy and something he wouldn't allow in his state.

North Carolina, however, given the fuzziness of the law, still belongs on a list of states whose laws could be clarified to assure that domestic violence victims aren't denied coverage or charged higher premiums. Forty-two states have made that specific clarification and the Senate health committee bill would do so nationally.

If you're an attorney with experience in this field and want to weigh in, write me at ryan@huffingtonpost.com.

UPDATE III: Mississippi Insurance Commissioner Mike Chaney provided the following statement through a spokeswoman:

Mississippi does not at this time have a law which bans insurance companies from considering domestic violence as a pre-existing condition. However, the reason there is not such a law is that there has not been a problem with insurance companies denying coverage or refusing to pay the claims of domestic violence victims in this state. If it were an issue, the Legislature and the Department would have addressed it by now.

The Mississippi Department of Insurance is unaware of any insurance company operating in this state that would deny coverage if the applicant had been a victim of domestic violence. Nor have we received any complaint from a consumer stating their insurance company refused to pay their medical bills incurred from domestic violence. Such action by an insurance company would not be tolerated by the Department.

It is the position of the Department that if an insurance company denied payment of a claim incurred in an act of domestic violence, such action would be a violation of the Unfair Trade Practices Act, as promulgated in Miss. Code Ann. §§ 83-5-29 through 83-5-51, and the Department would take the appropriate action.

Should the Mississippi Legislature choose to enact legislation addressing this issue, the Mississippi Insurance Department would be very supportive of the passage of such legislation.

UPDATE TO UPDATE III: Mississippi Insurance Commissioner Mike Chaney was much blunter in an interview with the Jackson Free Press:

"The truth is we've got eight states in the union that count domestic abuse as a pre-existing condition, and Mississippi is one of them," Chaney told the Jackson Free Press. "I've got to get some of my lawyers to do some research on this, but we have only six mandated (conditions that must be covered) in our state statues, and we have 25 or more optional coverages, but domestic abuse doesn't seem to be one of them."

Chaney said all insurance companies in the state can take advantage of the state's limited coverage mandate, and that he would prefer the state to change its law to force insurance companies to cover victims of domestic abuse.

"Would I do something about it? Hell, yeah, I'd do something about it, but I'm a regulator, not a legislator. I have to come to terms with that every week," Chaney said. "The whole situation is bad. Let's say a woman works with a company that had Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and she gets beat up in her house and Blue Cross says 'we're not covering you because getting beat up is your pre-existing condition.' That's terrible."

Read the whole story here.

UPDATE IV: North Dakota Insurance Commissioner Adam Hamm, a former violent-crimes prosecutor, told the Huffington Post that he and Gov. John Hoeven (R) are working to change the standing policy in their state. "To put it mildly, Wayne and I are on the same page," he said, referring to the North Carolina insurance commissioner.

After a consumer alerted him Tuesday via e-mail, Hamm said, "Quite frankly, I was stunned and I couldn't believe it." His office then contacted Blue Cross-Blue Shield, Medica, John Alden and American Family, who together account for 98 percent of the state's health insurance policies, and none of the four companies treat domestic violence as a preexisting condition, he said. Nor has the state insurance department recorded any complaints of being denied care on those grounds.

"We have no record of any of that ever occurring in our state," Hamm said. "So we're obviously happy about that."

To keep it from happening in the future, the state insurance department will push legislation as soon as possible, Hamm said. Since the North Dakota legislature only meets every other year, he projected a 2011 vote.

In the meantime, Hamm said he wants to know why North Dakota never joined the 42 other states who passed bans years ago. Agents are combing legislative files going back to the mid-1990s to see if such a measure was ever introduced, he said.

UPDATE V: State Farm writes in to note that it has changed its policy since that 1995 Boston Globe story and no longer discriminates against victims of domestic violence.

A follow-up Globe item reported that "recent 'media attention,' and the company's own research, caused the company to revise its policy, [spokeswoman K.C.] Eynatten said. State Farm no longer 'rates or denies life or health insurance to battered women, even if there's a history of domestic violence.'

It went on: "'We realized our position was based on gut feelings, not hard numbers,' Eynatten said, explaining the change. 'And we became aware that we were part of the reason a woman and her children might not leave an abuser. They were afraid they'd lose their insurance. And we wanted no part of that.'"

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Few individual health policies cover maternity

Anthem Blue Cross' Singer said that those states have much higher rates for individual insurance coverage than California. "The point of insurance is to insure against catastrophic care costs," he said. "Having a child is a matter of choice."


The number of individual health insurance policies that do not include maternity coverage has risen dramatically in recent years, prompting concern among consumers and a legislative effort to require California insurers to include the benefit.

About 805,000 Californians have insurance policies that specifically exclude maternity coverage - a number that has more than quadrupled from 192,000 in 2004, according to the California Health Benefits Review Program, which provides independent analysis of proposed health insurance benefits mandates.

"You see this tremendous jump in just a few years. That's where we're going with this," said Assemblyman Hector De La Torre, D-South Gate (Los Angeles County), whose bill to require maternity coverage is headed to the Assembly Health Committee today. Insurance companies are "pushing these policies clearly onto people, and people are making their decisions based solely on dollars and cents."

As more people lose their jobs - and along with that, their health insurance benefits - an increasing number are expected to turn to the individual health insurance market for coverage, an option that is usually less expensive than paying to stay on their former employers' health plans.

De La Torre's bill, AB98, would require all health insurance products regulated by the state Department of Insurance to include maternity benefits. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a similar bill authored by De La Torre last year as well as one introduced in 2004 by then-Sen. Jackie Speier, D-Hillsborough.

Health insurers and consumers who support the right to buy a policy that excludes maternity benefits say they shouldn't have to pay for a service they have no intention of using. They say requiring such coverage would increase premiums and force more people to go without insurance.

"Clearly there are a number of people out there who don't think they need or want a maternity benefit at this point in their lives and recognize there is a significant reduction in costs associated with this," said Ben Singer, spokesman for Anthem Blue Cross, which covers about half of the individual policyholders in the state who do not have maternity coverage. Singer said requiring the benefit could increase premiums by as much as 107 percent for some members.

Shared risk

Supporters of the mandate, however, argue that denying coverage is unfair to women and that, in exchange for an average $7.17, or 4.24 percent, increase in monthly premium price per individual policyholder, society would save money if fewer women were on government-supported programs.

De La Torre argued that excluding maternity flies in the face of the insurance philosophy of shared risk. "Why do women pay for prostate cancer? Why do men pay for breast cancer? Because that's the whole point of insurance," he said.

The controversy is limited to individual insurance coverage because group policies, those provided by an employer or group, include maternity benefits. Health maintenance organizations, or HMO plans, are required by the state to have maternity coverage, but preferred provider organization, or PPO, service plans are free to exclude the benefit.

People who buy individual plans typically do not have access to group coverage. They can be self-employed, work for an employer that does not provide health insurance or simply choose such policies as the most affordable options.

But with the growing popularity of such policies without maternity coverage - such as Anthem Blue Cross' low-cost Tonik plans, which are geared toward young adults - finding an affordable individual plan with the coverage can prove to be a daunting task.

No good options

When Wendy Root Askew of Monterey started looking for a doctor she hoped would be her gynecologist as well as deliver her future children, she was shocked to discover her health insurance policy didn't include a single OB/GYN in her county.

The 31-year-old considered changing health plans. But then she learned that while 85 percent of the plans available in Monterey County offered maternity coverage five years ago, just 15 percent offer it now.

She found only two individual policies that included maternity, but they were three to five times as much as the policy she already had and came with annual deductibles of up to $15,000.

"Who's going to be buying policy with a $10,000 or $15,000 deductible? Clearly only those women who are intending to use the service," said Askew, who went from running her own business to working for an employer that offers group health insurance. She said she made the decision in part because the job offered comprehensive health benefits.

Health insurers are not uniformly against mandating maternity benefits. Kaiser Permanente, which as an HMO is required to include maternity, has supported maternity mandates along with Blue Shield of California, which has come out in favor of De La Torre's bill. The California Association of Health Plans has not taken a position, while another insurance trade group, the Association of California Life & Health Insurance Companies, publicly opposes the bill.

Higher individual rates

Several states, including Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York, already have laws in place requiring plans to pay for maternity services.

Anthem Blue Cross' Singer said that those states have much higher rates for individual insurance coverage than California.

"The point of insurance is to insure against catastrophic care costs. That's what you're trying to aggregate and pool for such things as heart attacks and cancer," he said. "Having a child is a matter of choice. Dealing with an adult onset illness, such as diabetes, heart disease breast or prostate cancer, is not a matter of choice."

Patricia Bellasalma, president of the California National Organization for Women, noted that not all pregnancies are planned. She said some insurance companies are discriminating against women.

"The philosophy of the insurance company on maternity coverage - the only pool of risk takers are women - is that all of the obligations to pay for child bearing is born solely on the woman and not on the man and not on society, which is just outrageous," she said.

Women in California pay an estimated 39 percent more than men for coverage in the individual market. San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera filed a lawsuit against the state in January over the issue. Legislation also has been introduced by state Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, and Assemblyman Dave Jones, D-Sacramento, to forbid gender rating.

Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, September 18, 2009

The Senate Brandishes a Gun at Amtrak

NOTE FROM GREETINGS: This is an utterly ridiculous stand from the Senate. And these are the same folks who keep "forecasting" a terrorist attack under Obama. Well, they're doing everything they can to help that along with this passage. Guns on trains in the heavily traveled Northeast Corridor? This is true insanity, thanks to the below-mentioned U.S. Senators. Look up the names and call their offices. Guns can NOT be sealed on a transportation system like Amtrak or U.S. buses. Would they let people carry them onto airplanes? How do they decide if someone CAN'T carry them on versus someone who CAN? This will show up as the act that helped create the next terrorist attack. And these names will be held responsible.

NY Times Editorial, Sept. 18, 2009

In a shocking genuflection to the gun lobby, the Senate has voted to deny Amtrak its indispensable $1.6 billion federal subsidy unless it allows passengers to transport handguns in their checked luggage. The budget support would be stripped in six months unless Amtrak scraps the gun ban that it wisely adopted five years ago after the terrorist railroad atrocities in Madrid.

The majority vote was bipartisan and not even close, with 27 Democrats and one independent (the ultraliberal Bernie Sanders from gun-friendly Vermont) joining all 40 Republicans versus 30 opponents. The hope is that the House or President Obama will ultimately reject the Amtrak measure, but security-wary citizens cannot count on that as the gun lobby choreographs political cravenness.

The budget cudgel was approved despite pleas from Amtrak that it lacks the manpower, equipment and extra financing to effectively meet the deadline and that it faces a shutdown if federal funds are lost. Among other changes, baggage cars would have to be securely retrofitted and manpower increased. The warning cut no ice with the majority as the chief sponsor, Senator Roger Wicker, a Republican of Mississippi, intoned a lock-step mantra: “Americans should not have their Second Amendment rights restricted for any reason.”

Proponents said the change was needed to put Amtrak back to its pre-9/11 gun policy and equate it with airline security measures that allow unloaded, locked handguns in checked baggage. This is lunatic reasoning for a nation supposedly sensitized by the 9/11 attacks. Why should gun owners be treated as privileged travelers?

Amtrak has none of the hermetic procedures where airport passengers are screened shoeless at detectors while their checked baggage is separately secured. Trains stop at stations and passengers come and go. Amtrak presently has a system of checking passengers and screening baggage at random, much the way New York police monitor mass transit.

If the Senate wants to pass a bill on Amtrak, it should provide the money to hire more security guards and create a real passenger rail system. Generally, it should just stop its demeaning homage to the gun lobby.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Senators Who Voted to Enable the Next Terrorist Attack (via Amtrak)

The following U.S. Senators voted Yes to allow guns on Amtrak passenger trains. Would you want them on airplanes now, too? Why yes on one and no on another?
MemberPartyState
Lamar AlexanderRTN
John BarrassoRWY
Max BaucusDMT
Evan BayhDIN
Mark BegichDAK
Michael BennetDCO
Robert F. BennettRUT
Jeff BingamanDNM
Christopher S. BondRMO
Sam BrownbackRKS
Jim BunningRKY
Richard M. BurrRNC
Bob CaseyDPA
Saxby ChamblissRGA
Tom CoburnROK
Thad CochranRMS
Susan CollinsRME
Kent ConradDND
Bob CorkerRTN
John CornynRTX
Michael D. CrapoRID
Jim DeMintRSC
Byron L. DorganDND
John EnsignRNV
Michael B. EnziRWY
Russ FeingoldDWI
Lindsey GrahamRSC
Charles E. GrassleyRIA
Judd GreggRNH
Kay HaganDNC
Orrin G. HatchRUT
Kay Bailey HutchisonRTX
James M. InhofeROK
Johnny IsaksonRGA
Mike JohannsRNE
Tim JohnsonDSD
Amy KlobucharDMN
Herb KohlDWI
Jon KylRAZ
Mary L. LandrieuDLA
George S. LeMieuxRFL
Patrick J. LeahyDVT
Blanche LincolnDAR
Richard G. LugarRIN
John McCainRAZ
Claire McCaskillDMO
Mitch McConnellRKY
Jeff MerkleyDOR
Lisa MurkowskiRAK
Bill NelsonDFL
Ben NelsonDNE
Harry ReidDNV
Jim RischRID
Pat RobertsRKS
Bernard SandersIVT
Jeff SessionsRAL
Jeanne ShaheenDNH
Richard C. ShelbyRAL
Olympia J. SnoweRME
Jon TesterDMT
John ThuneRSD
Mark UdallDCO
Tom UdallDNM
David VitterRLA
George V. VoinovichROH
Mark WarnerDVA
Jim WebbDVA
Roger WickerRMS

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

The U.S. Senators With Common Sense

These are the U.S. Senators who had enough common sense to vote "No" - to not allow guns on Amtrak Passenger trains. People who understand the consequences of the vote in terms of the potential for terrorist attacks.

No Votes (30)

MemberPartyState
Daniel K. AkakaDHI
Barbara BoxerDCA
Sherrod BrownDOH
Roland W. BurrisDIL
Maria CantwellDWA
Benjamin L. CardinDMD
Thomas R. CarperDDE
Christopher J. DoddDCT
Richard J. DurbinDIL
Dianne FeinsteinDCA
Al FrankenDMN
Kirsten GillibrandDNY
Tom HarkinDIA
Daniel K. InouyeDHI
Edward E. KaufmanDDE
John KerryDMA
Frank R. LautenbergDNJ
Carl LevinDMI
Joseph I. LiebermanIDCT
Robert MenendezDNJ
Barbara A. MikulskiDMD
Patty MurrayDWA
Mark PryorDAR
Jack ReedDRI
John D. Rockefeller IVDWV
Charles E. SchumerDNY
Arlen SpecterDPA
Debbie StabenowDMI
Sheldon WhitehouseDRI
Ron WydenDOR

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

PhRMA’s Big Bribe Comes In

Note From Greetings:
Matt's been a great investigative reporter.. unlike so many pundits. It would be sad if this is true... PhRMA about to run ads to convince Americans the weak Baucus bill is best. (With Obama's support?) Time will tell... let's hope not.... But also make sure you're heard. (Dropped for pre-existing conditions is to your benefit??)


True/Slant
by Matt Taibbi, September 14, 2009 Taibblog

The drug industry’s trade group plans to roll out a series of television advertisements in coming weeks specifically to support Senator Max Baucus’s health care overhaul proposal, according to an industry official involved in the planning.

via Drug Makers to Back Baucus Plan With Ad Dollars – Prescriptions Blog – NYTimes.com.

I’ve been completely out of the loop with the health care story these last week and half or so, out of touch actually with the entire earth (I’ve been on a deadline on another story), but upon returning to work today I began getting calls about some alarming maneuverings in congress. We’re apparently finally seeing delivery of the Big Bribe that President Obama and Rahm Emanuel extracted from that pharmaceutical industry in exchange for dropping drug-pricing reform in the health care bill.

To recap: PhRMA, the lobbying arm of the pharmaceutical industry, earlier this year announced that it would be setting aside $150 million to pay for an ad campaign supporting the President’s health care bill. The deal was apparently struck in July, after former Louisiana congressman and current PhRMA chief Billy Tauzin (Rod Blagojevich’s underdog opponent in the upcoming semifinal match of the Corrupt Scumbag of the Century So Far tournament) met with Rahm and other Obama aides in the Roosevelt Room of the White House. Also in attendance were representatives of the usual panoply of awful medical corporations, including Abbott laboratories, Merck, and Pfizer. It was in this meeting that the White House agreed to sell out health care reform in exchange for a few bucks to fund the next couple of election cycles.

Tauzin, who has never been one for subtlety or finesse (he took his $2 million-a-year PhRMA job about ten seconds after he finished pushing through the Prescription Drug Benefit bill), stupidly later revealed some of the contents of that shady meeting, saying that the White House had “blessed” a plan involving the $150 million. He disclosed to reporters that he had extracted a promise from the White House to drop two important reforms: one, to allow the government to negotiate bulk rates for drugs in Medicare, and the other to permit the importation of cheap drugs from Canada (which was once an Obama campaign saw).

The only problem with this plan, from the White House’s side, was that not all of the president’s fellow Democrats played along. Specifically, Energy and Commerce chair Henry Waxman put a provision in his health care bill that allowed the government to negotiate lower rates. If Waxman’s language were to be allowed to survive, it would queer the White House’s deal.

So here’s what started happening to kill Waxman’s language. First of all, PhRMA started paying its bribe.

The $150 million it committed to support Obama’s bill is now being rolled out in pro-reform ads, which are being aired mostly in the districts of freshman congressmen. The ads are cheesy, half-hearted tripe blandly supporting the weak-as-fuck remnants of Obama’s health care plan, an example being this “Eight Ways Health Reform Matters To You” ad that salutes the end of coverage denials for those with pre-existing conditions.

Now we’re also seeing pressure from a group of freshmen and Blue Dogs, who have composed a letter to a quartet of House Committee chairs requesting that the Waxman language be removed from the health care bill and replaced with the PhRMA language, which happens to be the language the White House is pushing and which will appear in the Baucus bill in the Senate. The pro-PhRMA language retains the preposterous government subsidy to the pharmaceutical industry in the form of laws banning Medicare from negotiating market rates. It is completely useless and of no possible social benefit to anyone except pharmaceutical companies, but this group still managed to get 60 people to sign this letter.

What does this letter say? Does it argue that the PhRMA language is better for America than the Waxman language? Does it say it will cost taxpayers less and provide cheaper drugs to more people? Hilariously, no. What it says is that this PhRMA language, while worse than the Waxman language, is not quite so bad as you think (it doesn’t save as much as the Waxman language, but it still has a 50 percent price reduction, which isn’t terrible!). Moreover, the letter says, substituting this language will help the bill get passed! Here’s the actual language, addressed primarily to Waxman:

“Your efforts to remove this onerous burden on Medicare beneficiaries… are to be greatly commended. However the commitment by President Obama and the AARP to support legislation that would provide a 50 percent reduction is a dramatic step forward in helping fill the doughnut hole. Equally important, it moves us toward our goal of health care legislation.”

In other words, your attempt to put in a real reform is cool and all, but PhRMA has us by the balls, so help us out.

Interestingly, the congressmen who wrote the bill — former NFL bust Heath Shuler and Illinois Democrat Debbie Halvorson — did not post the letter on their web sites, which is very unusual. One guesses that they are not particularly proud of this particular bit of shameless whoring.

Progressives this week are fighting to accumulate the votes needed to stop any health care bill that doesn’t have a public option. Hopefull they can stop this PhRMA payoff as well. If you’ve got a phone, call your congressman and give him/her hell about this…

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,