[Jefferson'n'Ted]

Has anyone read this? What are your opinions?
Personally I find it a little too Big Brother.

An excerpt from the introduction (bold courtesy of moi)

"We evaluate three systems: the United Network for Organ Sharing points systems, quality-adjusted life years, and disability-adjusted life years. We recommend an alternative system--the complete lives system--which prioritizes younger people who have not yet lived a complete life..."

So the rationing of healthcare is already being discussed. In the complete lives system, infants and children under three are lower priority than an adolescent. This is because we have already invested so many dollars in education for adolescents, wouldn't want to waste that investment. And anyone over 65 is at the bottom of the priority list, as they don't have many quality years ahead of them any way.


All I can say is

 

[Ender's Mom]

Where is the quote coming from? A particular healthcare bill? (there is more than one you know)

 

[Jefferson'n'Ted]

No, not the healthcare bill in any of it's incarnations.
The Lancet is a medical journal. This particular paper has generated a lot of press. It was written by A Wertheimer, PhD, and Ezekial Emanual, MD. Ezekial Emanual is the brother of Rohm Emanual and the White House healthcare advisor.

 

[Ender's Mom]

Oh I see. So it's some medical journal's opinion/suggestion.

I can totally see the "over 65" senators putting that in a bill and passing it

If anything they'd put in a priority where they, and anyone who contributed to them... get prioritized.

 

[Jefferson'n'Ted]

The Lancet is not just your average medical journal. It is "the world's best and most respected general medical journal" according to wikipedia.
I should have said this is generating a lot of controversy--not press. You probably won't see this in your local paper. And no, it won't be in the healthcare reform bill itself. What is alarming a lot of people is that this is being advocated by the White House adviser on healthcare.
Rationing won't be in the bill per se, but even Obama is talking about rationing healthcare.

 

[Ender's Mom]

I'm sorry... I was making a bit of a joke there

I can't seriously comment because I haven't done enough research.

 

[BigBrownDog]

Hmmm.. I thought that there already was some sort of prioritization in effect in organ transplant.

 

[myfavoritedog]

There is so much going on with all this health care "reform" it makes my head spin. I think they are trying to rush it through too fast. It scares the life out of me to think they are voting on a bill they have not read and have no idea what is in it. That alone should give everyone pause. Something this major should not be done in a couple of months time.

I know when I lived in Tennessee they tried an all encompassing plan. It was a disaster. I am not sure how close it is to this, or at least some of what is being proposed, but I saw enough that any plan that inserts the government between me and my doctor is not something I want.

And I agree. It sounds like too much bog brother in there.

I accessed the Mayo Clinic website and found this relative to the criteria for heart transplants:

The ideal heart transplant candidate is a person with end-stage heart disease for whom conventional therapy is not likely to provide acceptable symptomatic benefit or satisfactorily improve life expectancy.
While there is no firm age restriction, people from birth to beyond 65 years have benefited from transplantation. In some situations, young people with multi-organ disease may be considered for a multi-organ transplant (heart-lung, heart-liver, heart-kidney, heart-lung-liver). Prior heart surgery, diabetes and previously treated malignancies (cancer) do not necessarily exclude a candidate from transplantation.

Some individuals have other life-threatening disorders that make them unlikely to benefit from heart transplantation or put them at greater risk for postoperative complications. The following are general examples of health conditions that may exclude a candidate from heart transplantation:

Severe pulmonary disease
Untreated malignancies
Severe osteopenic bone disease
Numerous pre-formed antibodies
Untreated chemical dependency or substance abuse


So it seems their criteria has more to do with the health of the individual, excluding the heart disease, than with age. According to the Mayo Clinic here, even older people benefit from these procedures.

 

[Jefferson'n'Ted]

Hmmm.. I thought that there already was some sort of prioritization in effect in organ transplant.

There probably is. Organs are in short supply. And artificial organs are not on the horizon. However, we haven't experienced this type of prioritization in other areas--heart surgery, cancer treatments, joint replacement. That is what will be added to the rationing list if our nation's top healthcare adviser's recommendations are followed.
Emanual isn't just talking about organ transplants. Specifically mentioned in this paper are beds in intensive care units and vaccines.
While I can't find it online, there was a 1996 report written by Emanual for the Hastings Center Report where he discussed denying coverage to patients who are irreversibly prevented from becoming participating citizens. Such as those with dementia or Alzheimer's.
Again I say

 

[Seamus Lab]

There has to be someone in this country of 300 million people that can figure this thing out. Something has to be done but there are too many with dirty hands and their own agenda getting into the fray.

 

[Jefferson'n'Ted]

There has to be someone in this country of 300 million people that can figure this thing out. Something has to be done but there are too many with dirty hands and their own agenda getting into the fray.

I agree.

I wonder what the effect would be if we required all health insurance companies to provide a statewide health insurance to low income families? Only those that had incomes under a certain ceiling would be eligible to get this insurance. Each state would have to cover the "employer" part of the premium--possibly covered through state taxes.
And I do agree that we need to get rid of the "pre-existing condition" disqualification that all health insurance companies have.

 

[Di]

I agree.

I wonder what the effect would be if we required all health insurance companies to provide a statewide health insurance to low income families? Only those that had incomes under a certain ceiling would be eligible to get this insurance. Each state would have to cover the "employer" part of the premium--possibly covered through state taxes.
And I do agree that we need to get rid of the "pre-existing condition" disqualification that all health insurance companies have.

Most sound option I've heard, I put you in charge!!

 

[Jefferson'n'Ted]

Most sound option I've heard, I put you in charge!!

While I don't want to be in charge, I have been giving this topic a lot of thought, and doing a lot of research. We made car companies put seat belts in cars, catalytic converters in cars, etc. We passed laws requiring all sorts of things from a broad spectrum of businesses. Why not require health insurance to drop the pre existing clause and provide state by state insurance policies? If you want to sell insurance, you will provide this policy in all the states that you do business in. I'm sure that there would be a lot more fine tuning to it, but ... IMO better than a total government invasion into healthcare.
The portion that the individual would pay would correlate directly to their income or lack of.
The rest of us would continue our current coverage. Our state taxes would go up, but at least the federal government wouldn't be going several trillion dollars in debt for this.