1. Mandatory insurance

Translation: Uncle Sam will now serve as your national insurance agent and force you to buy "minimum essential coverage" -- or else you'll have to pay an annual fine.

2. Electronic data exchanges

Translation: Requiring everyone to buy federally sanctioned health insurance, and then forcing qualified plans to comply with Administrative Simplification requirements, provides the government and health industry with power they would not be able to exercise in a free market.

3. Real-time health and financial data

Translation: Administrative Simplification rules are being expanded to gather real-time financial and health data on individuals through a tracking ID, possibly a "machine readable" ID card (electronic device).

4. Health data network

Translation: Your personal health information may soon be studied by government scientists. Washington is creating a new research center that plans to use patients' electronic health records for conducting research and creating disease registries. The data network is comprehensive and includes use of electronic health records.

5. Personal health information

Translation: Think your health privacy is protected? It's not. This language refers to "applicable confidentiality and privacy standards," but HIPAA's so-called privacy law permits individuals' personal health information to be exchanged – for many broad purposes – without patients' consent (See 45 CFR Subtitle A, Subpart E – Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information; section 164.502(a)(1)(ii) "Permitted uses and disclosures").

Labels: OpEd

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

Health care reform and the public option

Say your neighborhood deli rigged its scales so that customers who paid for a pound of meat left the store with less. Does such fraud justify a government-run "public option" for delicatessens?

Surely not, but this is how Colorado AFL-CIO Director Mike Cerbo argues for a new government-run insurance plan. Cerbo says it should "impermissible" for insurers to "drop coverage due to pre-existing medical conditions" -- presumably when patients had been honest about medical histories.

This is called "post-claim underwriting," and it violates the insurer's contract with the policy-holder. But this is no justification of a "public option." Rather, if it happens frequently and without penalty, it shows that government has been lax in one of its legitimate duties: enforcing contracts.

Brian T. Schwartz, Boulder

Labels: Insurance, LTE

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

Health pitch a violation of basic American rights

The health care legislation in Congress contains mandates to obtain individual health insurance coverage. With this provision, Congress would violate my rights, rather than protect them, which is Congress's constitutional mandate.

This provision is a clear violation of my right to voluntarily associate and contract with health care professionals and insurance providers to our mutual benefit without the interference of a predatory third party.

It violates my right to economic freedom by forcing me to purchase health insurance services against my will. It violates my right to property by forcing me to pay penalties for declining to participate in a coercive program. It violates my right to liberty by forcing me to submit to incarceration for nonpayment of penalties or additional taxes.

It violates my right to self-determination. It violates my right to use my mind to make judgments regarding my own interests and actions.

In short, this legislation violates my right to peaceably live my life as I see fit. I oppose these violations. I say "no" to the coercive mandates contained in this proposal.

And it is my hope and wish that Senator Hagan will stand with me and say "no" to this rights-violating health care bill.

Tim Peck, Asheville

One of the principal stated purposes of the Democratic Party's proposed health care legislation is to better meet the health needs of those who are currently uninsured. As a self-employed man of 59 who cannot afford health insurance, I am strongly concerned with that issue, and have followed it closely over the past year and a half. I regret to say that the passage of the proposed legislation will make my situation worse, rather than better. I urge you to protect the uninsured by voting against it.

The reason I'm uninsured is that health care, and therefore health insurance, costs too much. But the proposed legislation would require me to purchase health insurance from the same insurance industry that is now failing to restrain the growth of health care costs, either from the uncompetitive private firms that now dominate it, or from a government-run system that is likely to charge even more. It offers subsidies for this purchase so inadequate that they would be laughable, if not for the real hardship they will inflict on people who pay them. And when the many people who still can't afford insurance remain uninsured, it fines them nearly $1,000 yearly... which will only make it harder for them to get health care. The CMS estimates that of the uninsured people who won't be eligible for Medicaid, 12 million will become insured, but 18 million will remain uninsured and suffer punishment for it.

Advocates of this punitive approach attack the irresponsibility of people who remain uninsured, and who depend on emergency rooms for health care. But under this bill, the people added to Medicaid will largely continue to do exactly that, as most doctors don't want to take patients at Medicaid rates. And the many millions of people who can't afford insurance will often have to do the same... until they are diagnosed with some serious and costly illness, when they will be able to sign up for insurance, and insurance carriers will be compelled to accept them despite their "preexisting conditions," further driving up insurance costs and premiums. And in any case, the reason many self-employed people and employees of small businesses don't have insurance is not irresponsibility, but fear of financial ruin if they have to pay for it.

If buying health insurance remained voluntary, and you came up with a system under which it cost too much, the uninsured could remain uninsured, and at least not be any worse off... and send you a message that your efforts weren't good enough. By resorting to compulsion, you are making it a violation of law to send that message. And that very fact is the strongest reason to believe that your plan will not make health care affordable, but make its costs even more ruinous.

I urge you to reconsider, and reject this proposal.

William Stoddard

Labels: LTE

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

...Ever since the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force called for fewer mammograms and fewer Pap smears, the Obama Administration has been trying to distance itself from the organization -- referring to its recommendations as "nonbinding."

Yet the National Center for Policy Analysis has discovered that the Reid health care bill refers to the task force no less than 26 times. And, yes, the task force will determine what screenings will and will not be included in the minimum coverage that everyone will be required to buy.

Labels: Analysis

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

Labels: Misc

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

I am currently on a sort of sabbatical and am working in New Zealand for a public government hospital. New Zealand has a purely socialist medical system although there is also private insurance that can be obtained as well. This is a single payer system from a government ministry that controls all care through District Health boards. Each District Health Board gets a lump sum of money each year to provide for their population.

Primary care physicians (general practitioners) are private contractors and are paid fee for service from the government plus a copay from the patient. Specialists (including radiologists as well as surgeons, pediatricians, internists, cardiology, gastroenterology, urology, etc) are paid a salary which is based only upon the number of years since board certification plus bonus for after hours call coverage.

All specialists are paid the same. The top salary band (15 years + after certification) is about NZ $200.000 which is about $150,000 US. Call coverage can add another 15-25% depending on how busy and how frequent. All New Zealand citizens and permanent residents are covered by the National Health Service.

General practitioners see one patient every 7 minutes and, I am told, can make up to NZ$600K - $800K with their fee for service.

Patients must go first to their GP for all initial care--adult and pediatric. Pediatricians are specialists and only see patients after referral from GPs. All routine obstetrics is handled by midwives who receive 2 years training post high school. To go to the ER you must have a referral from your GP unless it is emergent (trauma, etc).

How does this work? Well, my hospital is over budget for the year, so they are closing the hospital (the only one within a 3-4 hour driving radius) to all but emergent patients for 6 weeks in December and January!! No elective surgery or non emergent patients. I could give many stories about delays in diagnosis that would be unheard of in the US.

That said, patients are generally happy with their healthcare and are glad that it is "free". The mentality of patients here is different from the US. Patients are not as demanding. No one gives a second thought to waiting 4-6 weeks for a staging CT for their newly discovered lung cancer prior to treatment -- many don't accept treatment anyway. If they are told they have a cancer, they just go home to die. They are generally happy for what they have and don't worry (or know) what they don't.

For radiology, I am working in a small rural district, so our waiting times are good, but in many of the urban districts, the waiting times for a routine CT scan are up to 9 months. GP's cannot order CT or MRI -- only specialists. The radiology department runs 8:30 am - 5:00 pm and I read about half of what I would read in the US. If it is not done by 5:00, it doesn't get done until tomorrow. In some cases, it might be weeks until a routine film is read. Call back after hours are pretty much only for trauma or surgical emergencies. Everything else can wait until the next morning, or Monday.

Our department is over budget, because they forgot to include the $35,000 equipment maintenance contract in this years budget. They installed a PACS system but didn't buy the Physicians Hanging Protocol software or the RIS [Radiology Information System] -- they are using a 20 year old system that is no longer supported.

Physicians who live here are generally satisfied due to the light workload and the lifestyle. However, there is a huge brain drain from the country. Many New Zealand doctors emigrate to Australia, Canada, or the US where the pay is better.

The country is critically short of physicians, especially specialists such as radiologists. In my hospital, about 2/3 of the medical staff in not native New Zealander -- most from South Africa or Europe) and about 1/4 of the staff is made up of locum tenens like me -- people from outside of New Zealand who come here for 6-12 months for the experience.

It is an interesting system and I have had an interesting time here. They spend about 1/4 per capita compared to what we spend in the US for health care. The care is good but not great here. They have a hard time recruiting and keeping physicians and are critically in short supply. I do not think that the American public would accept the level of care that is provided here. We will see what our future brings!

Ross Stevens, MD

Labels: Analysis, Countries, New Zealand

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

...Now comes the House-passed health-care "reform" bill that, amazingly, would extract more subsidies from the young. It mandates that health insurance premiums for older Americans be no more than twice the level of that for younger Americans. That's much less than the actual health spending gap between young and old. Spending for those age 60 to 64 is four to five times greater than those 18 to 24. So, the young would overpay for insurance that -- under the House bill -- people must buy: Twenty- and thirtysomethings would subsidize premiums for fifty-and sixtysomethings.

...Not surprisingly, the 40-million-member AARP, the major lobby for Americans over 50, was a big force behind this provision. AARP's cynicism is breathtaking. On one hand, it sponsors a high-minded campaign called "Divided We Fail" and runs sentimental TV ads featuring children pleading for a better tomorrow. "Join us in championing your future and the future of every generation," ended one ad.

...AARP justifies the cost-shifting as preventing age discrimination. Premiums based on age should be no more acceptable than premiums based on medical expenses reflecting race, gender or preexisting health conditions, it says. The House legislation bans those, so it should also ban age-based rates. AARP dislikes even the 2-to-1 limit. It thinks premiums for someone 22 and someone 62 should be identical. (In insurance jargon, that would be full "community rating.")

This is unconvincing. All insurance aims to protect against risk -- but within groups facing similar risks. Put differently, most insurance is risk-adjusted. Auto insurance premiums vary by age; younger drivers pay higher rates because they have more accidents. Homeowners' policies for similar houses cost more in high-crime areas. This is not "discrimination"; it's a reflection of risk and cost differences. Insurers that ignored these differences would soon vanish because they'd suffer heavy losses and lose customers.

Labels: Insurance

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

Liberals claim people who choose these options aren't helping as much to finance a common pool and may encourage adverse selection if too many young or healthy people opt out. While all insurance involves some degree of risk-sharing, Democrats want to impose true social insurance a la Europe by obliterating the flexibility of insurers to design products that are tailored to suit different individual needs.

...David Goldhill, a media executive, recently wrote in the Atlantic Monthly that if a 22-year-old starts at his company today earning $30,000 and health costs grow at 3%, by the time he retires he'll have paid out $1.77 million in premiums, lower wages, out-of-pocket costs and both sides of the Medicare payroll tax.

If all that money were instead available via an HSA, including by borrowing against future contributions, "wouldn't you be able to afford your own care?" Mr. Goldhill asks. "And wouldn't you consume health care differently if you and your family didn't have to spend that money only on care?"

This is precisely the future liberals fear because it would make health care less susceptible to political control. The Reid bill makes it impossible for people to choose better reform alternatives, the ones that can only be discovered through innovation and competition in a dynamic marketplace.

Labels: HSA

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

...The question is whether we want to put the federal government in control of American medicine. And about the related question of what medicine should be.

Traditionally, medicine is practiced by physicians, one patient at a time. The outcome is assessed by that patient. The right decision is the one chosen by the patient, in consultation with the physician, based on what is optimum for that patient, considering all aspects of his circumstances. The standard of care is the Oath of Hippocrates: providing treatment for the good of each patient according to the best of the doctor's ability and judgment.

In the "reformed" delivery system, healthcare is practiced from on high by committees of "experts" pulling the strings of marionette physicians (rankings, payment rates, other incentives and disincentives) who are judged on how well they achieve population-based outcomes. Patients are like sheep in the flock, categorized by race, income level, quality-adjusted remaining years (QARYs), compliance, functional ability, diversity score, or whatever metrics the rulers adopt. Any individual can be sacrificed for the good of the whole.

All information is to be coded and fed into a huge database, so that the herd's behavior and health can be monitored on a "granular" (minutely detailed) level. Non-reporting is punishable by fines or exclusion or worse.

One of the most common words in the House healthcare reform bill is "eligible." Obviously if you have to be eligible, you can also be ineligible -- and probably are, until proved otherwise. If subsidies can be given, they can be denied, or taken away. If the price-fixers can raise the doctor's pay, they can also cut it. If a committee can mandate coverage and level of payment for a service, it can refuse coverage or set the allowable charge below cost. If it has to certify need, it can declare that there is no need.

There is no need to report something to an official, unless the official has the power to act on the report: by allowing, disallowing, punishing, or making additional demands.

There is no need for a 2,000-page bill unless it is enabling government control over formerly private matters.

There is no need for a "place at the table" unless the czars can serve you a share of the collective goods -- or carve you up.

There is no need to read the bill -- unless it will affect your life. And a bill that creates winners and losers on every page, and that concerns everyone who is born, lives, and dies, will affect your life.

Some Americans may gain something from the bill, at least temporarily. But all lose freedom.

Labels: Analysis

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

The Importance of Mammograms
Dr. Lora Barke

Recently, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issued recommendations suggesting women refrain from getting their mammograms until age 50, and continue every two years thereafter.

With my colleagues at Invision Sally Jobe, I reject the USPSTF recommendations and support the American Cancer Society, American College of Radiology, Society of Breast Imaging, and many other respected professional organizations in their strong opposition to the new guidelines.

These new guidelines, if taken to their logical conclusion, will lead to diagnosing later stage cancer, resulting in more drug therapy, more radiation therapy and more late-stage intervention.

The American Cancer Society's (ACS) current screening guidelines state that women at average risk for breast cancer should have their first mammogram by age 40 and should repeat mammograms every one to two years thereafter. This can reduce the risk of dying of breast cancer by 20 to 25 percent for women aged 40 years or older. The ACS also says to continue routine mammograms beyond age 74, as long as the patient is in good health and has 10 years of life left.

A careful look at the most recent data shows us that about 17 percent of breast cancer deaths occurred in women who were diagnosed in their 40s, and 22 percent occurred in women diagnosed in their 50s. Furthermore, the risk of dying of breast cancer in women diagnosed in their 40s is reduced by 35 to 44 percent, not 15 percent as the USPSTF analysis incorrectly reported.

The USPSTF methodology greatly underestimates the benefit of modern mammography, while the ACS takes a more thorough and valid approach. The ACS looks at all the data used in issuing the USPSTF guidelines, more carefully reviews each individual study, and reviews many newer studies that have not been examined by the USPSTF. Despite this shortcoming, the USPSTF's own evidence review shows that mammography reduces the risk of dying in women in their 40s and women in their 50s at about the same rate.

Because fewer women develop breast cancer in their 40s compared with women in their 50s, the USPSTF has said the small benefit isn't worth the cost of screening in that age group. Among the costs are false positive examinations, including procedures. The USPSTF fails to cite the literature that reveals that women do not regard these costs as important drawbacks.

As for the screening interval, annual screening is especially important for women under age 55, and still produces better results for women 55-plus. As for false positives, remember that false positives do not double when comparing yearly mammograms to mammograms done every two years. In fact, research shows that going to the same high quality imaging facility on a regular basis reduces the likelihood of false findings.

Screening mammography in women in their 40s saves just about as many lives as it does for women in their 50s, and the breast cancer death rate in the U.S has decreased by 30 percent since 1990, primarily due to screening mammography. The USPSTF relies on old data, ignores compelling new data, creates confusion and ultimately concludes that it's just not worth it to save the lives of women in their 40s.

Screening mammography saves lives, and regular mammograms should remain an important part of women's preventive health care beginning at age 40.

Lora D. Barke, D.O., is the medical director of the Invision Sally Jobe Breast Network.

Labels: Misc

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

..."The PWC report correctly notes that the Baucus bill would impose tremendous financial hardships on many middle-class Americans by forcing them to purchase expensive state-mandated insurance on terms set by the politicians," said Paul M. Hsieh, M.D., cofounder of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine in Denver, Colorado.

...Hsieh believes insurers ultimately will regret not fighting the reform package by arguing for market freedom.

"Earlier this spring the insurance industry could have taken a principled stand in favor of genuine free-market reforms, such as repealing laws banning sales across state lines as well as laws mandating guaranteed issue and community rating," Hsieh said.

"Such reforms could have greatly reduced insurance costs for millions of Americans currently priced out of the market," Hsieh continued. "Instead, they chose to make a deal with the devil and accept new regulations requiring them to cover everyone regardless of preexisting conditions, in exchange for a Massachusetts-like individual mandate."

Labels: Insurance, Media

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

Governor's proposal to tax candy and soda

The Post reported on Gov. Bill Ritter's proposal to tax candy and soda pop. Ritter said, "We thought that people would be willing to pay 3 cents on a dollar candy bar." How utterly arrogant of him to decide what any citizen would be willing to pay for anything. What I do with my money and property should be my business in a free society.

America's local, state and federal governments are becoming ever-more authoritarian, serving themselves instead of protecting individual liberty. Wake up! Our individual rights are in serious jeopardy. The people must fight against this creeping and metastatic growth in governmental power or America will die.

Gina Liggett, Denver

Labels: LTE

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

Why is private health insurance so expensive? Blame Albany. First, state lawmakers have mandated that all health plans cover a host of procedures and "alternative-medicine" services, far more than companies in most states offer. Even the most stripped-down plan must include coverage of off-label drugs, surgical second opinions, and midwife and podiatrist services. Each mandated benefit makes the policy more expensive. Two state insurance regulations -- "guaranteed issue," which forces insurers to sell to any applicant, and "community rating," which requires them to offer the same price to everyone, regardless of age and health -- inflate prices further. Finally, the state has added billions of dollars in taxes and fees to private insurance policies, making them even pricier.

The perverse result: the young, healthy, and self-employed -- facing higher premiums for insurance that they seldom use, and realizing that they can always wait until they become ill to buy insurance -- tend to drop their coverage. (If New York regulated home insurance like this, you could buy a policy after your house had caught fire.) What's left is an insurance pool of older, sicker people, which drives private premiums higher still. Worse, the large number of uninsured people -- a consequence of Albany's bad policies—then becomes a justification for expanding the Medicaid rolls.

Labels: Insurance, Medicaid, NY, States

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

Labels: Analysis

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

Labels: Misc

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

...There are important lessons to be learned from recent experience with reform in Massachusetts. Here, insurance mandates similar to those proposed in the federal legislation succeeded in expanding coverage but—despite initial predictions -- increased total spending.

A "Special Commission on the Health Care Payment System" recently declared that the Massachusetts health-care payment system must be changed over the next five years, most likely to one involving "capitated" payments instead of the traditional fee-for-service system. Capitation means that newly created organizations of physicians and other health-care providers will be given limited dollars per patient for all of their care, allowing for shared savings if spending is below the targets. Unfortunately, the details of this massive change -- necessitated by skyrocketing costs and a desire to improve quality -- are completely unspecified by the commission, although a new Massachusetts state bureaucracy clearly will be required.

Labels: MA, States

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

Labels: Analysis

E-mail Paul Hsieh / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

The WHO ranking was ambitious in its scope, grading each nation's health care on five factors. Two of these were relatively uncontroversial: health level, which is roughly the average healthy lifespan of a nation's residents; and responsiveness, which is a sort of customer-service rating encompassing factors such as the system's speed, choice and quality of amenities. The other three measure inequality in health-care outcomes; responsiveness; and individual spending.

These last three measures struck some analysts as problematic, because a country with unhealthy people could rank above a healthier one where there was a bigger gap between healthy and unhealthy people. It is certainly possible that spreading health care as evenly as possible makes a society healthier, but the rankings struck some health-care researchers as assuming that, rather than demonstrating it.

An even bigger problem was shared by all five of these factors: The underlying data about each nation generally weren't available. So WHO researchers calculated the relationship between those factors and other, available numbers, such as literacy rates and income inequality. Such measures, they argued, were linked closely to health in those countries where fuller health data were available. Even though there was no way to be sure that link held in other countries, they used these literacy and income data to estimate health performance.

Labels: Analysis, Countries

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

...Democrats are quietly attempting to impose a "global budget" on Medicare, with radical implications for U.S. medicine.

Like most of Europe, the various health bills stipulate that Congress will arbitrarily decide how much to spend on health care for seniors every year—and then invest an unelected board with extraordinary powers to dictate what is covered and how it will be paid for. White House budget director Peter Orszag calls this Medicare commission "critical to our fiscal future" and "one of the most potent reforms."

...The hard budget cap means there is only so much money to be divvied up for care, with no account for demographic changes, such as longer life spans, or for the increasing incidence of diabetes, heart disease and other chronic conditions.

Worse, it makes little room for medical innovations. The commission is mandated to go after "sources of excess cost growth," meaning treatments that are too expensive or whose coverage will boost spending. If researchers find a pricey treatment for Alzheimer's in 2020, that might be banned because it would add new costs and bust the global budget. Or it might decide that "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller," as President Obama put it in June.

The Washington [state] commission, called the Health Technology Assessment, is manned by 11 bureaucrats, including a chiropractor and a "naturopath" who focuses on alternative, er, remedies like herbs and massage therapy. They consider the clinical effectiveness but above all the cost of medical procedures and technologies. If they decide something isn't worth the money, then Olympia won't cover it for some 750,000 Medicaid patients, public employees and prisoners.

So far, the commission has banned knee arthroscopy for osteoarthritis, discography for chronic back pain, and implantable infusion pumps for pain not related to cancer. This year, it is targeting such frivolous luxuries as knee replacements, spinal cord stimulation, a specialized autism therapy and MRIs of the abdomen, pelvis or breasts for cancer. It will also rule on routine ultrasounds for pregnancy, which have a "high" efficacy but also a "high" cost.

Labels: Analysis

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

I have included the Youtube channels in case you also wish to send them messages or videos of Dr. Peikoff's speech. You can also post links to the speech on their Facebook walls.

Link to Youtube video of Dr.Peikoff's speech http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJjhEr9tT0I

List of Persuadable Blue Dogs in Senate:

Evan Bayh (IN)

Evan Bayh On Youtube

Evan Bayh On Facebook

Evan Bayh E-mail Web Form

Washington, D.C. Fax: (202) 228-1377

Indianapolis, IN Fax: (317) 554-0760

Evansville, IN Fax: (812) 465-6503

Fort Wayne, IN Fax: (260) 420-0060

Hammond, IN Fax: (219) 852-2787

South Bend, IN Fax: (574) 236-8319

Michael Bennett (CO)

Michael Bennet E-mail Web Form

Michael Bennet On Facebook

Michael Bennet On Youtube

Washington, D.C. Office Fax: (202) 228-5036

Denver Metro Office Fax: (303) 455-8851

Four Corners Office Fax: (970) 259-9789

Pikes Peak Office Fax: (719) 328-1129

North Central Office Fax: (970) 224-2205

High Plains Office Fax: (970) 542-3088

Northwest/I-70W Office Fax: (970) 241-8313

Arkansas River Office Fax: (719) 542-7555

San Luis Valley Office Fax: (719) 587-0098

Jeff Bingaman (NM)

(Note Bingaman is one of the few who can be e-mailed directly. Bingaman has no fax numbers.)

Jeff Bingaman E-mail address: senator_bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov

Jeff Bingaman E-mail Web Form

Thomas Carper (DE)

Thomas Carper E-mail Web Form

Washington, D.C. Fax: (202) 228-2190

Wilmington Fax: (302) 573-6434

Dover Fax: (302) 674-5464

Georgetown Fax: (302) 856-3001

Kent Conrad (ND)

Kent Conrad On Youtube

Kent Conrad E-mail Web Form

Washington D.C. Fax (202) 224-7776

Minot Fax: (701) 838-8196

Grand Forks Fax: (701) 746-1990

Bismarck Fax: (701) 258-1254

Fargo Fax: (701) 232-6449

Byron Dorgan (ND)

Byron Dorgan E-mail Web Form

Washington, D.C. Fax (202) 224-1193

Bismarck Fax (701) 250-4484

Fargo Fax (701) 239-5112

Minot Fax (701) 838-8196

Grand Forks Fax (701) 746-9122

Kay Hagan (NC)

Office Locations

Kay Hagan E-mail Web Form

Mary Landrieu (LA)

Mary Landrieu E-mail Web Form

Washington, D.C. Fax:(202) 224-9735

New Orleans Fax:(504) 589-4023

Baton Rouge Fax:(225) 389-0660

Shreveport Fax:(318) 676-3100

Lake Charles Fax:(337) 439-3762

Joe Lieberman (CT)

Washington, D.C. Office (202) 224-9750

Hartford (866) 317-2242 Fax

Joe Lieberman E-mail Web Form

Blanche Lincoln (AR)

Blanche Lincoln On Youtube

Blanche Lincoln E-mail Web Form

Washington D.C. Office Fax: (202)228-1371

Little Rock Office Fax: (501) 375-7064

Dumas Office Fax: (870)382-1026

Jonesboro Office Fax: (870)910-6898

Fayetteville Office Fax: (479)251-1410

Texarkana Office Fax: (870) 774-7627

Ben Nelson (NE)

Ben Nelson E-mail Web Form

Ben Nelson On Facebook

Ben Nelson On Youtube

Washington, D.C. Fax: 1-202-228-0012

Omaha Fax: (402) 391-4725

Lincoln Fax: (402) 476-8753

Bill Nelson (FL)

Bill Nelson On Youtube

Bill Nelson E-mail Web Form

Washington, D.C. Fax: 202-228-2183

Orlando Fax: 407-872-7165

Miami-Dade Fax: 305-536-5991

Tampa Fax: 813-225-7050

West Palm Beach Fax: 561-514-4078

Tallahassee Fax: 850-942-8450

Jacksonville Fax: 904-346-4506

Broward Fax: 954-693-4862

Fort Myers Fax: 239-334-7710

Mark Pryor (AR)

Washington, D.C. Office Fax: (202) 228-0908

Little Rock Office Fax: (501) 324-5320

Jon Tester (MT)

Jon Tester E-mail Web Form

Washington, D.C. Fax: (202) 224-8594

Billings Fax: (406) 252-7768

Bozeman Fax: (406) 586-7647

Butte Fax: (406) 782-4717

Glendive Fax: (406) 365-8836

Great Falls Fax: (406) 452-9586

Helena Fax: (406) 449-5462

Kalispell Fax: (406) 257-3974

Missoula Fax: (406) 728-2193

Mark Warner (VA)

Mark Warner E-mail Web Form

Senator Mark Warner On Youtube

Mark Warner Linkedin

Washington, D.C. Fax: 202-224-6295

Abingdon Fax Number: 276-628-1036

Norfolk Fax Number: 757-441-6250

Richmond Fax Number: 804-775-2319

Vienna Fax: 703-442-0408

Roanoke Fax Number: 540-857-2800

Jim Webb (VA)

Jim Webb On Facebook

Jim Webb On Youtube

Jim Webb E-mail Web Form

Washington, D.C. Fax: 202-228-6363

Danville Fax: 434-972-0978

Hampton Roads Fax: 757-518-1679

Northern Virginia Fax:703-573-7098

Norton Fax: 276-679-4929

Richmond Fax: 804-771-8313

Roanoke Fax: 540-772-6870

Republican Senators on the Finance and HELP Committees

(The number for the Subcommittee)

HELP Subcommittee on Children and Families

Washington, D.C. 20510

Fax: 202-228-0494

Jim Bunning On Youtube

Jim Bunning E-mail Web Form

Washington, D.C. Fax: 202.228.1373

Ft. Wright (Main State Office) Fax: 859.331.7445

Hopkinsville Fax: 270.881.3975

Owensboro Fax: 270.689.9158

Louisville Fax: 502.582.5344

Hazard Fax: 606.435.1761

Lexington Fax: 859.219.3269

Richard Burr (NC)

Richard Burr E-mail Web Form

Washington, D.C. Fax: (202) 228-2981

Asheville Fax: (828) 350-2439

Rocky Mount Fax: (252) 977-7902

Winston-Salem Fax: (336) 725-4493

Gastonia Fax: (704) 833-1467

Wilmington Fax: (910) 251-7975

Tom Coburn (OK)

Tom Coburn E-mail Web Form

Washington D.C. Fax: 202-224-6008

Tulsa: Fax: 918-581-7195

Oklahoma City: Fax: 405-231-5051

John Cornyn (TX)

John Cornyn E-mail Web Form

John Cornyn On Facebook

John Cornyn On Youtube

Washington D.C. Fax: 202-228-2856

Houston Fax: 713-572-3777

Harlingen Fax: 956-423-0193

Lubbock Fax: 806-472-7536

San Antonio Fax: 210-224-8569

Austin Fax: 512-469-6020

Tyler Fax: 903-593-0920

Dallas Fax: 972-239-2110

Mike Crapo On Youtube

Mike Crapo On Facebook

Mike Crapo E-mail Web Form (Note 5,000 character limit in the e-mail form)

Washington, D.C. Fax: (202) 228-1375

Idaho Falls Fax: (208) 529-8367

Boise (Main state office) Fax: (208) 334-9044

Lewiston Fax: (208) 743-6484
Caldwell Fax: (208) 455-0358

Pocatello Fax: (208) 236-6935

Coeur d' Alene Fax: (208) 664-0889

Twin Falls Fax: (208) 733-0414

John Ensign E-mail Web Form

Washington D.C. Office Fax: (202) 228-2193

Las Vegas Office Fax: (702) 388-6501

Reno Office Fax: (775) 686-5729

Carson City Office Fax: (775) 883-5590

Michael B. Enzi (WY)

Michael B. Enzi E-mail Web Form

Washington D.C. Office: Fax: (202) 228-0359

Gillette Fax: (307) 682-6501

Cheyenne Fax: (307) 772-2480

Cody Fax: (307) 527-9476

Jackson Fax: (307) 739-9520

Casper Fax: (307) 261-6574

Johnny Isakson (GA)

Washington, D.C. Fax: (202) 228-0724

Atlanta, GA Fax: (770) 661-0768

Johnny Isakson E-mail Web Form

Jon Kyl On Youtube

Jon Kyl E-mail Web Form

Lisa Murkowski (AK)

Lisa Murkowski E-mail Web Form

Lisa Murkowski On Myspace

Lisa Murkowski On Youtube

Lisa Murkowski On Facebook

Washington D.C. Fax: 202-224-5301

Fairbanks Fax: 907-451-7146

Anchorage Fax: 907-276-4081

Matsu Wasilla Fax: 907-376-8526

Ketchikan Fax: 907-225-0390

Kenai Fax: 907-283-4363

Pat Roberts (KS)

Pat Roberts E-mail Web Form

Pat Roberts On Youtube

Washington, D.C. Fax: (202) 224-3514

Overland Park Fax: (913) 451-9446

Topeka, Fax: (785) 235-3665

Wichita Fax: (316) 263-0273

Dodge City Fax: (620) 227-2264

Olympia Snowe (ME)

Olympia Snowe E-mail Web Form

Washington D.C Fax: (202) 224-1946

Auburn Fax: (207) 782-1438

Labels: Misc

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

Suppose the mafia came to your town and forced everyone to purchase all their meals at mob-approved restaurants. The mafia would also select the menu items.

If you liked broccoli but their vegetable choice was spinach, then tough luck. Everyone would also have to purchase dessert, whether they wanted it or not. And if some customers couldn't afford the high-priced meals, the mafia would force you to "contribute" to cover their bills.

Most Americans would be outraged at such violations of their basic rights. But this is precisely what the president and Congress want to do with health insurance...

Labels: MA, OpEd, States

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

...President Barack Obama thinks government bureaucrats can determine what [Beezley's diabetic son] Connor needs, when he needs it, and then get it to him--and to hundreds of millions of others. This is a lie. The President's scheme to seize control of our bodies through our health is dangerous, and will leave us helpless victims with no control over our health care. Government control also means an inevitable decline of supplies, and rationing via simpleminded regulations.

Only a system of competing prices, profits and producers--capitalism--results in the right thing being in the right place at the right time. Without prices and profits you have scarcity, rationing and poverty: the Soviet Union was one of the most fertile regions on earth; an army of central planning bureaucrats couldn't keep bread on the shelves for a reason.

It doesn't matter if rationing is "in the bill." Shortages are unavoidable without a profit-driven market providing price and profit signals to consumers and producers. Under government control doctors, insulin, test strips and all health resources will be disconnected from the needs and priorities of real people and driven instead by political priorities and the stunted thinking of bureaucrats. Freedom and capitalism respect the choices of individuals and provide incentives that align the interests of disparate people. This is true of healthcare just as surely as bread or anything else.

...There are four essential reforms [that] offer an immediate start to protecting the lives of Connor and every American. To start, the federal government must assert its authority under the Interstate Commerce Clause and knock down foolish, expensive barriers to health insurance purchases across state lines so Americans can buy the insurance they want.

As another important reform, state governments must end coverage mandates that radically increase the cost of insurance and enrich health insurance companies at patients' expense.

In addition, lawsuit abuse must be curbed with sensible malpractice guidelines and limits.

And finally, tax policy that disconnects patients from their doctors must be changed by moving tax benefits to the individual level while empowering individuals with vehicles like Health Savings Accounts.

...My son doesn't deserve to have his life diminished by a government run healthcare monstrosity.

He and all Americans deserve a free, vibrant, competitive market in health care.

Labels: Free Market, OpEd

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

Maine is the Charlie Brown of health care. The state's legislators have tried for decades to fix its system, but their efforts have always fallen short: health insurance premiums are still among the least affordable in the nation, health care spending per person is among the highest and hospital emergency rooms are among the most crowded. Indeed, many overhauls to the system have done little more than squeeze a balloon -- solving one problem while worsening another.

...Maine's history is a cautionary tale for national health reform. The state could never figure out how to slow the spiraling increase in medical costs, hobbling its efforts to offer more people insurance coverage. Many on Capitol Hill have criticized national reform legislation for similarly doing little to tame costs.

Labels: ME, States

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

* It is structured as a Ponzi scheme
* Its low administrative costs are a mirage.
* It is sustained by the general fund and by cost-shifting
* It is unfair to both patients and physicians
* The system is rife with fraud
* Government care costs much more
* Medicare taxes impose uncounted costs

Labels: Medicare

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

Labels: Canada, Countries

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

HB3962, Insurance, and Preexisting Conditions

Should government force you to pay more for medical insurance so others can pay less? Dr. Laura Rosenthal thinks so, calling it "compassion and kindness." It's more like charity at gunpoint.

In a recent Camera article, Rosenthal advocated making it "illegal for health insurance companies to discriminate on the basis of pre-existing conditions." That is, insurers must sell policies to everyone at the same price.

These mandates have dire consequences, including more people without insurance. "Individual insurance markets deteriorated," concludes a Milliman actuarial study. "Insurance companies chose to stop selling individual insurance," "premium rates tended to increase, sometimes dramatically."

This legislation encourages insurers to design products that sick people don't want, as insurers lose money by insuring the sick because it's illegal to charge higher premiums. Such policies lack features higher-risk customers want, like comprehensive coverage and minimal bureaucratic obstacles to doctor-recommended treatments.

These political controls cause a "death spiral:" premiums increase, so the healthiest stop buying insurance, the remaining risk pool is less healthy, and premiums rise again. Repeat. To prevent this, politicians want mandatory insurance, which Massachusetts imposed in 2006. Since then Massachusetts insurance premium costs have skyrocketed, affordable policies become illegal, and patients have poor access to care.

Preexisting conditions are a problem because the tax code favors non-portable employer-based insurance. This prevents people from buying guaranteed renewable policies before contracting a chronic condition. A free-market in insurance would also offer innovative products such as health status insurance, which would pay for premium increases should you get sick.

Labels: Insurance, LTE

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

...Under Japan's health care coverage, companies administer check-ups to employees once a year. Those who fail to meet the waistline requirement must undergo counseling. If companies do not reduce the number of overweight employees by 10 percent by 2012 and 25 percent by 2015, they could be required to pay more money into a health care program for the elderly. An estimated 56 million Japanese will have their waists measured this year.

...Health care costs here are projected to double by 2020 and represent 11.5 percent of gross domestic product. That’s why some health experts support the metabo law.

...Government attempts to regulate individual lifestyles are based on the claim that they must limit medical costs that would otherwise be a burden on "society." But this issue can arise only in "universal healthcare" systems where taxpayers must pay for everyone's medical expenses.

[Specific US nanny-state health regulation examples omitted...]

Just as universal healthcare will further fuel the nanny state, the nanny state mind-set helps fuel the drive toward universal healthcare. Individuals aren't regarded as competent to decide how to manage their lives and their health. So the government provides "cradle to grave" coverage of their healthcare.

Nanny state regulations and universal healthcare thus feed a vicious cycle of increasing government control over individuals. Both undermine individual responsibility and habituate citizens to ever-worsening erosions of their individual rights. Both promote dependence on government. Both undermine the virtues of independence and rationality. Both jeopardize the very foundations of a free society.

Labels: Countries, Japan

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

Guidelines for Survival Under Socialized Medicine
by Christian W.

Folks, socialist medicine is likely inevitable in the United States. I think that it will either be implemented by means of sweeping bills like the one now approved by the House, or by a continued gradual strangulation of freedom in healthcare. The trends towards fascism and socialism have grown increasingly stronger over generations, and little will change their essential trajectories in our lifetimes. (I hope to be proven wrong.)

I think that it is still very worthwhile to wage an intellectual battle against the collectivist juggernaut, but it is also time to consider some personal strategies for coping with the coming deterioration of healthcare in this country.

Here are a few general practical guidelines for personal survival:

1) Rationing and shortages are inevitable under socialism. Therefore you must plan your life as if no healthcare will be available for you at all except in cases of acute trauma requiring ambulance transport. (There are some other exceptions, but this is the essence of health care in countries like Sweden.)

Absence of modern medical services means that you have to take meaningful steps to minimize the risk of acquiring a chronic illness or disease of aging and/or lifestyle. You will have to become your own doctor, primarily focusing on disease prevention. Special emphasis should be put on proper diet and exercise. Know these fields as if your life depends on it.

Note: Don't become overly reliant on supplements as a way to mitigate less-than-optimal dietary and lifestyle choices, because supplements that are in any way effective will gradually be outlawed, as they already are in Europe. The pharmaceutical industry lobby, in collusion with power-lusting congressmen/bureaucrats, will ensure this.

2) Treat your body as a delicate vintage automobile that you must take exquisite care of, since spare parts and/or access to a professional mechanic are either nonexistent or excruciatingly expensive. Many organs and systems of the body have good self-repair mechanisms, while others, unfortunately, have not.

Thus, for example, participating in sports that may wear down joints or cause other permanent damage should be minimized. (Services like hip replacements will not be readily available.) Many health-conscious people are unaware that the modes of exercise that they are applying may have short term health benefits, but could be detrimental in the longer term. Be informed, and always apply the ancient medical maxim "First, do no harm."

3) Avoid contact with the public healthcare system as much as possible. It can be deadly to be sucked into the machinery even for a minor issue. Misdiagnosis and faulty, dangerous, treatments and medication regimens are commonplace under socialism (just as in Dark Ages "medicine").

In many areas of medicine, particularly those related to especially politicized areas like CVD and other "life-style" diseases, government-franchised practitioners are often dangerously ignorant of essential facts. Remember that the worst aspect of socialist medicine is that medicine as a rational science is epistemologically destroyed by eliminating the role of the doctor as a sovereign, independently thinking, professional.

[SDZ: I consider that last point an incredibly important observation that needs to be spread widely.]

4) Don't trust at face value any pronunciation or recommendation that comes out of organizations like the FDA, USDA, NIH, American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association, the medical industry lobby, or your medical insurance company.

I deliberately lump together government agencies and some influential private entities here, because these are all primarily (or, in the case of the private organizations, to a very significant degree) vehicles for dissemination of propaganda having scant to do with the furtherance of objective health information.

Obtain your health information from honest clinical practitioners with proven track records, and from primary scientific sources. The latter can be done either directly, for example, by reading research papers (if you have the time and appropriate background knowledge to do so) or by finding experts that apply sufficiently rigorous epistemological standards to interpret and explain the content of such scientific sources for the layman. (Aim to get a second opinion on all important issues.)

5) Consider becoming a "medical tourist". Medical services are already cheaper, safer, and provided with better care for the patient in many former third world countries. (Thailand comes to mind.) If you'll ever need to travel overseas to save your own life, swear to never forgive those of your countrymen who let America deteriorate to such a despicable state.

My advice: Maintain your private medical care if at all possible. If you are relatively healthy, look into a high-deductible health insurance plan linked to a Health Savings Account (HSA). Start putting money away in that HSA for a rainy day. Find a "concierge physician" or doctor with whom you can establish a direct financial relationship; someone who will act as your medical advocate in a system that is broken and will only get worse. You get what you pay for and medicine today is no different.

Labels: Analysis

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

* The American Medical Association (AMA) was facing a 21 percent cut in physicians’ reimbursements under the current law. Obama promised to kill the cut if they backed his bill. The cuts are the fruit of a law requiring annual 5-6 percent reductions in doctor reimbursements for treating Medicare patients. Bravely, each year Congress has rolled the cuts over, suspending them but not repealing them. So each year, the accumulated cuts threaten doctors. By now, they have risen to 21 percent. With this blackmail leverage, Obama compelled the AMA to support his bill... or else!

* The AARP got a financial windfall in return for its support of the healthcare bill. Over the past decade, the AARP has morphed from an advocacy group to an insurance company (through its subsidiary company). It is one of the main suppliers of Medi-gap insurance, a high-cost, privately purchased coverage that picks up where Medicare leaves off. But President Bush-43 passed the Medicare Advantage program, which offered a subsidized, lower-cost alternative to Medi-gap. Under Medicare Advantage, the elderly get all the extra coverage they need plus coordinated, well-managed care, usually by the same physician. So more than 10 million seniors went with Medicare Advantage, cutting into AARP Medi-gap revenues.

Presto! Obama solved their problem. He eliminates subsidies for Medicare Advantage. The elderly will have to pay more for coverage under Medigap, but the AARP — which supposedly represents them -- will make more money.

Labels: Analysis

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

I am a law-abiding citizen and breast cancer survivor, and I completely disagree with the current move to nationalize health care. Dissent is not new to me. As a teenager I worked to abolish the draft. Now, as then, my dissent is as a thinking American, not a member of an "un-American mob."

If government owns and pays for my health care, they own my body just as a farmer owns his cow. If government is paying, it will decide what kind of care I get and when I will get it. Under "free health care for all," access will diminish as lines lengthen, and my care may not be there when I really need it.

The Democrats wheedled, cajoled, begged, and finally abandoned its defense of abortion -- truly a watershed moment -- in order to get their version of ObamaCare passed ...in the House of Representatives, where they enjoy a 75-seat majority. In the end, they could only muster a five-vote win on Nancy Pelosi's bill out of that strong majority. Until this week, most had assumed that any ObamaCare bill would pass the House easily, but that the fight would be in the Senate.

So what does this 220-215 vote tell us? Capitol Hill Democrats know that this bill is an albatross. It's true that Pelosi was able at the end to negotiate votes to allow a few at-risk Democrats that supported the bill to oppose it in the final vote, but even that tells a tale of fear and consciousness of unpopularity. The razor-thin vote, as well as a number of earlier, more sincere defections, show that this bill was a radical and expensive approach to fix a 13% problem -- and even most of the Democrats know it.

...We always thought the fight was in the Senate, so the only real surprise yesterday was how weak Pelosi actually was on ObamaCare.

Labels: Analysis, OpEd

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

That American citizens should be fined or even put in federal prison for refusing to purchase government-approved health insurance is as un-American as any idea we can imagine.

But such a mandate is the very heart of the bill written behind closed doors by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her privileged pals. If their bill is approved by the House tomorrow, we will be a big step closer to the day when everybody gets their health care insurance through the government or from an approved insurer offering policies that meet meticulously detailed specifications contained in thousands of pages of federal regulations.

...Besides rationing care, the bill adds expensive new mandates on people (compulsory insurance for all), as well as costly new regulatory burdens on insurance companies (thus increasing premiums) and on your employer (which will reduce your wages). The Democrats' bill also creates multiple new layers of federal bureaucracy to look over your doctor's shoulder.

This plan is doomed to fail, but in failing it will likely inflict severe collateral damage on the quality of your health coverage and your health care.

Labels: OpEd

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

A government-run health insurer would radically tilt the health-insurance playing field. It would amount to a new entitlement program, able to undercut the price of private insurance by squeezing hospitals and doctors, reimbursing them at below-market rates. "Just like Medicaid and Medicare," which also underpay medical providers, the public option would force hospitals and doctors to charge private insurers more. Insurers would be compelled to raise their premiums, eventually losing millions of customers to the government plan.

Obama insists that any public option would have to be self-supporting, properly balancing its premiums and risk and not expecting the government to cover its losses. Sound familiar? The same assurances were made about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

* Tear down the barriers to buying insurance across state lines
* Repeal mandatory benefits that make health insurance needlessly expensive
* De-link health insurance from employment

Labels: Analysis, Free Market

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

Expect less, pay more. It's not the slogan for some "Bizarro World" Target store in a comic book; it's an accurate slogan for congressional Democrats' health care "reform" proposals. They include a new government-run insurance plan, mandatory insurance, new political controls on insurance, and new taxes.

Labels: Free Market, Insurance, OpEd

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

Labels: Misc

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

Congress has never before required Americans to buy a product or service under penalty of law. Yet that's precisely what the health care bills pending in the House and Senate would do in the age of Obama, despite compelling arguments that the Constitution gives lawmakers no power to do so.

Labels: OpEd

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

Labels: Analysis

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

...The persistence, dedication, hard work and personal sacrifice to get through four years of undergraduate study, four years of medical school, three to six years of residency training and perhaps two to five additional years of specialty or subspecialty training cannot and should not be underestimated. Add that up and you are talking almost two decades of training, long hours, tedious study, time away from family and plain hard work.

Financial compensation during these years is hardly lucrative. Truly caring physicians accept this role willingly and without complaint because there is an indescribable satisfaction in the actual delivery of care.

...Get the government out of my way and let me do what I do for my patients and I will do it well. Let the compensation equal the value of what I do. Get rid of the many layers of bureaucratic nonsense that lie between me and my patients. Get rid of government-mandated cost distortions.

Let me negotiate fees and payment schedules directly with my patients willingly, unapologetically and in good conscience. Let me be a physician, not a "health care provider." Trust me, there is a difference!

I love what I do, with a passion, but I will not do it indefinitely and will not do it without reasonable compensation.

It is absolutely immoral for the government to "mandate" that I provide my expertise to whomever bureaucrats choose because someone has determined the patients are "entitled" to it.

Labels: OpEd

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

The Incentives Aren't to Help You

The proposed Massachusetts "global payment" system creates a tremendous incentive for physicians and hospitals to render as little care as possible ("Your Massachusetts Future," Review & Outlook, Oct. 14). If your care costs less than the annual allotment, then they keep the unused amount. If your care costs more, then the difference comes out of the providers' pockets. Such a system thus pits your doctor's interests against your own.

Suppose the state has already used up 85% of your annual allotment. You then see your doctor for a severe headache. He examines you and says, "No, you don't need a $1,000 MRI scan of your brain. Why don't you take two Tylenol and call me in the morning."

Would you be 100% sure that he's giving you unbiased medical advice?

And even if your doctor continues to conscientiously practice in your best interest, he must constantly battle hospital administrators seeking to reduce spending on your care.

Advocates of government-run health care like to claim that it is morally superior because it "doesn't put a price on human life." But when the government sets an annual spending cap for each patient, then that's exactly what it is doing. A government big enough to "guarantee" you health care will also be big enough to limit it.

Paul Hsieh, M.D.
Sedalia, Colo.

Labels: LTE, MA, States

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

The details of Congress' health care "reform" legislation are finally coming into focus, and it's not a pretty picture. Congress is essentially proposing a national version of the failing Massachusetts system.

In 2006, Massachusetts adopted a health care plan which included an individual mandate requiring residents to purchase state-approved health insurance, new regulations on insurance companies specifying who they must cover and what benefits they must provide, and a government-subsidized "public option" for low-income residents. Supporters promised a utopia of "universal coverage" which would save money while improving quality of care. However, the exact opposite has occurred -- health costs in Massachusetts have skyrocketed, while patient care has suffered.

Before we adopt a similar plan at the national level, Americans should know three things about the Massachusetts plan...

1) Massachusetts' system of mandatory insurance drives up costs and violates individual rights.
2) "Coverage" is not the same as actual medical care.
3) The Massachusetts plan will end in rationing.

Labels: MA, OpEd, States

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

Every year, 1,000 Americans die because they cannot find a matching bone marrow donor. Minorities are hit especially hard. Common sense suggests that offering modest incentives to attract more bone marrow donors would be worth pursuing, but federal law makes that a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

Labels: Misc

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis

Labels: Misc

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis