Stimulating distrust?

Byldoadmin

Those who want universal health care at all costs regard those concerned about health care rationing as ignorant victims of an aggressive fear-mongering campaign.  They think patient groups that press the issue are “captives” of the drug companies.

How can patients be so dumb so often and to so many?  At last count, patients are regarded as bottom dwellers on the intellectual totem pole by the IDSA, the CDC, the medical boards, and, now—what, even those advocating for social change in medicine? 

But what if we aren’t?

What if centralized decision-making through universal health care is a Trojan horse concealing the cost control militia?

What if a better health care system for all means less health care for those who need it most?  What if universal health care means that the good of the individual must be sacrificed for the good of the ‘most’?

One e-list combatant salutes the possibility of “pure science” doled out by governmental research.  Wait a second.  Doesn’t Medicare make the government the largest health insurer in the nation?  Doesn’t it have a dog in the hunt so to speak?  It reminds me of Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz saying, “Toto, I’ve a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore.”  The men in white coats quit being “Marcus Welby” and the researchers quit being unbiased experts long ago.   And, the government, well, it just isn’t a disinterested bystander anymore either.

The notion of pure science died with the Bayh Dole Act, which permitted universities to hold commercial patents in the 80’s.  Turns out the funding came from big Pharma.  University academics hungry for research funding started doing research that “sided with” the big Pharma interests that funded it.  The question behind research is whose interests are driving it?  Insurers (including the federal government, which is the nation’s largest insurer) play a heavy hand in efficacy research.

Science is political.  It is highly political.  What gets funded and what does not is all about politics. We know that research funded by Pharma promotes their products, and we are not surprised.  Should we then be surprised that public policy driven by insurer’s interests will promote those interests and diminish patient care?    Research that is carefully aimed achieves the results sought.   That does not bode well for patients.

I don’t trust a government run efficacy research program in an era ushering in centralized care  and universal health care.  To me, it is clear that there will be “driving interests” behind such research and it will achieve the overarching goal of cost containment at the cost of innovation and individualized care.  This will be rationing, and it will be population-based medicine.

If we, as a society, want health care rationing (and perhaps that is the price of universal health care), then there needs to be an open forum where the issues are openly discussed and debated.  The cloak of science is too frequently used to determine “policy” matters without public input.

Similar Posts

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Voting Violations–Which Way IDSA, the Right Way or the Might Way?

    One of the problems with the IDSA reviewing its own guidelines is that it is not an independent process. The IDSA selected the panel, paid the ethicist, and sets the ground rules. And, now we have the IDSA manipulating the voting process to achieve a goal–protection of the IDSA professional reputation–that conflicts with the goal of providing quality patient care. Think about it. The vote on the lab test requirement for diagnosis was 4 to 4. 4 to 4 means there was NO consensus. Yet the IDSA chalked this up as a victory on its side by ignoring the two step vote requirement and flipping the supermajority vote in its favor. The IDSA is essentially saying 4 to 4 means the IDSA wins on this point. To the fox guarding the chicken coop, this makes perfect sense. Let me drill down into the detail so that what the IDSA did here is clear.

  • Lyme Policy Wonk: Beam me up, Scotty. See you after the jump!

    Why do we do what we do? Sometimes we win, but there are many, many (too many) bumps in the road on the way to success. How do we keep our perspective in the face of an adversary that seems unrelenting—vested, no entrenched, in a medical dogma that leaves patients on the side of the road? A medical society that believes that the views of patients are really–(really?) not relevant to the question at hand? I, for one, want to walk the road of other diseases that have been abandoned and forsaken by the medical establishment. But my road (and those of other illnesses), leads to success. And success–is all about the journey. Touching lives one by one until our day in the sun.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Should the IDSA take a Tip from Toyota and Recall the Guidelines?

    Another run away Prius hit the news today. I have one (first year). I share these concerns. Is this car safe? Should I really be driving it? Have they recalled my model? It made me think about the IDSA Lyme guidelines a bit. Why haven’t they recalled these guidelines? They actually harm patients. The real risk to patients is not that they will have the risk of a reaction to their antibiotics, it is that they will be treated under these guidelines. That they will remain ill. That the diagnosis will be missed. That the treatment when it comes will be too little, too late. That the medical society responsible for the high, high treatment failure rates will do nothing more than circle the wagons around their self interests. That patients matter less than vaccine and diagnostic test patents and preserving the reputation of a medical society that does not even have patients on the agenda.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Meeting with Dr. Ben Beard of the CDC–The Importance of Dialogue and Lingering Concerns

    Dr. Ben Beard of the CDC met with directors of CALDA on March 10 as part of an effort to reach out to Lyme patient groups across the nation. After meeting with CALDA, he attended the regularly scheduled meeting of the California State Lyme Disease Advisory Committee, which was created under legislation sponsored by CALDA to encourage dialogue with the California Department of Public Health. If you have not met Ben Beard before, he is both engaging and likable and has a measured tone. CALDA believes that respectful dialogue is essential to moving forward for the Lyme community, and we are pleased with this first step. We also believe that patients need to be meaningful participants in any solution for Lyme disease. We raised a number of concerns about the CDC's Lyme disease policies, including the need to treat to cure disease, the education of physicians and government funding of research. Here are the issues that loom large.

  • IDSA Panel–Document submission changes

    In response to concerns raised by patient's organizations and physicians about the document submission process–which initially tried to limit submissions to five pages–the IDSA has changed its document submission process. The IDSA is now requesting that submissions be 10 pages or less with an acknowledgment that they will consider all submissions regardless of length. For a submission to be considered by the panel though it must specify what recommendation is being contested. This is because the scope of this panel is simply to consider and weigh the scientific evidence for contested recommendations.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Lyme Patients and Insurance Appeals

    Lyme disease patients have trouble with insurance coverage. They have trouble getting health insurance if they have ever had Lyme disease, on the one hand. On the other hand, they have trouble getting the disease treated because insurers rely on the IDSA guidelines to take a "free pass" on treatment reimbursements. This is an area that is clearly governed by something other than providing quality health care to patients. Have you ever wondered what happens–really happens–when Lyme patient appeal an insurance denial? What happens is we succeed 9% of the time, while other diseases succeed 40% of the time. What is going on here? How can that be?