Ezra Klein
Vox.com
Originally posted March 9, 2017
Here is the conclusion from the video:
In reality, what I think we’re seeing here is Republicans trying desperately to come up with something that would allow them to repeal and replace Obamacare. This is a compromise of a compromise of a compromise aimed at fulfilling that promise. But “repeal and replace” is a political slogan, not a policy goal. This is a lot of political pain to endure for a bill that won’t improve many peoples’ lives, but will badly hurt millions.
Read further analysis here and stories of legislative history here.
Welcome to the Nexus of Ethics, Psychology, Morality, Philosophy and Health Care
Welcome to the nexus of ethics, psychology, morality, technology, health care, and philosophy
Showing posts with label Death Panels. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Death Panels. Show all posts
Monday, March 13, 2017
Sunday, August 31, 2014
Medicare considers funding end-of-life talks
By Pam Belluck
The New York Times
Originally published August 31, 2014
Five years after it exploded into a political conflagration over “death panels,” the issue of paying doctors to talk to patients about end-of-life care is making a comeback, and such sessions may be covered for the 50 million Americans on Medicare as early as next year.
Bypassing the political process, private insurers have begun reimbursing doctors for these “advance care planning” conversations as interest in them rises along with the number of aging Americans.
The entire article is here.
Editorial note: Politics will continue to affect health care delivery in the United States. It is critical that healthcare providers cite foundational ethical principles when advocating for changes in our healthcare system, and not become immersed in sloganeering or bumper sticker politics to support one political party or the other. High quality health care and informed patient choice are paramount.
The New York Times
Originally published August 31, 2014
Five years after it exploded into a political conflagration over “death panels,” the issue of paying doctors to talk to patients about end-of-life care is making a comeback, and such sessions may be covered for the 50 million Americans on Medicare as early as next year.
Bypassing the political process, private insurers have begun reimbursing doctors for these “advance care planning” conversations as interest in them rises along with the number of aging Americans.
The entire article is here.
Editorial note: Politics will continue to affect health care delivery in the United States. It is critical that healthcare providers cite foundational ethical principles when advocating for changes in our healthcare system, and not become immersed in sloganeering or bumper sticker politics to support one political party or the other. High quality health care and informed patient choice are paramount.
Saturday, March 16, 2013
How Mom’s Death Changed My Thinking About End-of-Life Care
By Charles Ornstein
ProPublica – Co-published with The
Washington Post
Originally published February 28, 2013
Here are some excerpts:
I've long observed, and sometimes
chronicled, the nasty policy battles surrounding end-of-life care. And like
many health journalists, I rolled my eyes when I heard the phrase
"death panels" used to describe a 2009 congressional
proposal that would have allowed Medicare to reimburse physicians who provided
counseling to patients about living wills and advance directives. The frenzy,
whipped up by conservative politicians and talk show hosts, forced the authors
of the Affordable Care Act to strip out that provision before the bill became
law.
Politics aside, I've always thought
that the high cost of end-of-life care is an issue worthy of discussion. About
a quarter of Medicare payments are spent in the last year of life, according to recent
estimates. And the degree of care provided to patients in that last
year — how many doctors they see, the number of intensive-care hospitalizations
— varies dramatically across states and even within states, according to the authoritative Dartmouth
Atlas.
Studies show that this care is often
futile. It doesn't always prolong lives, and it doesn't always reflect what
patients want.
In an article I wrote for the Los
Angeles Times in 2005, I quoted a doctor saying: "There's
always one more treatment, there's always one more, 'Why don't we try that?'
... But we have to realize what the goals of that patient are, which is not to
be in an intensive-care unit attached to tubes with no chance of really recovering."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)