“Ethically Ironic”: How Was Dick Cheney Able To Get A Heart While Many Others Wait?
Dick Cheney has just joined a list of high-profile people, including Steve Jobs, Mickey Mantle, Evil Knievel and David Crosby who, received a transplant and thereby created a controversy. Cheney received a heart on Saturay from an anonymous donor at Inova Fairfax Hospital in Virginia after a 20-month wait. What is controversial about that? Cheney is 71 years old.
He has been through numerous previous operations that indicate he has other serious medical problems. He has only been able to survive due to the implantation of a left-ventricular assist device (LVAD) — a partial artificial heart — that has kept him going long past the point where his own heart could have kept him alive.
Nearly everyone on an LVAD winds up getting sicker and sicker and, eventually, so sick that they come off the transplant waiting list because the risk is too great.
What starts as a “bridge” to a transplant when you get an LVAD can become, the more time that passes, a final destination — you almost always die with the device. So despite his age and health problems, how was Cheney able to get a heart while many others wait?
It is concerning that a 71-year-old got a transplant. Many of those who manage to even make the waiting list for hearts die without getting one. More than 3,100 Americans are currently on the national waiting list for a heart transplant. Just over 2,300 heart transplants were performed last year, according to the United Network for Organ Sharing. And 330 people died while waiting.
According to UNOS, 332 people over age 65 received a heart transplant last year. The majority of transplants occur in 50- to 64-year-olds.
Most transplant teams, knowing that hearts are in huge demand, set an informal eligibility limit of 70.
Cheney is not the first person over 70 to get a heart transplant. He is, however, in a small group of people who have gotten one. Why did he?
Cheney has an advantage over others. It is not fame or his political prominence. It is money and top health insurance.
Heart transplants produce bills in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The drugs needed to keep these transplants working cost tens of thousands of dollars every year. Organ donations are sought from the rich and poor alike. But, if you do not have health insurance you are far less likely to be able to get evaluated for a heart transplant much less actually get a transplant.
The timing of Cheney’s transplant is ethically ironic given that the battle over extending health insurance to all Americans reaches the Supreme Court this week.
If the President’s health reform bill is deemed unconstitutional, those who are wealthy or who can easily raise money will continue to have greater access to heart, liver and other forms of transplantation than the uninsured and underinsured.
It is possible that Cheney was the only person waiting for a heart who was a good match in terms of the donor’s size, blood type and other biological and geographical factors. If not, then some tough ethical questions need to be asked.
When all are asked to be organ donors, both rich and poor, shouldn’t each one of us have a fair shot at getting a heart? And in a system in which donor hearts are very scarce, shouldn’t the young, who are more likely to benefit both in terms of survival and years of life added, take precedence over the old?
Let’s hope we get some answers to these tough questions as we watch both Cheney’s recovery and the fate of health care legislation that is intended to minimize the advantages that the rich now have over the poor when it comes to proven life-saving treatments.
By: Art Kaplan, PhD, MSNBC Vitals; Contribution by MSNBC News Service, March 25, 2012
“National Solutions To National Problems”: The Affordable Care Act Is Much More Than Politics
The law is a commonsense solution to our country’s broken healthcare system and is clearly constitutional. It eliminates insurance company abuses, makes coverage more affordable for seniors, families, and small businesses, and creates rules that stop insurers from denying care to the sick and jacking up premiums anytime they please.
The logic of the law is that we can make coverage more affordable and fair if everyone has insurance, including the young and healthy and those who don’t expect to get sick. That lowers costs by spreading the risk more broadly.
Our system is fundamentally out of balance. Many people don’t get the care they need, and others only get care at everyone else’s expense—and usually at an emergency room where services are far more expensive than at a doctor’s office. As a result, at least $43 billion in uncompensated care is provided every year, paid for by a $1,000 “hidden tax” in the premiums of every insured person in the country.
Today most people have insurance. Most of the 50 million uninsured want coverage but either can’t afford it or are excluded by insurers because of pre-existing conditions. When the law is fully implemented, families unable to afford coverage will get tax credits to put it within reach. The truth is that the individual responsibility provision, also known as the mandate, will affect only the 2 percent of Americans who have access to affordable coverage but refuse it. That’s what this fight is about: the 2 percent who reject rules that will allow the rest of us to get better, more affordable coverage.
The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the Constitution gives Congress the ability to develop national solutions to national problems. If the court were to bow to political pressures to strike down the law, it would essentially put regulation of healthcare, which accounts for nearly 18 percent of our economy, beyond the reach of Congress. That is plainly absurd.
The case against the health law is an extension of a transparently partisan political mission to tear down this milestone law as a way to turn President Obama out of office in November. What the partisans selfishly refuse to acknowledge is that there is so much more than politics at stake.
By: Ethan Rome, U. S. News and World Report, March 26, 2012
“An Irreducibly Tangible Question”: What Happens To The Uninsured If Health-Care Reform Is Dismantled?
When the Republican presidential candidates talk about health care, the discussion usually moves quickly toward the philosophical and the abstract.
Take Rick Santorum’s appearance at the Christian Liberty Academy last weekend in this Chicago suburb. Before a raucous crowd, the former senator from Pennsylvania portrayed President Obama’s health-care-reform law as an “affront to freedom.” In Santorum’s telling, the plan is not so much an attempt to reshape the health care system as the worm on a line meant to hook Americans on Big Government. “What tribute won’t you pay to the government if they can promise that if you give them more they will … take care of you?” he asked dramatically.
There’s no question that an ideological chasm over Washington’s proper role in health care separates Democrats and Republicans. And there’s no doubt that some Democratic strategists believe that average Americans will grow more tolerant of activist government if they see it providing them more direct benefits, such as health insurance.
But the debate over health care reform — which will intensify again next week as the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on challenges to the law’s mandate on individuals to buy insurance — involves more than competing philosophies or political strategies. At its core, it raises an irreducibly tangible question: what, if anything, to do about the nearly 50 million Americans who today lack health insurance.
Those millions of uninsured rarely intrude into the promises from GOP congressional leaders and the party’s presidential field to defend liberty by repealing Obama’s plan. But ignoring them doesn’t make them go away. If the 2012 election rewards Republicans with enough leverage in Washington to erase Obama’s initiative, they will face the choice of finding an alternative means to expand coverage or allowing the number of those without insurance to grow, with far-reaching consequences not only for the uninsured but for those with insurance as well.
Without some policy intervention, there’s little question that access to health insurance will continue to decline. Since 2000, the number of the uninsured has jumped from 36.6 million to 49.9 million, about one-sixth of all Americans.
That number would have been even higher if an additional 20 million people over that period had not obtained coverage through Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. This growth partially offset the unrelenting erosion in employer-based care: The share of Americans obtaining coverage from their employer has declined every year since 2000, in good times and bad.
Earlier this month, the Congressional Budget Office forecast that, absent the new health-care law, the number of uninsured would rise to 60 million by 2020. That large a pool of uncovered Americans would create enormous strain for the health-care system.
The uninsured themselves would feel the most immediate effect, of course — studies show they are much more likely than those with coverage to defer or entirely forego needed care. But such an increase would also produce upward pressure on premiums for the insured as providers, especially hospitals, raise prices for those with coverage to offset the cost of uncompensated care to those without it. “The idea that repeal [of health-care reform] is somehow going to lower your premium is folly,” says Len Nichols, director of George Mason University’s Center for Health Policy Research and Ethics. More likely, he argues, repeal would increase premiums.
Obama’s health-care law, whatever its other virtues or flaws, represents a serious effort to break this cycle. CBO, echoing earlier projections, estimated last week that it would cover 33 million of the uninsured. No Republican has offered a plan to cover anywhere near so many. In 2009, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the principal House Republican alternative to Obama’s proposal would cover only 3 million of the uninsured.
Both Santorum and Mitt Romney have proposed unspecified tax credits to cover some of those without coverage. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the center-right American Action Forum, notes that Republicans believe that allowing interstate sale of insurance plans that offer more bare-bones coverage will reduce premium costs and expand access. Even so, he acknowledges, because so many of the uninsured have meager incomes, any tax credit big enough to meaningfully expand coverage still requires “a lot of money.”
But Republicans are proposing to shrink, not increase, federal health-care spending. Both Romney and House Republicans want to convert Medicaid into a block grant and cut federal spending on the program about in half by 2030. Even if those cuts provoked greater efficiency, the Urban Institute has estimated they could swell the number of uninsured by 14 million to 27 million beyond the effect of repealing Obama’s coverage expansion.
Leading Republicans almost all portray the health-care debate as a philosophical turning point between a limited central government and one they see as overweening and even tyrannical. But the debate also represents a much more practical turning point, between a society that attempts to approach universal health coverage and one that accepts millions of people living without insurance — with unavoidable costs for the uninsured and the insured alike.
By: Ronald Brownstein, The Atlantic, March 23, 2012
Hurray For Health Reform: “Protecting Those Who Are Falling Through The Cracks”
It’s said that you can judge a man by the quality of his enemies. If the same principle applies to legislation, the Affordable Care Act — which was signed into law two years ago, but for the most part has yet to take effect — sits in a place of high honor.
Now, the act — known to its foes as Obamacare, and to the cognoscenti as ObamaRomneycare — isn’t easy to love, since it’s very much a compromise, dictated by the perceived political need to change existing coverage and challenge entrenched interests as little as possible. But the perfect is the enemy of the good; for all its imperfections, this reform would do an enormous amount of good. And one indicator of just how good it is comes from the apparent inability of its opponents to make an honest case against it.
To understand the lies, you first have to understand the truth. How would ObamaRomneycare change American health care?
For most people the answer is, not at all. In particular, those receiving good health benefits from employers would keep them. The act is aimed, instead, at Americans who fall through the cracks, either going without coverage or relying on the miserably malfunctioning individual, “non-group” insurance market.
The fact is that individual health insurance, as currently constituted, just doesn’t work. If insurers are left free to deny coverage at will — as they are in, say, California — they offer cheap policies to the young and healthy (and try to yank coverage if you get sick) but refuse to cover anyone likely to need expensive care. Yet simply requiring that insurers cover people with pre-existing conditions, as in New York, doesn’t work either: premiums are sky-high because only the sick buy insurance.
The solution — originally proposed, believe it or not, by analysts at the ultra-right-wing Heritage Foundation — is a three-legged stool of regulation and subsidies. As in New York, insurers are required to cover everyone; in return, everyone is required to buy insurance, so that healthy as well as sick people are in the risk pool. Finally, subsidies make those mandated insurance purchases affordable for lower-income families.
Can such a system work? It’s already working! Massachusetts enacted a very similar reform six years ago — yes, while Mitt Romney was governor. Jonathan Gruber of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who played a key role in developing both the local and the national reforms (and has published an illustrated guide to reform) has surveyed the results — and finds that Romneycare is working pretty much as advertised. The number of people without insurance has dropped sharply, the quality of care hasn’t suffered, and the program’s cost has been very close to initial projections.
Oh, and the budgetary cost per newly insured resident of Massachusetts was actually lower than the projected cost per American insured by the Affordable Care Act.
Given this evidence, what’s a virulent opponent of reform to do? The answer is, make stuff up.
We all know how the act’s proposal that Medicare evaluate medical procedures for effectiveness became, in the fevered imagination of the right, an evil plan to create death panels. And rest assured, this lie will be back in force once the general election campaign is in full swing.
For now, however, most of the disinformation involves claims about costs. Each new report from the Congressional Budget Office is touted as proof that the true cost of Obamacare is exploding, even when — as was the case with the latest report — the document says on its very first page that projected costs have actually fallen slightly. Nor are we talking about random pundits making these false claims. We are, instead, talking about people like the chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee, who issued a completely fraudulent press release after the latest budget office report.
Because the truth does not, sad to say, always prevail, there is a real chance that these lies will succeed in killing health reform before it really gets started. And that would be an immense tragedy for America, because this health reform is coming just in time.
As I said, the reform is mainly aimed at Americans who fall through the cracks in our current system — an important goal in its own right. But what makes reform truly urgent is the fact that the cracks are rapidly getting wider, because fewer and fewer jobs come with health benefits; employment-based coverage actually declined even during the “Bush boom” of 2003 to 2007, and has plunged since.
What this means is that the Affordable Care Act is the only thing protecting us from an imminent surge in the number of Americans who can’t afford essential care. So this reform had better survive — because if it doesn’t, many Americans who need health care won’t.
By: Paul Krugman, Op-Ed Columnist, The New York Times, March 18, 2012
“Good Job Mitt”: Romneycare Is Making Massachusetts Healthier
In newly released research, Charles Courtemanche and Daniela Zapata ask perhaps the most important question about the Massachusetts health-care reforms: Did they improve health outcomes in Massachusetts?
The answer, which relies on self-reported health data, suggests they did. The authors document improvements in “physical health, mental health, functional limitations, joint disorders, body mass index, and moderate physical activity.” The gains were greatest for “women, minorities, near-elderly adults, and those with incomes low enough to qualify for the law’s subsidies.”
Some of those results are a bit odd. Although it’s possible to tell yourself a story about how the Massachusetts health reforms affected the body mass indexes of the newly insured, you have to stretch a bit.
But most of them make perfect sense. The reforms led to more people having insurance, which is to say more people having more opportunities to see a doctor and get early and/or regular treatment for ailments. That led to improvements in health. If that hadn’t led to improvements in health, it would be the worth of going to the doctor and getting timely medical care that would be called into question. And if going to the doctor and getting timely medical care isn’t worth doing, the Massachusetts reforms are pretty far down the list of practices and policies we need to rethink.
The researchers end by asking whether the Massachusetts reforms provide a good guide to what will happen under the Affordable Care Act. “The general strategies for obtaining nearly universal coverage in both the Massachusetts and federal laws involved the same three-pronged approach of non-group insurance market reforms, subsidies, and mandates, suggesting that the health effects should be broadly similar,” they write. “However, the federal legislation included additional costcutting measures such as Medicare cuts that could potentially mitigate the gains in health from the coverage expansions. On the other hand, baseline uninsured rates were unusually low in Massachusetts, so the coverage expansions — and corresponding health improvements — from the Affordable Care Act could potentially be greater.”
I’d add one point to their discussion: The national reforms, unlike the Massachusetts reforms, included major investments in comparative-effectiveness research, electronic health records, accountable care organizations and pay-for-quality pilots. If any or all of those initiatives pay off, they could dramatically improve our understanding of which treatments work and force the health-care system to integrate that new knowledge into everyday treatment decisions very quickly.
If that happens, medical care could become substantially more effective than it is now, which should also improve health outcomes. Quality improvements like that could, for the already insured, be the largest payoff from the Affordable Care Act.
By: Ezra Klein, The Washington Post, March 12, 2012
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 