What does the stimulus bill have to do with healthcare? Apparently a lot!

As republicans and critics argued over the right mix of tax cuts and whether money was going to the right places to jump-start the economy, no one was objecting to the healthcare provisions that were slipped in to the bill without debate or discussion.

Senators should have read over this stimulus bill with more scrutiny before blindly voting for it. They should have paid extra attention to the provisions lined out in H.R. 1 EH (page numbers mentioned refer to this pdf version) and voted against it, because it is dangerous to your health, and I am not talking about the aneurysm you put yourself at risk of from reading this mess.
The stimulus bill will affect every aspect of the healthcare industry, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much money hospitals will get paid.

These new provisions are clearly a reflection of the ideas of Tom Daschle as they are virtually identical to what he proposed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” (A book I just recently finished reading. Coincidence? I think not.) In the book Daschle suggests doctors give up their autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners. Daschle was the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department, until recently.

If you read pages 445, 454 and 479 it is clear new health rules in this bill will affect “every individual in the United States.” A federal system is now going to electronically track every medical treatment you receive.

Having electronic medical records instantly available for easy transfer to other hospitals is no doubt beneficial, but the bill goes further. It will create a brand new government bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, to monitor treatments and make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions. (Pages 442, 446)

I don’t know about you, but I don’t want my doctor to work for the federal government and their interests, but rather work for me and mine.

There is also a summary of penalties in the bill you can read about on pages 511, 518 and 540-541. Under this bill Hospitals and doctors that are determined to not be “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” or the penalties is not clearly defined or stated in the bill. The new HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time”, will determine that. Whatever that means?

And what exactly are the penalties? Will they deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocol if you have a special condition or you need an experimental treatment?

There is no doubt in my mind the vagueness of this was done intentionally. If we go back to Daschle’s book, he proposes an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions others won’t make. The stimulus bill does just that and covers it on pages 190-192. It is called the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Daschle also explains in his book the goal is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He goes on to praise European systems for their willingness to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forego experimental treatments.” Daschle criticizes Americans for expecting too much from the healthcare system. He explains the reform “will not be pain free,” and seniors should be more accepting of conditions that come with age instead of treating them.

Interestingly this goal is accomplished in the bill as well. Medicare currently pays for treatments deemed safe and effective, but the stimulus bill would change that. According to the bill on page 464 there will now be cost-effectiveness standard set by the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Daschle also tells us in his book the blue print for this council is modeled after a board in the U.K. named the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence that approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly.

In 2006, the U.K. health board, NICE, denied treatment and a costly new drug to elderly patients with macular degeneration until they went blind in one eye. It took almost three years of public protest to reverse the decision.

Hiding the groundwork for universal or socialized healthcare in a stimulus bill was intentional. Daschle and supporters of the Clinton administration’s universal health care plans in 1994 learned an important lesson. They cannot pass universal healthcare with a debate and delay on the issue. In fact Daschle noted last year the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. “If that means attaching a healthcare plan to the federal budget, so be it,” he said. “The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.”

The newly elected administration and Congress are following the script. All last week, President Obama was out pushing the stimulus bill calling it “inexcusable and irresponsible” for senators to delay passing the stimulus bill. In truth, the bill needed more scrutiny. Scrutiny they new would destroy their road to socialized medicine.