In The News
International News
Medicare Review
Medical Gluttony
Medical Myths
Overheard in the Lounge
Voices of Medicine
Book Reviews
Hippocrates and His Kin
Related Organizations
Archives

AAPSJPANDS
World Congress     National Association of Health Underwriters
Semmelweis Society

HealthCare Communication Network          HealthPlan USA
Del Meyer, MD Website

  

Community For Better Health Care

In the News...
Current Issue:                                         (previous issue)     (past issue)

Politicians should stop masquerading as doctors

Politicians should not prescribe pills by John Gapper, john.gapper@ft.com
The Business World: Observations on business, finance, media and technology

What if there were a popular drug that had moderate benefits but was known to cause acute liver failure and death in some patients? Or another drug that had dangerous side effects including intestinal bleeding and ulcers?

Would it be right to let big pharmaceutical companies carry on marketing and selling them or ought they to be banned?

These drugs have existed for more than a century: they are paracetamol and aspirin. Perhaps they would not even be approved now for fear of toxicity but it is too late to withdraw them; instead, regulators periodically try to limit their use and to stop them being taken in combination with other medicines.

The point is that so-called "white pill" medicines, from painkillers to anti-cholesterol drugs, are chemicals that improve the health of some humans but can cause serious side-effects in others. Anyone who takes them needs to be informed about the benefits and risks.

But politicians are not good with balances of risk and reward, preferring black-and-white answers. This is why US politicians have been fiercely on the trail of Avandia, the anti-diabetes drug made by GlaxoSmithKline that has been linked with heart attacks. Like BP, another FTSE 100 company under attack, GSK is finding the political climate hard and capricious.

"Avandia is dangerous and should be pulled from the market," declared Rosa DeLauro, a Democratic member of the House of Representatives last month, citing two studies. Senators from both parties have been putting heavy pressure on regulators at the Food and Drug Administration.

Such interventions are unwise for two reasons. First, politicians lack the expertise to judge whether drugs should be withdrawn. Some studies suggest Avandia heightens the risk of heart attacks; others that it is no more dangerous than a comparable drug. Politicians are not trained in how to sift such evidence

Second, and more importantly, there are people nearby who are far better qualified to make a sound decision - the FDA's scientists. Congress has a pedigree watchdog to hand but has instead chosen to bark about particular drugs itself.

This is part of a pattern of political over-reach in business affairs, with Congressional committees cherry-picking thousands of documents they subpoena from companies to claim expertise on everything from oil-drilling techniques to derivatives. Presenting themselves as seekers after truth, they publish tiny extracts to embarrass executives.

Apart from the patent hypocrisy - they are really after scalps they can parade in front of voters - this is not their job. Their role is to make sure regulators are funded and correctly structured to let officials decide on complex matters such as prescription drug safety. . .

But regulators such as the FDA and the European Medicines Agency, which is now reviewing Avandia, are there because decisions over the risks and benefits of drugs - particularly as they are prescribed and taken in the real world - are difficult and finely balanced. A life-prolonging pill for one group of patients is poison for others.

Politicians have their own skills, but they should stop masquerading as doctors and scientists.

Read the entire article . . .
Feedback . . .
Subscribe MedicalTuesday . . .
Subscribe HealthPlanUSA . . .

subscribe

 


Previous Issue:                                         (current issue)     (past issue)

Obama and Snooki, By John Nothdurft, Heartland Institute

Publisher: The American Spectator, Opeds,  07/01/2010

Today the first of President Barack Obama's 21 tax hikes to pay for his massively expensive health care law takes effect, levying a 10 percent tax on tanning salons. With this tax, the president once again breaks his promise not to raise taxes on Americans making less than $250,000 per year. In addition, this time he's targeting largely women-owned small businesses.

If you don't think taxes matter, look no further than Nicole "Snooki" Polizzi, a star on the hit MTV reality show Jersey Shore. The notably bronzed celebrity made headlines by saying, "I don't go tanning anymore, because Obama put a 10 percent tax on tanning." She added, "I feel like he did that intentionally for us. McCain would never put a 10 percent tax on tanning." Sen. John McCain responded on Twitter, stating, "u r right, I would never tax your tanning bed! Pres Obama's tax/spend policy is quite The Situation but I do rec wearing sunscreen!"

The tax wasn't even in the health care bill until it became a ninth-inning replacement for the equally unfair "botax," which would have placed a 5 percent tax on elective cosmetic surgeries. Just as subsidies and targeted tax credits are handed out to favored businesses, targeted tax hikes take aim at narrowly defined targets. Both are political instruments subject to intense lobbying, not sound fiscal policy.

The tanning tax will have its greatest effect on women, who are not only more likely to use tanning beds but also own 67 percent of the nation's indoor tanning businesses, according to The International Smart Tan Network. The Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the tax will raise $2.7 billion over 10 years. That is just a drop in the ocean compared with the expected cost of the health care bill, now a staggering $1.053 trillion over 10 years. The negligible revenue the tanning tax will bring in makes the fundamental unfairness of this and other "sin" taxes even more obvious. . .

When government uses tax policy to discriminate against legal products, it unjustly manipulates a market already rich with an abundance of healthy and less healthy choices. Ultimately, higher taxes on selected "sin" items, such as tanning salons, are just another example of politicians taking away more of our personal and financial liberties.

John Nothdurft (jnothdurft@heartland.org) is the budget and tax legislative specialist for the Heartland Institute.

This op-ed was originally publshed at The American Spectator (www.spectator.org).

Read the entire op-ed . . .
Feedback . . .
Subscribe MedicalTuesday . . .
Subscribe HealthPlanUSA . . .


Past Issue:                                         (current issue)     (previous issue)

ObamaCare Prevents Disincentives which Causes Overuse of HealthCare

The Unmet Promise of ObamaCare by Marc Siegel, Forbes 06.15.10

The number one question on my patients' minds as the new health reform bill passed was whether they would be able to keep their current health care plan, like the president promised. This past week, when the new 83-page draft of regulations was released jointly by the IRS, Health and Human Services, and the Department of Labor, an answer was offered. Unfortunately, it's a resounding no.

Whenever the federal government enacts a new law, agencies write regulations on how this law will be enforced. The newly released draft is about whether existing insurances can be "grandfathered in" and continue to be legal policies as the new health reform bill, known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, takes hold. In my field, whenever a new area of practice such as emergency medicine or geriatrics is established, "grandfathering in" simply means that if you were already established before the new board was created, you retain your credential.

But this usual and customary practice will not be the case with the health reform bill, as insurers will routinely lose their status by not jumping through the right hoops.

In fact, the regulations impose a major vise on private insurance, restricting a company's ability to increase cost sharing (such as coinsurance, deductibles and out-of pocket limits) as well as copayments ("more than the sum of medical inflation plus 15 percentage points or $5 increased by medical inflation"). So it is unlikely that many insurers will be able to remain viable without raising premiums (not restricted by the regulations) or slashing services.

Though the purpose of all the restrictions on insurance is to cut costs, as a practicing physician I worry that extending a one-size-fits-all insurance to more people will have the opposite effect because there will be no disincentive for patient overuse. In countries such as Belgium (where one-third of payments are out-of-pocket), it is precisely these patient responsibilities which help keep the cost of medical care down, as patients only come to doctors when absolutely necessary. I have noticed this effect in my own practice, where patients with high-deductible insurance (Health Savings Accounts can help deal with out of pocket office visits) only come to see me when they are sick. And there is no evidence that frequent office visits by healthy patients with easy to use insurance contributes significantly to preventive care.

At the same time, the draft regulations would imposed such an inflexible restriction on employers--for group insurance, if an employer decreases its contribution rate by more than 5% it will lose its grandfather status--that it is likely that many employers will drop their insurance plans altogether.

The draft's own midrange estimates reflect this bleak new world, predicting that 66% of the insurance plans offered by small employers and 45% offered by large employers will no longer be legal by 2013. And the numbers are no better for individual policies. The draft estimates that individual policies relinquishing their grandfathered status by failing to comply with the new regulations will be from 40% to 67%.

Patients who lose their existing insurance will flock to the new state insurance exchanges, sign up for Medicaid or pay the penalty for not having insurance. There will be a drastic shift in health care coverage, and the result will be lower quality care and more government oversight coming from HHS as well as newly formed committees and panels such as the Independent Medicare Advisory Panel. Young adults under the age of 26, who are eligible to join their parents' plans, will find that 20% of these parents will have plans that are not acceptable under the new law.

This new world of health care, filled with shifts and changes, is particularly unfortunate when you consider the draft's own research, which cites a survey in Health Affairs from 2000, showing that 83% of privately insured individuals stuck with their plans in the year prior to the survey. . .

Marc Siegel, M.D. is an associate professor of medicine and medical director of Doctor Radio at NYU Langone Medical Center. He is a Fox News Medical Contributor.

Read the entire Commentary by Dr. Siegel . . .
Feedback . . .
Subscribe MedicalTuesday . . .
Subscribe HealthPlanUSA . . .

 top


For other issues, please visit our archives.

We invite you to sign up for this biweekly newsletter.





Terms Privacy
All rights reserved ©2007 Medical Tuesday.Net