The Urban Grind

As Nancy Pelosi said, we need to bass the bill to see what’s in it. And here’s one surprising new fee, or tax, if you like.

WASHINGTONMedical plans are facing an unexpected new fee. It’s to help cover people with pre-existing conditions under President Obama’s health care overhaul.

The $63-per-head fee — buried in a recent regulation — will hit health plans serving an estimated 190 million Americans, mostly workers and their families. It’s payable starting in 2014.

Employers are not happy. The cost of compliance works out to tens of millions of dollars for the largest companies, maybe a few hundred for small firms. Most of that will get passed on to workers.

The Obama administration says the money will cushion health insurance companies from the hard-to-predict costs of covering uninsured people with pre-existing conditions, so society will benefit in the long run.

The fee is temporary, raising $25 billion over three years.

Temporary, my foot! If anything, it will increase.

In case any of you were wondering how Obama would fund his mammoth health care plan, aside from raising taxes, the answer is that he raided Medicare to the tune of 500 million dollars. (Via Hotair.com)

Anyway, we’re already seeing the result of these upcoming cuts being that fewer Medicare patients are now being admitted to hospitals.

TUESDAY, June 5 (HealthDay News) — Federal government pressure has led to an increasing number of Medicare patients being held for observation instead of being admitted to hospitals, a new study suggests.

So despite all the carping and caterwauling by liberals about how the Republicans are waging a “war on women,” we see the real war is the one Obama is waging against senior citizens. Something is very wrong when illegal aliens can make free use of our hospital emergency rooms without paying, but our own law abiding people, who have worked and paid taxes for years can’t get admitted.

Here’s the difference between being held for observation vs. being admitted to a hospital:
Although a patient’s experience of being held for observation, especially for days, may seem exactly the same as being admitted to the hospital, the difference is apparent when it comes time to pay the bill, the researchers noted.

Patients held for observation are classified as outpatients and, under Medicare rules, outpatients may face higher co-payments for in-hospital services and won’t be covered for subsequent care in skilled nursing facilities.

The practice has angered patient advocacy groups, one of which launched a class-action lawsuit against the federal government last year.

Obama’s media sycophants are hard at work promoting Obamacare.  So while they won’t necessarily be that blunt, these DNC organ publications like The New York Times, among others, will publish pieces on why certain so-called oncology associations believe that palliative care is the way to go in treating patients with aggessive cancer. They’ll also publish news of certain medical boards urging fewer diagnostic tests for patients. Furthermore, certain organizations like the United States Preventive Services Task Force will conveniently come out with news that all of the sudden, mammograms are unnecessary for women under 50.

Most recently, the Obama worshiping New York Times is now saying that annual physicals are not necessary, and even harmful! Now in case you’re wondering who’s behind all this, let’s just say the United States Preventive Services Task Force is at it again. Here’s some background on this quasi-governmental group.

Created in 1984, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF or Task Force) is an independent group of national experts in prevention and evidence-based medicine that works to improve the health of all Americans by making evidence-based recommendations about clinical preventive services such as screenings, counseling services, or preventive medications. The USPSTF is made up of 16 volunteer members who come from the fields of preventive medicine and primary care, including internal medicine, family medicine, pediatrics, behavioral health, obstetrics/gynecology, and nursing. All members volunteer their time to serve on the USPSTF, and most are practicing clinicians.

When Congress authorized the USPSTF, it required the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to support the Task Force’s work. The 1998 Public Health Service Act and the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act instruct AHRQ to provide administrative, research, technical, and communication support to the Task Force. As part of this support, AHRQ helps with day-to-day operations, coordinates the production of evidence reports, ensures consistent use of Task Force methods, and helps disseminate Task Force materials and recommendations. The Director of AHRQ also appoints new USPSTF members, with guidance from the Chair of the Task Force. While AHRQ staff supports the Task Force, it is important to note that the Task Force is an independent body, and its work does not require AHRQ or HHS approval.

You can read more about them here and here.

Anyway, getting to the New York Times article, here’s what Elizabeth Rosenthal has to say:

FOR decades, scientific research has shown that annual physical exams – and many of the screening tests that routinely accompany them – are in many ways pointless or (worse) dangerous, because they can lead to unneeded procedures. The last few years have produced a steady stream of new evidence against the utility of popular tests:

Prostate specific antigen blood tests to detect prostate cancer? No longer recommended by the United States Preventive Services Task Force.

Routine EKGs? No use.

Yearly Pap smears? Nope. (Every three years.)

So why do Americans, nearly alone on the planet, remain so devoted to the ritual physical exam and to all of these tests, and why do so many doctors continue to provide them? Indeed, the last decade has seen a boom in what hospitals and health care companies call “executive physicals” – batteries of screening exams for apparently healthy people, purporting to ferret out hidden disease with the zeal of Homeland Security officers searching for terrorists.

{snip}

The United States spends about twice as much per person as other developed countries on health care, generally without better results. A 2009 study of waste in the United States health care system pointed to “unwarranted use of medical care” – unneeded, unproven or redundant diagnosis or treatment – as the biggest single component, accounting for $250 billion to $325 billion a year.

In other words, us greedy Americans are consuming way too many limited resources, and we need to sacrifice so that everyone (except the elites) will have the same low standard of care. Remember it’s all about equality of outcome. So what’s the solution proposed by the beloved United States Preventive Services Task Force?

As of today, only a few screening tests are recommended as useful for healthy, asymptomatic people by the Preventive Services Task Force and some of those – like blood pressure checks – don’t require a doctor visit and could be performed in a pharmacy. “If you follow their recommendations you hardly do anything to patients,” said Dr. Brett, adding that the most important intervention doctors perform on healthy patients may be counseling about habits. For new patients, he still does the full head-to-toe medical exam – though he does not routinely order blood work – and regards some parts as more or less playacting.

In other words, ditch doctors, and just see a pharmacist to get your blood pressure checked. That way, we’ll all be “equal.”

Now let me add one more thing here.

Liberals love to go on and on about how health care is a basic right. But they’re lying. What they clearly want is rationing.

With government run healthcare, you eventually end up with an exodus of qualified, civilized doctors, who justifiably refuse to work for slave wages. In their place, you get the likes of “Dr.” Sharad Shripadrao Pandit, who was no doubt “educated” in some Third World dump, as the only recourse if you’re ill. That’s exactly what happened when this quack misdiagnosed 15 year old Alina Sarag with “lovesickness” when she really had tuberculosis.

Alina Sarag was seen by more than five doctors at four different hospitals but medics failed to detect the curable disease.

Her distraught parents even called her GP more than 50 times about their daughter’s ailing condition over a four-and-a-half month period before her death on January 6 last year.

An inquest heard that her GP, Dr Sharad Shripadrao Pandit, accused her parents of “mollycoddling” her.
Shockingly, he even claimed her symptoms were brought on because she was ‘lovesick’.

{snip}

Mr Sarag also claimed Dr Pandit refused to test his daughter for TB.

He told the inquest: “He said, ‘We don’t need these tests, we are not going to get them done either.’

{snip}

Mr Sarag – who is also being treated for TB – told the inquest his daughter vomited up to 10 times a day and had to be carried to bed “like an old woman with weak legs”.

He added that he made more than 50 phone calls to the GP’s surgery in Birmingham but Dr Pandit failed to return his calls.

Mr Sarag said: “There was mass neglect. The medical profession, as soon as they mess up they hide.”

Alina first contracted TB in 2009 after a girl at her school was diagnosed with the illness.

She was prescribed a course of antibiotics at Birmingham Chest Clinic but medical staff never followed up her treatment.

Alina was struck down again in July 2010 after returning from a trip to Pakistan with her family.

The inquest heard a simple phlegm test would have shown Alina was suffering from TB but this was never carried out.

Instead, doctors shrugged off her family’s concerns and told them Alina was suffering from a chest infection despite being classed as a “high risk” patient.

Alina’s weight plummeted and at one point she was so ill she could only tolerate baby food.

After doctors at Heartland and City hospitals did not detect TB, Alina was admitted to Sandwell Hospital where she stayed for five days.

TB was picked up but no phlegm test was carried out and a chest X-ray was thought to have found a chest infection.

She later saw a clinical psychologist at Birmingham Children’s Hospital but was in too much pain to complete the assessment.

On January 6, 2011 Alina was rushed to hospital after suffering breathing difficulties and she died of a cardiac arrest.

Following her death, Alina, who attended Golden Hillock School in Sparkhill, Birmingham, a clinical review revealed doctors missed repeated opportunities to diagnose her condition.

In doing so, Rush also explains critical race theory, and how Obama will use it to rile up his base. To put it another way, our Race Pimp in Chief will turn around and say that SCOTUS is racist for denying poor people their health care when the “rich” have it.

Something smells very fishy here.

Why all of the sudden, are doctors and medical boards urging fewer medical tests? If it’s just about treating patients more efficiently, why haven’t they spoken out sooner? Reading about these doctors and medical boards urging fewer tests for patients only reminds me of Warren Buffet saying the “rich” are not taxed enough. Remember, Buffet is a huge Obama supporter. And I don’t think it’s a coincidence that these recommendations are only just being made now that we have Obamacare

First it was the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force saying back in 2009 that older women should be screened less frequently for mammograms, and that monthly breast self exams are not necessary.

As a 47 year old woman, I can easily remember how young woman were always told to check their breasts each month about a day after the end of their periods. In my late thirties my gynecologist recommended that I get a mammogram, as I was over 35 at the time.

Shortly after these new recommendations were made, the news came out that Theresa Heinz Kerry was diagnosed with breast cancer. And even she was shocked about the decision of the task force.

The 71-year-old wife of the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry, of Massachusetts, told the Associated Press that the cost of mammography is far lower than the physical and personal tolls women ages 40 to 60 face if their cancer goes undetected early and they later have to be treated with aggressive chemotherapy.

“Chemotherapy is serious. It also costs a lot of money. It’s very painful. And it’s very destructive of people’s — most people’s — lives for a while, anyway. So why put people through that instead of just having a test that’s done, and it’s done?” Heinz told the AP during an interview this week. “So that’s why I was so upset about that decision of this panel.”

She recalled nurses in a hospital where she was receiving a magnetic resonance imaging procedure, or MRI, being “so livid” when they heard the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommend last month that women start receiving mammograms at age 50, rather than the long-standing practice of 40.

“They said, ‘We’ve taken all these years to teach women to do preventive mammograms, and now look at this,’” Heinz said.

President Obama’s administration later backed off the recommendation amid criticism from many medical and women’s groups. It said the government’s policies “remain unchanged.”

My how things have changed.

More recently, the FDA yanked its approval the drug Avastin for the treatment of late stage breast cancer. Then there was that whoring organization called The American Society of Clinical Oncologists who came out and said that doctors should focus more on palliative care for late stage cancer patients rather than wasting money on them for a measly few more months of life.

Now it looks like Obama and his minions have successfully bribed these medical organizations.

In a move likely to alter treatment standards in hospitals and doctors’ offices nationwide, a group of nine medical specialty boards plans to recommend on Wednesday that doctors perform 45 common tests and procedures less often, and to urge patients to question these services if they are offered. Eight other specialty boards are preparing to follow suit with additional lists of procedures their members should perform far less often.

{snip}

“Overuse is one of the most serious crises in American medicine,” said Dr. Lawrence Smith, physician-in-chief at North Shore-LIJ Health System and dean of the Hofstra North Shore-LIJ School of Medicine, who was not involved in the initiative. “Many people have thought that the organizations most resistant to this idea would be the specialty organizations, so this is a very powerful message.”

{snip}

The specialty groups are announcing the educational initiative called Choosing Wisely, directed at both patients and physicians, under the auspices of the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation and in partnership with Consumer Reports.

The list of tests and procedures they advise against includes EKGs done routinely during a physical, even when there is no sign of heart trouble, M.R.I.’s ordered whenever a patient complains of back pain, and antibiotics prescribed for mild sinusitis — all quite common.

The American College of Cardiology is urging heart specialists not to perform routine stress cardiac imaging in asymptomatic patients, and the American College of Radiology is telling radiologists not to run imaging scans on patients suffering from simple headaches. The American Gastroenterological Association is urging its physicians to prescribe the lowest doses of medication needed to control acid reflux disease.

Even oncologists are being urged to cut back on scans for patients with early stage breast and prostate cancers that are not likely to spread, and kidney disease doctors are urged not to start chronic dialysis before having a serious discussion with the patient and family.

If you can stand it, I would also check out some of the comments. Notice how the Times readers blame old people for regular doctor’s visits/treatments and how they just shrug off the matter of people wanting to closely monitoring existing any cancers.

Here is a clip of an interview with DNC chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schlutz pretty much admitting that about 20 million people will lose their existing insurance coverage under Obamacare. Of course, she’s quick to add that they won’t lose insurance coverage, as they’ll be eligible for the government exchanges. (I couldn’t find any embed code on that web site.)

That 20 million figure is from the Congressional Budgeting Office. This article, written by Obama’s cousin who is an MD points out more problems with Obamacare.

“No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people. If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”

Mr. Obama made this empty promise before the American Medical Association in June 2009, and the few remaining doctors still willing to associate with the AMA – only about 17 percent – believed it. America didn’t. Neither did the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), whose most recent analysis reveals that up to 20 million Americans could lose their employer-based health insurance as a direct result of Obamacare. As an aside, if your own doctor is still a member of the AMA, you might want to find a smarter doctor.

“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

Candidate Obama made this empty promise in 2008. Then he unleashed Obamacare, which raises taxes on everything from tampons to tanning salons, from MRI scanners to Q-tips. If your doctor uses it to serve you, its price tag just went up, and so did your bill. Moreover, taxes are going up on health insurance itself, if you dare to purchase a plan more comprehensive than your government thinks you need, a “Cadillac” plan. Obamacare contains no fewer than 20 new or increased taxes.

“We will bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family.”

Candidate Obama made this empty promise in 2008. According to Kaiser Health News, the average family’s health care premium is up $1,300 and 6 in 10 Americans will see their health insurance premiums rise. One single Obamacare provision alone – the mandate to include “children” to age 26 on their parents’ plan – accounts for 20 percent of the increase.

Obamacare will cost “around $900 billion over 10 years.”

When Mr. Obama made this empty promise, Democrats were giddy that the CBO’s “certified price tag” was such a bargain and “would cut the deficit over 20 years by more than $1 trillion.” Suddenly, however, the latest CBO analysis projects that the price tag will double to $1.76 trillion. Putting Democrats in charge of spending is like asking Lindsay Lohan to guard the liquor cabinet.

Speaking of taxes, Americans For Tax Reform lists four Obamacare tax hikes on young adults and children:

Individual Mandate excise tax. Under Obamacare, all young adults must purchase “qualifying health insurance” (defined by unelected federal bureaucrats) or face an excise tax penalty of at least 2.5 percent of adjusted gross income. For many people in their late 20s or early 30s, health insurance may not fit into a budget which includes paying back student loans, starting a family, or finding a job. Others might want to obtain health insurance, but find their preferred plan is no longer “qualified” by President Obama’s HHS bureaucrats. Raising taxes on young people is the wrong way to get them to buy health insurance.

Medicine Cabinet Tax. This tax increase on young people is already in effect. Since January of 2011, young people have not been able to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines from their flex-spending accounts (FSAs) or health savings accounts (HSAs). Since many young people require only light use of medical providers and can treat many illnesses over-the-counter, this tax increase falls on a large percentage of their actual out-of-pocket health expenditures.

For children, many of the products their parents buy them fall victim to this tax. Cough syrup, ear infection medicine, and children’s pain relief products all must now be purchased on an after-tax basis. This raises the cost of providing health care to children.

New cap on flex-accounts (FSAs). Many young people and parents of children participate in flex accounts at work. Obamacare imposes a new cap of $2500 per year on these accounts, which currently face no limits from the tax code. This will, again, fall largely on parents with children. Consider braces, for example. A parent needing to buy a $4000 pair of braces might want to run that cost through their flex account to make it pre-tax. A $2500 cap makes that impossible for the whole cost.

Another example is tuition for special-needs education. These are allowed to be claimed as a flex-account reimbursement expense. Children with severe developmental disabilities often require special education that can run well in excess of $10,000 per year in tuition. The FSA cap hurts these families.

New limits on HSAs. Many young people are embracing health savings accounts. According to the Employee Benefits Research Institute, there are now more than 8.4 million accounts containing $12.4 billion in assets. Those numbers are up 55 and 70 percent in just one year, respectively.

That’s socialized medicine for you!

Via The Daily Mail UK

A 23-year-old died of cervical cancer because doctors said she was too young for a smear test, her devastated family have claimed.
Mercedes Curnow, from Cornwall, first went to her GP at 20 years old but her mother says her symptoms were ‘ignored’ because of her age.
After a year of doctors visits, Ms Curnow was taken to A&E by a family member and diagnosed with cervical cancer in April 2010.

But by then it was too late and, after 33 radiotherapy sessions and nine months of chemotherapy, she died at home in her mother’s arms on December 14 last year.
Ms Curnow’s mother Sandra Cousins is furious that she was not screened for the disease, which killed reality TV star Jade Goody in 2009 aged 27.

‘Had Mercedes had a smear test when she started to present symptoms, she would be alive today,’ said Mrs Cousins, of Crowlas, near Penzance in Cornwall.

{Snip}

Government legislation was changed in 2003 to mean regular smear tests are only given to women aged over 25, where previously all women over 20 were given the tests.

A Department of Health spokesperson said an expert committee found that screening in women aged under 25 does more harm than benefit.
‘Cervical screening is not a test for cancer, but tests for abnormalities that could in future develop into cancer,’ said the spokesperson.
‘In the vast majority of younger women, the abnormalities clear up on their own and are not a good indication of future cancer.
‘Cervical cancer and mortality from it are very rare in women under 25. Since the starting age was raised in England in 2003 there has been no increase in mortality in women aged 20 to 24 or 25 to 30 years old.’

It’s obvious that the above statement was made by a cost cutting bureaucrat, as opposed to a doctor. How on earth does a pap smear, which takes all of two minutes, cause a woman any harm? It sounds more like the fact that Britain’s NHS is too darn cheap to even offer a routine test that’s a regular part of any gynecological exam here in the U.S. Also, cervical cancer is the result of an STD called Human Papilloma Virus (HPV).

Certain HPV types are classified as “high-risk” because they lead to abnormal cell changes and can cause genital cancers: cervical cancer as well as cancer of the vulva, anus, and penis. In fact, researchers say that virtually all cervical cancers — more than 99% — are caused by these high-risk HPV viruses. The most common of the high-risk strains of HPV are types 16 and 18, which cause about 70% of all cervical cancers.

If the body clears the infection, the cervical cells return to normal. But if the body doesn’t clear the infection, the cells in the cervix can continue to change abnormally. This can lead to precancerous changes or cervical cancer.

{Snip}

How HPV Is Spread

HPV types associated with genital infections are transmitted sexually, primarily through skin-to-skin contact during sexual activity. HPV can also be spread through oral sex. The chance of getting HPV rises with certain risk factors:

Number of lifetime sexual partners (risk increases with more partners)
Young age: Women aged 20 to 24 are most likely to be infected, but they usually clear the HPV infection with no problems.
Women who are sexually active with men who have other partners at the same time.

Quite frankly, I don’t understand these people. Granted, not all abnormal pap smears mean a woman has cervical cancer. But wouldn’t it be better to catch any abnormalities as soon as possible, rather than having to treat a woman for cancer later on? Also, if a woman is having abnormal symptoms, why wouldn’t a doctor investigate the cause rather than saying “She too young for a test?” Let’s just say a 24 year old woman discovers a big hard lump in her breast. Would those NHS doctors also say she’s too young for a mammogram?

If I was this woman’s mother, I would sue that NHS, and those grossly negligent doctors personally.

This article was so ridiculous that I had to post it.

Let me just say that I think breast implants are totally disgusting. The whole of idea of a healthy woman having her breasts cut open to insert foreign bodies of silicone into them is just gross! Also it makes finding cancerous lumps more difficult, never mind nursing a baby.

On another note, what is so bad about being flat-chested. Models are all flat chested, and they easily wear backless dresses, halter tops, and gowns with spaghetti straps. So I just don’t understand where these women are coming from.

Also, if you’re going have cosmetic surgery, it should be *your* job to know what you’re getting into. (That’s not to say doctors shouldn’t be sued for malpractice.) So if you (I used this word in the general sense) are SO stupid and SO desperate for a larger cup size that you would let some doctor put mattress grade silicone into your breasts, why should the government/taxpayers have to foot the fill?

Paris (CNN) — The French government will pay for tens of thousands of women to have silicone breast implants removed over concerns about a possible link to a rare form of cancer, the Ministry of Health said Wednesday.

French health authorities are due to make a recommendation Friday about whether women with implants by a company called Poly Implant Prosthese (PIP) must have them removed.
The ministry says about 30,000 French women have PIP implants, which are not currently approved for use in the United States.
According to a news release from the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons, PIP is now defunct. It says the company “used non-medical grade silicone believed by the manufacturers to be made for mattresses.”

The French government agency that evaluates the safety of medical products says 523 women have had them removed since a defect was discovered last year.
More than 1,000 implants have ruptured since then, the agency says.

{snip}

Women will only be reimbursed for new implants if they were originally for reconstructive surgery, the Health Ministry said.

What will these crazy French people think of next?