72% of Americans support government run healthcare

[jreeves]

OMG, the wingut's Bible ... Newsmax. LOL

This has been reported in numerous places, including the Journal of the American Medical Association, so you're not going to get to dodge this by pooh-poohing the source as biased. It's a fact. Deal with it.

The AMA was against Medicare and Medicaid too. They are a huge lobbying group. That's biased.

Lmao....yes the American Medical Association is a right wing PAC....do realize how stupid that sounds?

 

[Political Junky]

This has been reported in numerous places, including the Journal of the American Medical Association, so you're not going to get to dodge this by pooh-poohing the source as biased. It's a fact. Deal with it.

The AMA was against Medicare and Medicaid too. They are a huge lobbying group. That's biased.

Lmao....yes the American Medical Association is a right wing PAC....do realize how stupid that sounds?

American Medical Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

American Medical Association
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
American Medical Association

Motto Helping Doctors Help Patients
Formation 1847
Type professional association
Headquarters Chicago, Illinois
Location United States
Membership 245000
Official languages English
President Nancy H. Nielsen, M.D.
Key people President-elect J.James Rohack, M.D., Chair Joseph M. Heyman, M.D.
The American Medical Association (AMA), founded in 1847 and incorporated 1897,[1] is the largest association of physicians and medical students in the United States. The AMA's mission claims to promote the art and science of medicine for the betterment of the public health, to advance the interests of physicians and their patients, to promote public health, to lobby for legislation favorable to physicians and patients, and to raise money for medical education.

http://www.ampaconline.org/ampac/
Welcome to AMPAC - the AMA's bipartisan political action committee. As the single voice for physicians on the national political scene, AMPAC has been a leading the way since 1961. With the help of over 50,000 members - and the active involvement of physicians and state medical society PACs across the country, AMPAC was ranked as the 4th most effective PAC by National Journal magazine in 2004.

 

[jreeves]

The AMA was against Medicare and Medicaid too. They are a huge lobbying group. That's biased.

Lmao....yes the American Medical Association is a right wing PAC....do realize how stupid that sounds?

American Medical Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

American Medical Association
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
American Medical Association

Motto Helping Doctors Help Patients
Formation 1847
Type professional association
Headquarters Chicago, Illinois
Location United States
Membership 245000
Official languages English
President Nancy H. Nielsen, M.D.
Key people President-elect J.James Rohack, M.D., Chair Joseph M. Heyman, M.D.
The American Medical Association (AMA), founded in 1847 and incorporated 1897,[1] is the largest association of physicians and medical students in the United States. The AMA's mission claims to promote the art and science of medicine for the betterment of the public health, to advance the interests of physicians and their patients, to promote public health, to lobby for legislation favorable to physicians and patients, and to raise money for medical education.

AMPAC
Welcome to AMPAC - the AMA's bipartisan political action committee. As the single voice for physicians on the national political scene, AMPAC has been a leading the way since 1961. With the help of over 50,000 members - and the active involvement of physicians and state medical society PACs across the country, AMPAC was ranked as the 4th most effective PAC by National Journal magazine in 2004.

You proved they lobby now, how are they biased?

LOL

 

[Care4all]

Good morning JR

They are biased, because they are lobbying to protect THEIR OWN INTERESTS....this is how lobbying works.

This is not a lobby the Doctors set up for their patients FINANCIAL INTEREST but a lobby that is set up to protect the Doctor's best interest, including FINANCIALLY.

So yes, Jreeves, this would be the political action committee that promotes what these Doctors feel is in their best interest that Congress may legislate, thus political.

That's what all lobbying is about, group of lobbyists that represent the political interest of a particular group that very well differs with the political interest of another group of Lobbyists representing other people. All trying to get legislation passed to protect their own group's interest...

I think it is certainly fair to say that Doctors have something at stake financially with this bill or any involvement in health care reform by our political leaders on it....

care

 

[Meister]

OMG, the wingut's Bible ... Newsmax. LOL

This has been reported in numerous places, including the Journal of the American Medical Association, so you're not going to get to dodge this by pooh-poohing the source as biased. It's a fact. Deal with it.

The AMA was against Medicare and Medicaid too. They are a huge lobbying group. That's biased.

Junkie, your missing the point, and probably on purpose...so here it is for you again. I don't think you actually read the articles the first time
Forty percent of all infant deaths occur in the first 24 hours of life.

In the United States, all infants who show signs of life at birth (take a breath, move voluntarily, have a heartbeat) are considered alive.

If a child in Hong Kong or Japan is born alive but dies within the first 24 hours of birth, he or she is reported as a “miscarriage” and does not affect the country’s reported infant mortality rates.

The length of pregnancy considered “normal” is 37-41 weeks. In Belgium and France — in fact, in most European Union countries — any baby born before 26 weeks gestation is not considered alive and therefore does not “count” against reported infant mortality rates.
World Infant Mortality Rates & the Truth : Lone Star Times

Here is another one.
Pregnancies in very young first-time mothers carry a high risk of delivering low birth weight infants. In 2002, the average age of first-time mothers in Canada was 27.7 years. During the same year, the same statistic for U.S. mothers was 25.1 — an all-time high.

Some of the countries reporting infant mortality rates lower than the U.S. classify babies as “stillborn” if they survive less than 24 hours whether or not such babies breathe, move, or have a beating heart at birth.

Forty percent of all infant deaths occur in the first 24 hours of life.

In the United States, all infants who show signs of life at birth (take a breath, move voluntarily, have a heartbeat) are considered alive.

If a child in Hong Kong or Japan is born alive but dies within the first 24 hours of birth, he or she is reported as a “miscarriage” and does not affect the country’s reported infant mortality rates.

The length of pregnancy considered “normal” is 37-41 weeks. In Belgium and France — in fact, in most European Union countries — any baby born before 26 weeks gestation is not considered alive and therefore does not “count” against reported infant mortality rates.

Too short to count?

In Switzerland and other parts of Europe, a baby born who is less than 30 centimeters long is not counted as a live birth. Therefore, unlike in the U.S., such high-risk infants cannot affect Swiss infant mortality rates.

Efforts to salvage these tiny babies reflect this classification. Since 2000, 42 of the world’s 52 surviving babies weighing less than 400g (0.9 lbs.) were born in the United States.

The parents of these children may view socialized medicine somewhat differently than its proponents.
Pajamas Media » The Doctor Is In: Infant Mortality Comparisons a Statistical Miscarriage

Maybe these articles will give you a heads up....junkie

 

[Care4all]

This has been reported in numerous places, including the Journal of the American Medical Association, so you're not going to get to dodge this by pooh-poohing the source as biased. It's a fact. Deal with it.

The AMA was against Medicare and Medicaid too. They are a huge lobbying group. That's biased.

Junkie, your missing the point, and probably on purpose...so here it is for you again. I don't think you actually read the articles the first time
Forty percent of all infant deaths occur in the first 24 hours of life.

In the United States, all infants who show signs of life at birth (take a breath, move voluntarily, have a heartbeat) are considered alive.

If a child in Hong Kong or Japan is born alive but dies within the first 24 hours of birth, he or she is reported as a “miscarriage” and does not affect the country’s reported infant mortality rates.

The length of pregnancy considered “normal” is 37-41 weeks. In Belgium and France — in fact, in most European Union countries — any baby born before 26 weeks gestation is not considered alive and therefore does not “count” against reported infant mortality rates.
World Infant Mortality Rates & the Truth : Lone Star Times

Here is another one.
Pregnancies in very young first-time mothers carry a high risk of delivering low birth weight infants. In 2002, the average age of first-time mothers in Canada was 27.7 years. During the same year, the same statistic for U.S. mothers was 25.1 — an all-time high.

Some of the countries reporting infant mortality rates lower than the U.S. classify babies as “stillborn” if they survive less than 24 hours whether or not such babies breathe, move, or have a beating heart at birth.

Forty percent of all infant deaths occur in the first 24 hours of life.

In the United States, all infants who show signs of life at birth (take a breath, move voluntarily, have a heartbeat) are considered alive.

If a child in Hong Kong or Japan is born alive but dies within the first 24 hours of birth, he or she is reported as a “miscarriage” and does not affect the country’s reported infant mortality rates.

The length of pregnancy considered “normal” is 37-41 weeks. In Belgium and France — in fact, in most European Union countries — any baby born before 26 weeks gestation is not considered alive and therefore does not “count” against reported infant mortality rates.

Too short to count?

In Switzerland and other parts of Europe, a baby born who is less than 30 centimeters long is not counted as a live birth. Therefore, unlike in the U.S., such high-risk infants cannot affect Swiss infant mortality rates.

Efforts to salvage these tiny babies reflect this classification. Since 2000, 42 of the world’s 52 surviving babies weighing less than 400g (0.9 lbs.) were born in the United States.

The parents of these children may view socialized medicine somewhat differently than its proponents.
Pajamas Media » The Doctor Is In: Infant Mortality Comparisons a Statistical Miscarriage

Maybe these articles will give you a heads up....junkie

fyi
Comparing infant mortality rates

The infant mortality rate correlates very strongly with and is among the best predictors of state failure.[3] IMR is also a useful indicator of a country's level of health or development, and is a component of the physical quality of life index. Some claim that the method of calculating IMR may vary between countries based on the way they define a live birth. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines a live birth as any born human being who demonstrates independent signs of life, including breathing, voluntary muscle movement, or heartbeat.

UNICEF uses a statistical methodology to account for reporting differences among countries. "UNICEF compiles infant mortality country estimates derived from all sources and methods of estimation obtained either from standard reports, direct estimation from micro data sets, or from UNICEF’s yearly exercise. In order to sort out differences between estimates produced from different sources, with different methods, UNICEF developed, in coordination with WHO, the WB and UNSD, an estimation methodology that minimizes the errors embodied in each estimate and harmonize trends along time. Since the estimates are not necessarily the exact values used as input for the model, they are often not recognized as the official IMR estimates used at the country level. However, as mentioned before, these estimates minimize errors and maximize the consistency of trends along time."[4]

http://www.unicef.org/sowc09/docs/SOWC09_Table_1.pdf

While the United States reports every case of infant mortality, it has been suggested that some other developed countries do not. A 2006 article in U.S. News & World Report claims that "First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless.[5] And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country."[6]

However, all of the countries named adopted the WHO definition in the late 1980s or early 1990s.[7]

reference:
# ^ Gabriel Duc, "The crucial role of definition in perinatal epidemiology," Sozial- und Präventivmedizin/Social and Preventive Medicine, Vol. 40, No. 6 (November 1995): 357-360.

 

[Nik]

This has been reported in numerous places, including the Journal of the American Medical Association, so you're not going to get to dodge this by pooh-poohing the source as biased. It's a fact. Deal with it.

The AMA was against Medicare and Medicaid too. They are a huge lobbying group. That's biased.

Lmao....yes the American Medical Association is a right wing PAC....do realize how stupid that sounds?

Do you know who funds the AMA? Ever heard of Licensure?

Did you know that the AMA funds much of its operations from selling the prescription records of doctors to pharmaceutical companies?

High-Tech Stealth Being Used To Sway Doctor Prescriptions - The New York Times

 

[Derek_Plumber]

Wrong, honey. Don't even try that fuzzy-wuzzy, emotional button-pushing with ME. "My GOD, you're just so mean, you want people to DIE!" Spare me, and tell me now if 8th grade is the highest maturity level you can manage in a debate.

This is a picture of a woman with breast cancer.

I hope you have the opportunity to experience it while having no health coverage.

I want to see the look on your face.

 

[Care4all]

looks like skin cancer Derek, on her breast....regardless, I realize.

 

[Cecilie1200]

OMG, the wingut's Bible ... Newsmax. LOL

This has been reported in numerous places, including the Journal of the American Medical Association, so you're not going to get to dodge this by pooh-poohing the source as biased. It's a fact. Deal with it.

The AMA was against Medicare and Medicaid too. They are a huge lobbying group. That's biased.

Oh, dear God. You don't even know what the Journal of the American Medical Association is? Who let you into this discussion thread, Chim Chim? Back to the monkey house with you.

Epic fail.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This has been reported in numerous places, including the Journal of the American Medical Association, so you're not going to get to dodge this by pooh-poohing the source as biased. It's a fact. Deal with it.

The AMA was against Medicare and Medicaid too. They are a huge lobbying group. That's biased.

Lmao....yes the American Medical Association is a right wing PAC....do realize how stupid that sounds?

Yes, and the JAMA is a political opinion rag. Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

 

[Cecilie1200]

The AMA was against Medicare and Medicaid too. They are a huge lobbying group. That's biased.

Lmao....yes the American Medical Association is a right wing PAC....do realize how stupid that sounds?

American Medical Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

American Medical Association
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
American Medical Association

Motto Helping Doctors Help Patients
Formation 1847
Type professional association
Headquarters Chicago, Illinois
Location United States
Membership 245000
Official languages English
President Nancy H. Nielsen, M.D.
Key people President-elect J.James Rohack, M.D., Chair Joseph M. Heyman, M.D.
The American Medical Association (AMA), founded in 1847 and incorporated 1897,[1] is the largest association of physicians and medical students in the United States. The AMA's mission claims to promote the art and science of medicine for the betterment of the public health, to advance the interests of physicians and their patients, to promote public health, to lobby for legislation favorable to physicians and patients, and to raise money for medical education.

AMPAC
Welcome to AMPAC - the AMA's bipartisan political action committee. As the single voice for physicians on the national political scene, AMPAC has been a leading the way since 1961. With the help of over 50,000 members - and the active involvement of physicians and state medical society PACs across the country, AMPAC was ranked as the 4th most effective PAC by National Journal magazine in 2004.

And now you're going to cite Wikipedia to try to support your asinine claim that the JAMA is a biased political magazine? Seriously? What's next? You start throwing feces at us literally, rather than just verbally?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Lmao....yes the American Medical Association is a right wing PAC....do realize how stupid that sounds?

American Medical Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

American Medical Association
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
American Medical Association

Motto Helping Doctors Help Patients
Formation 1847
Type professional association
Headquarters Chicago, Illinois
Location United States
Membership 245000
Official languages English
President Nancy H. Nielsen, M.D.
Key people President-elect J.James Rohack, M.D., Chair Joseph M. Heyman, M.D.
The American Medical Association (AMA), founded in 1847 and incorporated 1897,[1] is the largest association of physicians and medical students in the United States. The AMA's mission claims to promote the art and science of medicine for the betterment of the public health, to advance the interests of physicians and their patients, to promote public health, to lobby for legislation favorable to physicians and patients, and to raise money for medical education.

AMPAC
Welcome to AMPAC - the AMA's bipartisan political action committee. As the single voice for physicians on the national political scene, AMPAC has been a leading the way since 1961. With the help of over 50,000 members - and the active involvement of physicians and state medical society PACs across the country, AMPAC was ranked as the 4th most effective PAC by National Journal magazine in 2004.

You proved they lobby now, how are they biased?

LOL

If this were even vaguely less retarded, I would point out that there's a difference between the AMA having a lobbying group, and BEING one. But this drooler is too dumb to even dignify that much.

 

[Nik]

American Medical Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

American Medical Association
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
American Medical Association

Motto Helping Doctors Help Patients
Formation 1847
Type professional association
Headquarters Chicago, Illinois
Location United States
Membership 245000
Official languages English
President Nancy H. Nielsen, M.D.
Key people President-elect J.James Rohack, M.D., Chair Joseph M. Heyman, M.D.
The American Medical Association (AMA), founded in 1847 and incorporated 1897,[1] is the largest association of physicians and medical students in the United States. The AMA's mission claims to promote the art and science of medicine for the betterment of the public health, to advance the interests of physicians and their patients, to promote public health, to lobby for legislation favorable to physicians and patients, and to raise money for medical education.

AMPAC
Welcome to AMPAC - the AMA's bipartisan political action committee. As the single voice for physicians on the national political scene, AMPAC has been a leading the way since 1961. With the help of over 50,000 members - and the active involvement of physicians and state medical society PACs across the country, AMPAC was ranked as the 4th most effective PAC by National Journal magazine in 2004.

You proved they lobby now, how are they biased?

LOL

If this were even vaguely less retarded, I would point out that there's a difference between the AMA having a lobbying group, and BEING one. But this drooler is too dumb to even dignify that much.

Yeah, I mean what reason is there to think that an organization funded mainly by pharmaceutical companies might be biased

 

[Full-Auto]

You proved they lobby now, how are they biased?

LOL

If this were even vaguely less retarded, I would point out that there's a difference between the AMA having a lobbying group, and BEING one. But this drooler is too dumb to even dignify that much.

Yeah, I mean what reason is there to think that an organization funded mainly by pharmaceutical companies might be biased

Shocking this is rejected as bias, yet feel bias because some parts of BP funded enviromental studies.

 

[Yukon]

In the United States today a woman with this type of cancer having NO insurance will DIE a horrible death. Let us not forget though that Medicare is a communist plot...........right ?

Wrong, honey. Don't even try that fuzzy-wuzzy, emotional button-pushing with ME. "My GOD, you're just so mean, you want people to DIE!" Spare me, and tell me now if 8th grade is the highest maturity level you can manage in a debate.

This is a picture of a woman with breast cancer.

I hope you have the opportunity to experience it while having no health coverage.

I want to see the look on your face.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Of NICE and Men - WSJ.com

Speaking to the American Medical Association last month, President Obama waxed enthusiastic about countries that "spend less" than the U.S. on health care. He's right that many countries do, but what he doesn't want to explain is how they ration care to do it.

Take the United Kingdom, which is often praised for spending as little as half as much per capita on health care as the U.S. Credit for this cost containment goes in large part to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, or NICE. Americans should understand how NICE works because under ObamaCare it will eventually be coming to a hospital near you.

The British officials who established NICE in the late 1990s pitched it as a body that would ensure that the government-run National Health System used "best practices" in medicine. As the Guardian reported in 1998: "Health ministers are setting up [NICE], designed to ensure that every treatment, operation, or medicine used is the proven best. It will root out under-performing doctors and useless treatments, spreading best practices everywhere."

What NICE has become in practice is a rationing board. As health costs have exploded in Britain as in most developed countries, NICE has become the heavy that reduces spending by limiting the treatments that 61 million citizens are allowed to receive through the NHS. For example:

In March, NICE ruled against the use of two drugs, Lapatinib and Sutent, that prolong the life of those with certain forms of breast and stomach cancer. This followed on a 2008 ruling against drugs -- including Sutent, which costs about $50,000 -- that would help terminally ill kidney-cancer patients. After last year's ruling, Peter Littlejohns, NICE's clinical and public health director, noted that "there is a limited pot of money," that the drugs were of "marginal benefit at quite often an extreme cost," and the money might be better spent elsewhere.

In 2007, the board restricted access to two drugs for macular degeneration, a cause of blindness. The drug Macugen was blocked outright. The other, Lucentis, was limited to a particular category of individuals with the disease, restricting it to about one in five sufferers. Even then, the drug was only approved for use in one eye, meaning those lucky enough to get it would still go blind in the other. As Andrew Dillon, the chief executive of NICE, explained at the time: "When treatments are very expensive, we have to use them where they give the most benefit to patients."

NICE has limited the use of Alzheimer's drugs, including Aricept, for patients in the early stages of the disease. Doctors in the U.K. argued vociferously that the most effective way to slow the progress of the disease is to give drugs at the first sign of dementia. NICE ruled the drugs were not "cost effective" in early stages.

Other NICE rulings include the rejection of Kineret, a drug for rheumatoid arthritis; Avonex, which reduces the relapse rate in patients with multiple sclerosis; and lenalidomide, which fights multiple myelom. Private U.S. insurers often cover all, or at least portions, of the cost of many of these NICE-denied drugs.

NICE has also produced guidance that restrains certain surgical operations and treatments. NICE has restrictions on fertility treatments, as well as on procedures for back pain, including surgeries and steroid injections. The U.K. has recently been absorbed by the cases of several young women who developed cervical cancer after being denied pap smears by a related health authority, the Cervical Screening Programme, which in order to reduce government health-care spending has refused the screens to women under age 25.

We could go on. NICE is the target of frequent protests and lawsuits, and at times under political pressure has reversed or watered-down its rulings. But it has by now established the principle that the only way to control health-care costs is for this panel of medical high priests to dictate limits on certain kinds of care to certain classes of patients.

The NICE board even has a mathematical formula for doing so, based on a "quality adjusted life year." While the guidelines are complex, NICE currently holds that, except in unusual cases, Britain cannot afford to spend more than about $22,000 to extend a life by six months. Why $22,000? It seems to be arbitrary, calculated mainly based on how much the government wants to spend on health care. That figure has remained fairly constant since NICE was established and doesn't adjust for either overall or medical inflation.

Proponents argue that such cost-benefit analysis has to figure into health-care decisions, and that any medical system rations care in some way. And it is true that U.S. private insurers also deny reimbursement for some kinds of care. The core issue is whether those decisions are going to be dictated by the brute force of politics (NICE) or by prices (a private insurance system).

The last six months of life are a particularly difficult moral issue because that is when most health-care spending occurs. But who would you rather have making decisions about whether a treatment is worth the price -- the combination of you, your doctor and a private insurer, or a government board that cuts everyone off at $22,000?

One virtue of a private system is that competition allows choice and experimentation. To take an example from one of our recent editorials, Medicare today refuses to reimburse for the new, less invasive preventive treatment known as a virtual colonoscopy, but such private insurers as Cigna and United Healthcare do. As clinical evidence accumulates on the virtual colonoscopy, doctors and insurers will be able to adjust their practices accordingly. NICE merely issues orders, and patients have little recourse.

This has medical consequences. The Concord study published in 2008 showed that cancer survival rates in Britain are among the worst in Europe. Five-year survival rates among U.S. cancer patients are also significantly higher than in Europe: 84% vs. 73% for breast cancer, 92% vs. 57% for prostate cancer. While there is more than one reason for this difference, surely one is medical innovation and the greater U.S. willingness to reimburse for it.
* * *

The NICE precedent also undercuts the Obama Administration's argument that vast health savings can be gleaned simply by automating health records or squeezing out "waste." Britain has tried all of that but ultimately has concluded that it can only rein in costs by limiting care. The logic of a health-care system dominated by government is that it always ends up with some version of a NICE board that makes these life-or-death treatment decisions. The Administration's new Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research currently lacks the authority of NICE. But over time, if the Obama plan passes and taxpayer costs inevitably soar, it could quickly gain it.

Mr. Obama and Democrats claim they can expand subsidies for tens of millions of Americans, while saving money and improving the quality of care. It can't possibly be done. The inevitable result of their plan will be some version of a NICE board that will tell millions of Americans that they are too young, or too old, or too sick to be worth paying to care for.

 

[Political Junky]

Of NICE and Men - WSJ.com

Speaking to the American Medical Association last month, President Obama waxed enthusiastic about countries that "spend less" than the U.S. on health care. He's right that many countries do, but what he doesn't want to explain is how they ration care to do it.

Take the United Kingdom, which is often praised for spending as little as half as much per capita on health care as the U.S. Credit for this cost containment goes in large part to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, or NICE. Americans should understand how NICE works because under ObamaCare it will eventually be coming to a hospital near you.

The British officials who established NICE in the late 1990s pitched it as a body that would ensure that the government-run National Health System used "best practices" in medicine. As the Guardian reported in 1998: "Health ministers are setting up [NICE], designed to ensure that every treatment, operation, or medicine used is the proven best. It will root out under-performing doctors and useless treatments, spreading best practices everywhere."

What NICE has become in practice is a rationing board. As health costs have exploded in Britain as in most developed countries, NICE has become the heavy that reduces spending by limiting the treatments that 61 million citizens are allowed to receive through the NHS. For example:

In March, NICE ruled against the use of two drugs, Lapatinib and Sutent, that prolong the life of those with certain forms of breast and stomach cancer. This followed on a 2008 ruling against drugs -- including Sutent, which costs about $50,000 -- that would help terminally ill kidney-cancer patients. After last year's ruling, Peter Littlejohns, NICE's clinical and public health director, noted that "there is a limited pot of money," that the drugs were of "marginal benefit at quite often an extreme cost," and the money might be better spent elsewhere.

In 2007, the board restricted access to two drugs for macular degeneration, a cause of blindness. The drug Macugen was blocked outright. The other, Lucentis, was limited to a particular category of individuals with the disease, restricting it to about one in five sufferers. Even then, the drug was only approved for use in one eye, meaning those lucky enough to get it would still go blind in the other. As Andrew Dillon, the chief executive of NICE, explained at the time: "When treatments are very expensive, we have to use them where they give the most benefit to patients."

NICE has limited the use of Alzheimer's drugs, including Aricept, for patients in the early stages of the disease. Doctors in the U.K. argued vociferously that the most effective way to slow the progress of the disease is to give drugs at the first sign of dementia. NICE ruled the drugs were not "cost effective" in early stages.

Other NICE rulings include the rejection of Kineret, a drug for rheumatoid arthritis; Avonex, which reduces the relapse rate in patients with multiple sclerosis; and lenalidomide, which fights multiple myelom. Private U.S. insurers often cover all, or at least portions, of the cost of many of these NICE-denied drugs.

NICE has also produced guidance that restrains certain surgical operations and treatments. NICE has restrictions on fertility treatments, as well as on procedures for back pain, including surgeries and steroid injections. The U.K. has recently been absorbed by the cases of several young women who developed cervical cancer after being denied pap smears by a related health authority, the Cervical Screening Programme, which in order to reduce government health-care spending has refused the screens to women under age 25.

We could go on. NICE is the target of frequent protests and lawsuits, and at times under political pressure has reversed or watered-down its rulings. But it has by now established the principle that the only way to control health-care costs is for this panel of medical high priests to dictate limits on certain kinds of care to certain classes of patients.

The NICE board even has a mathematical formula for doing so, based on a "quality adjusted life year." While the guidelines are complex, NICE currently holds that, except in unusual cases, Britain cannot afford to spend more than about $22,000 to extend a life by six months. Why $22,000? It seems to be arbitrary, calculated mainly based on how much the government wants to spend on health care. That figure has remained fairly constant since NICE was established and doesn't adjust for either overall or medical inflation.

Proponents argue that such cost-benefit analysis has to figure into health-care decisions, and that any medical system rations care in some way. And it is true that U.S. private insurers also deny reimbursement for some kinds of care. The core issue is whether those decisions are going to be dictated by the brute force of politics (NICE) or by prices (a private insurance system).

The last six months of life are a particularly difficult moral issue because that is when most health-care spending occurs. But who would you rather have making decisions about whether a treatment is worth the price -- the combination of you, your doctor and a private insurer, or a government board that cuts everyone off at $22,000?

One virtue of a private system is that competition allows choice and experimentation. To take an example from one of our recent editorials, Medicare today refuses to reimburse for the new, less invasive preventive treatment known as a virtual colonoscopy, but such private insurers as Cigna and United Healthcare do. As clinical evidence accumulates on the virtual colonoscopy, doctors and insurers will be able to adjust their practices accordingly. NICE merely issues orders, and patients have little recourse.

This has medical consequences. The Concord study published in 2008 showed that cancer survival rates in Britain are among the worst in Europe. Five-year survival rates among U.S. cancer patients are also significantly higher than in Europe: 84% vs. 73% for breast cancer, 92% vs. 57% for prostate cancer. While there is more than one reason for this difference, surely one is medical innovation and the greater U.S. willingness to reimburse for it.
* * *

The NICE precedent also undercuts the Obama Administration's argument that vast health savings can be gleaned simply by automating health records or squeezing out "waste." Britain has tried all of that but ultimately has concluded that it can only rein in costs by limiting care. The logic of a health-care system dominated by government is that it always ends up with some version of a NICE board that makes these life-or-death treatment decisions. The Administration's new Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research currently lacks the authority of NICE. But over time, if the Obama plan passes and taxpayer costs inevitably soar, it could quickly gain it.

Mr. Obama and Democrats claim they can expand subsidies for tens of millions of Americans, while saving money and improving the quality of care. It can't possibly be done. The inevitable result of their plan will be some version of a NICE board that will tell millions of Americans that they are too young, or too old, or too sick to be worth paying to care for.

I, for one, will wait until the plan for the US is presented.
You will have the choice to keep your precious private insurance plan .. regardless.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Of NICE and Men - WSJ.com

Speaking to the American Medical Association last month, President Obama waxed enthusiastic about countries that "spend less" than the U.S. on health care. He's right that many countries do, but what he doesn't want to explain is how they ration care to do it.

Take the United Kingdom, which is often praised for spending as little as half as much per capita on health care as the U.S. Credit for this cost containment goes in large part to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, or NICE. Americans should understand how NICE works because under ObamaCare it will eventually be coming to a hospital near you.

The British officials who established NICE in the late 1990s pitched it as a body that would ensure that the government-run National Health System used "best practices" in medicine. As the Guardian reported in 1998: "Health ministers are setting up [NICE], designed to ensure that every treatment, operation, or medicine used is the proven best. It will root out under-performing doctors and useless treatments, spreading best practices everywhere."

What NICE has become in practice is a rationing board. As health costs have exploded in Britain as in most developed countries, NICE has become the heavy that reduces spending by limiting the treatments that 61 million citizens are allowed to receive through the NHS. For example:

In March, NICE ruled against the use of two drugs, Lapatinib and Sutent, that prolong the life of those with certain forms of breast and stomach cancer. This followed on a 2008 ruling against drugs -- including Sutent, which costs about $50,000 -- that would help terminally ill kidney-cancer patients. After last year's ruling, Peter Littlejohns, NICE's clinical and public health director, noted that "there is a limited pot of money," that the drugs were of "marginal benefit at quite often an extreme cost," and the money might be better spent elsewhere.

In 2007, the board restricted access to two drugs for macular degeneration, a cause of blindness. The drug Macugen was blocked outright. The other, Lucentis, was limited to a particular category of individuals with the disease, restricting it to about one in five sufferers. Even then, the drug was only approved for use in one eye, meaning those lucky enough to get it would still go blind in the other. As Andrew Dillon, the chief executive of NICE, explained at the time: "When treatments are very expensive, we have to use them where they give the most benefit to patients."

NICE has limited the use of Alzheimer's drugs, including Aricept, for patients in the early stages of the disease. Doctors in the U.K. argued vociferously that the most effective way to slow the progress of the disease is to give drugs at the first sign of dementia. NICE ruled the drugs were not "cost effective" in early stages.

Other NICE rulings include the rejection of Kineret, a drug for rheumatoid arthritis; Avonex, which reduces the relapse rate in patients with multiple sclerosis; and lenalidomide, which fights multiple myelom. Private U.S. insurers often cover all, or at least portions, of the cost of many of these NICE-denied drugs.

NICE has also produced guidance that restrains certain surgical operations and treatments. NICE has restrictions on fertility treatments, as well as on procedures for back pain, including surgeries and steroid injections. The U.K. has recently been absorbed by the cases of several young women who developed cervical cancer after being denied pap smears by a related health authority, the Cervical Screening Programme, which in order to reduce government health-care spending has refused the screens to women under age 25.

We could go on. NICE is the target of frequent protests and lawsuits, and at times under political pressure has reversed or watered-down its rulings. But it has by now established the principle that the only way to control health-care costs is for this panel of medical high priests to dictate limits on certain kinds of care to certain classes of patients.

The NICE board even has a mathematical formula for doing so, based on a "quality adjusted life year." While the guidelines are complex, NICE currently holds that, except in unusual cases, Britain cannot afford to spend more than about $22,000 to extend a life by six months. Why $22,000? It seems to be arbitrary, calculated mainly based on how much the government wants to spend on health care. That figure has remained fairly constant since NICE was established and doesn't adjust for either overall or medical inflation.

Proponents argue that such cost-benefit analysis has to figure into health-care decisions, and that any medical system rations care in some way. And it is true that U.S. private insurers also deny reimbursement for some kinds of care. The core issue is whether those decisions are going to be dictated by the brute force of politics (NICE) or by prices (a private insurance system).

The last six months of life are a particularly difficult moral issue because that is when most health-care spending occurs. But who would you rather have making decisions about whether a treatment is worth the price -- the combination of you, your doctor and a private insurer, or a government board that cuts everyone off at $22,000?

One virtue of a private system is that competition allows choice and experimentation. To take an example from one of our recent editorials, Medicare today refuses to reimburse for the new, less invasive preventive treatment known as a virtual colonoscopy, but such private insurers as Cigna and United Healthcare do. As clinical evidence accumulates on the virtual colonoscopy, doctors and insurers will be able to adjust their practices accordingly. NICE merely issues orders, and patients have little recourse.

This has medical consequences. The Concord study published in 2008 showed that cancer survival rates in Britain are among the worst in Europe. Five-year survival rates among U.S. cancer patients are also significantly higher than in Europe: 84% vs. 73% for breast cancer, 92% vs. 57% for prostate cancer. While there is more than one reason for this difference, surely one is medical innovation and the greater U.S. willingness to reimburse for it.
* * *

The NICE precedent also undercuts the Obama Administration's argument that vast health savings can be gleaned simply by automating health records or squeezing out "waste." Britain has tried all of that but ultimately has concluded that it can only rein in costs by limiting care. The logic of a health-care system dominated by government is that it always ends up with some version of a NICE board that makes these life-or-death treatment decisions. The Administration's new Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research currently lacks the authority of NICE. But over time, if the Obama plan passes and taxpayer costs inevitably soar, it could quickly gain it.

Mr. Obama and Democrats claim they can expand subsidies for tens of millions of Americans, while saving money and improving the quality of care. It can't possibly be done. The inevitable result of their plan will be some version of a NICE board that will tell millions of Americans that they are too young, or too old, or too sick to be worth paying to care for.

I, for one, will wait until the plan for the US is presented.
You will have the choice to keep your precious private insurance plan .. regardless.

If you believe that, i have some swamp land in Florida to sell you.

There is no way that a private company can compete with a government plan. private companies do not have an unlimited supply of tax dollars that can be used to prop up their business if it does not turn a profit.

What we will get by attrition is one government run plan because the government in the name of doing what's best for us will drive private health insurance companies out of business.

That is the plan.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You proved they lobby now, how are they biased?

LOL

If this were even vaguely less retarded, I would point out that there's a difference between the AMA having a lobbying group, and BEING one. But this drooler is too dumb to even dignify that much.

Yeah, I mean what reason is there to think that an organization funded mainly by pharmaceutical companies might be biased

The AMA is more likely to take liberal than conservative positions politically, dipshit. And you aren't really stupid enough to think you're going to get traction from screaming "Evil pharmaceuticals!" around HERE, are you? Oh, wait, I forgot who I was talking to. Never mind.