Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
interesting article this morning;
'Death Panels' Come Back to Life
The FDA's restrictions on the drug Avastin are the beginning of a long slide toward health-care rationing.
Earlier this month, the Food and Drug Administration banned doctors from prescribing Avastin, a potent but costly drug, to patients with advanced-stage breast cancer. According to the FDA, the drug doesn't offer "a sufficient benefit in slowing disease progression to outweigh the significant risk to patients." Yet in some clinical trials Avastin has halted the spread of patients' cancer for months, providing respite to women and their families wracked by physical and psychological pain.
Ponder the FDA's justificationthere wasn't "sufficient" benefit in relation to Avastin's risks. Sufficient according to whom? For your wife, mother or daughter with terminal breast cancer, how much is an additional month of good-quality life worth? And what costs should be weighed? Like all drugs, Avastin has side effects including bleeding and high blood pressure. But isn't the real cost to these women a swifter, less dignified death? The FDA made a crude cost calculation; as everyone in Washington knows, it wouldn't have banned Avastin if the drug cost only $1,000 a year, instead of $90,000.
The Avastin story is emblematic of the government's broader agenda to ration care based on cost and politics. Once ObamaCare comes into full force, such rationing will be pervasive. When the government sees insufficient benefit, all but the wealthiest and most politically connected will have to go without.
Think it can't happen here? Think again. The 2009 stimulus bill spent $1.1 billion to research "comparative effectiveness." That's the same approach used by Britain's National Health Service to ration care, weighing cost against factors such as the ever-elusive concept of quality of life. And in an interview that year, President Obama confessed that "the tougher issue . . . is what do you do around things like end-of-life care." Pushed to articulate a solution, he replied, "It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels." He asserted that we needed "some independent group" to "give [us] some guidance."
He got that wish. ObamaCare created a commissionthe Independent Payment Advisory Boardtasked with limiting spending on Medicare. Its recommendations will be binding, unless Congress can come up with equivalent cost-savings of its own. For the first time, an unelected group will be empowered to limit health spending for the vulnerable elderly.
ObamaCare proponents derided fears of "death panels" as a product of tea partiers' fevered imagination, and they lamented when Congress removed the provision that would have provided for end-of-life counseling that might coax the elderly away from life-sustaining but expensive treatments. Not to fear: The administration has resurrected that provision through regulations, and Medicare will now pay for such counseling as part of elderly "wellness assessments." Yes, the "death panels" charge is somewhat crude, but combine cost-based rationing with end-of-life counseling and, well, here we are.
There's an enormous difference between government-imposed rationing and treatment decisions in the private sector. When insurance companies deny coveragefor example, on grounds that treatment is "experimental" or not "medically necessary"they do so based on contract language agreed to in advance by subscribers. If you don't like what a particular insurer offers, you're free to shop around. Moreover, you and your doctor have extensive rights to appeal the insurer's denial, and wealthy patients can pay for the care out of their own pockets.
But when the government denies approval of a medication, there will often be no appeal and no escape. For example, while doctors can still prescribe Avastin for other kinds of cancerallowing them to prescribe it "off-label" to breast-cancer patientsthis is merely fortuitous, something that's not the case with many other drugs. The next time the FDA bans a drug because its benefits are not "sufficient," patients may not be so lucky. FDA disapproval will be the equivalent of the emperor's thumbs-down.
more at-
Rivkin and Foley: 'Death Panels' Come Back to Life - WSJ.com
Earlier this month, the Food and Drug Administration banned doctors from prescribing Avastin, (doctors were not banned from prescribing the medication) a potent but costly drug, to patients with advanced-stage breast cancer. According to the FDA, the drug doesn't offer "a sufficient benefit in slowing disease progression to outweigh the significant risk to patients." Yet in some clinical trials Avastin has halted the spread of patients' cancer for months, (it wasn't some trials. It was one trial, that was paid for by the manufacturer and used to get accelerated approval. Four subsequent studies showed no benefit in halting the spread of patient's cancer) providing respite to women and their families wracked by physical and psychological pain (Avastin does not treat pain and I do not know of any study which showed that the use of Avastin compared to not using Avastin resulted in improved pain relief).
Ponder the FDA's justificationthere wasn't "sufficient" benefit in relation to Avastin's risks. Sufficient according to whom? For your wife, mother or daughter with terminal breast cancer, how much is an additional month of good-quality life worth? And what costs should be weighed? Like all drugs, Avastin has side effects including bleeding (fatal hemorrhage) and high blood pressure. But isn't the real cost to these women a swifter, less dignified death? The FDA made a crude cost calculation; as everyone in Washington knows, it wouldn't have banned Avastin if the drug cost only $1,000 a year, instead of $90,000. (I have yet to be seen any FDA document or statement which mentions the cost of this medication.)
interesting article this morning;
'Death Panels' Come Back to Life
The FDA's restrictions on the drug Avastin are the beginning of a long slide toward health-care rationing.
Earlier this month, the Food and Drug Administration banned doctors from prescribing Avastin, a potent but costly drug, to patients with advanced-stage breast cancer. According to the FDA, the drug doesn't offer "a sufficient benefit in slowing disease progression to outweigh the significant risk to patients." Yet in some clinical trials Avastin has halted the spread of patients' cancer for months, providing respite to women and their families wracked by physical and psychological pain.
Ponder the FDA's justification—there wasn't "sufficient" benefit in relation to Avastin's risks. Sufficient according to whom? For your wife, mother or daughter with terminal breast cancer, how much is an additional month of good-quality life worth? And what costs should be weighed? Like all drugs, Avastin has side effects including bleeding and high blood pressure. But isn't the real cost to these women a swifter, less dignified death? The FDA made a crude cost calculation; as everyone in Washington knows, it wouldn't have banned Avastin if the drug cost only $1,000 a year, instead of $90,000.
The Avastin story is emblematic of the government's broader agenda to ration care based on cost and politics. Once ObamaCare comes into full force, such rationing will be pervasive. When the government sees insufficient benefit, all but the wealthiest and most politically connected will have to go without.
Think it can't happen here? Think again. The 2009 stimulus bill spent $1.1 billion to research "comparative effectiveness." That's the same approach used by Britain's National Health Service to ration care, weighing cost against factors such as the ever-elusive concept of quality of life. And in an interview that year, President Obama confessed that "the tougher issue . . . is what do you do around things like end-of-life care." Pushed to articulate a solution, he replied, "It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels." He asserted that we needed "some independent group" to "give [us] some guidance."
He got that wish. ObamaCare created a commission—the Independent Payment Advisory Board—tasked with limiting spending on Medicare. Its recommendations will be binding, unless Congress can come up with equivalent cost-savings of its own. For the first time, an unelected group will be empowered to limit health spending for the vulnerable elderly.
ObamaCare proponents derided fears of "death panels" as a product of tea partiers' fevered imagination, and they lamented when Congress removed the provision that would have provided for end-of-life counseling that might coax the elderly away from life-sustaining but expensive treatments. Not to fear: The administration has resurrected that provision through regulations, and Medicare will now pay for such counseling as part of elderly "wellness assessments." Yes, the "death panels" charge is somewhat crude, but combine cost-based rationing with end-of-life counseling and, well, here we are.
There's an enormous difference between government-imposed rationing and treatment decisions in the private sector. When insurance companies deny coverage—for example, on grounds that treatment is "experimental" or not "medically necessary"—they do so based on contract language agreed to in advance by subscribers. If you don't like what a particular insurer offers, you're free to shop around. Moreover, you and your doctor have extensive rights to appeal the insurer's denial, and wealthy patients can pay for the care out of their own pockets.
But when the government denies approval of a medication, there will often be no appeal and no escape. For example, while doctors can still prescribe Avastin for other kinds of cancer—allowing them to prescribe it "off-label" to breast-cancer patients—this is merely fortuitous, something that's not the case with many other drugs. The next time the FDA bans a drug because its benefits are not "sufficient," patients may not be so lucky. FDA disapproval will be the equivalent of the emperor's thumbs-down.
more at-
Rivkin and Foley: 'Death Panels' Come Back to Life - WSJ.com
Did you see where this "article" was published?
In the OPINION section.
And in the first two paragraphs, there are multiple examples of why this is opinion not based on facts.
Earlier this month, the Food and Drug Administration banned doctors from prescribing Avastin, (doctors were not banned from prescribing the medication) a potent but costly drug, to patients with advanced-stage breast cancer. According to the FDA, the drug doesn't offer "a sufficient benefit in slowing disease progression to outweigh the significant risk to patients." Yet in some clinical trials Avastin has halted the spread of patients' cancer for months, (it wasn't some trials. It was one trial, that was paid for by the manufacturer and used to get accelerated approval. Four subsequent studies showed no benefit in halting the spread of patient's cancer) providing respite to women and their families wracked by physical and psychological pain (Avastin does not treat pain and I do not know of any study which showed that the use of Avastin compared to not using Avastin resulted in improved pain relief).
Ponder the FDA's justification—there wasn't "sufficient" benefit in relation to Avastin's risks. Sufficient according to whom? For your wife, mother or daughter with terminal breast cancer, how much is an additional month of good-quality life worth? And what costs should be weighed? Like all drugs, Avastin has side effects including bleeding (fatal hemorrhage) and high blood pressure. But isn't the real cost to these women a swifter, less dignified death? The FDA made a crude cost calculation; as everyone in Washington knows, it wouldn't have banned Avastin if the drug cost only $1,000 a year, instead of $90,000. (I have yet to be seen any FDA document or statement which mentions the cost of this medication.)
This is a perfect example of what happens when people FEEL instead of THINK.
Earlier this month, the Food and Drug Administration banned doctors from prescribing Avastin...
It's so hard to tell idiocy from dishonesty these days.
did the democrats strip the provision out, or not when it became the topic du jour during the bills run up etc.?
I see, so I'll ask the Q 2 different ways;
it was never considered as part of the bill before it was voted upon, at any time?
or-
did the dems not go through with putting it the final bill for vote, when it became a question that garnered public review and became rightly or wrongly a source of consternation?
There's an active thread right now about how the Medicare bill containing the original end-of-life planning consultation provisions that this month's reg extends garnered two-thirds of the vote in each chamber of Congress. And in the previous session, when Democrats held slimmer majorities. Your controversy's as phony as your error-laden WSJ opinion pieces.
One last Q if you will- how would you describe the HHR’s and Sebelius explanations of, detail, general output and honesty as it applies to Obama care?
Lets consider 10 being primo?
Conceptual explanation-
Detail-
General output-
Honesty-
interesting article this morning;
'Death Panels' Come Back to Life
The FDA's restrictions on the drug Avastin are the beginning of a long slide toward health-care rationing.
Earlier this month, the Food and Drug Administration banned doctors from prescribing Avastin, a potent but costly drug, to patients with advanced-stage breast cancer. According to the FDA, the drug doesn't offer "a sufficient benefit in slowing disease progression to outweigh the significant risk to patients." Yet in some clinical trials Avastin has halted the spread of patients' cancer for months, providing respite to women and their families wracked by physical and psychological pain.
Ponder the FDA's justificationthere wasn't "sufficient" benefit in relation to Avastin's risks. Sufficient according to whom? For your wife, mother or daughter with terminal breast cancer, how much is an additional month of good-quality life worth? And what costs should be weighed? Like all drugs, Avastin has side effects including bleeding and high blood pressure. But isn't the real cost to these women a swifter, less dignified death? The FDA made a crude cost calculation; as everyone in Washington knows, it wouldn't have banned Avastin if the drug cost only $1,000 a year, instead of $90,000.
The Avastin story is emblematic of the government's broader agenda to ration care based on cost and politics. Once ObamaCare comes into full force, such rationing will be pervasive. When the government sees insufficient benefit, all but the wealthiest and most politically connected will have to go without.
Think it can't happen here? Think again. The 2009 stimulus bill spent $1.1 billion to research "comparative effectiveness." That's the same approach used by Britain's National Health Service to ration care, weighing cost against factors such as the ever-elusive concept of quality of life. And in an interview that year, President Obama confessed that "the tougher issue . . . is what do you do around things like end-of-life care." Pushed to articulate a solution, he replied, "It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels." He asserted that we needed "some independent group" to "give [us] some guidance."
He got that wish. ObamaCare created a commissionthe Independent Payment Advisory Boardtasked with limiting spending on Medicare. Its recommendations will be binding, unless Congress can come up with equivalent cost-savings of its own. For the first time, an unelected group will be empowered to limit health spending for the vulnerable elderly.
ObamaCare proponents derided fears of "death panels" as a product of tea partiers' fevered imagination, and they lamented when Congress removed the provision that would have provided for end-of-life counseling that might coax the elderly away from life-sustaining but expensive treatments. Not to fear: The administration has resurrected that provision through regulations, and Medicare will now pay for such counseling as part of elderly "wellness assessments." Yes, the "death panels" charge is somewhat crude, but combine cost-based rationing with end-of-life counseling and, well, here we are.
There's an enormous difference between government-imposed rationing and treatment decisions in the private sector. When insurance companies deny coveragefor example, on grounds that treatment is "experimental" or not "medically necessary"they do so based on contract language agreed to in advance by subscribers. If you don't like what a particular insurer offers, you're free to shop around. Moreover, you and your doctor have extensive rights to appeal the insurer's denial, and wealthy patients can pay for the care out of their own pockets.
But when the government denies approval of a medication, there will often be no appeal and no escape. For example, while doctors can still prescribe Avastin for other kinds of cancerallowing them to prescribe it "off-label" to breast-cancer patientsthis is merely fortuitous, something that's not the case with many other drugs. The next time the FDA bans a drug because its benefits are not "sufficient," patients may not be so lucky. FDA disapproval will be the equivalent of the emperor's thumbs-down.
more at-
Rivkin and Foley: 'Death Panels' Come Back to Life - WSJ.com
Did you see where this "article" was published?
In the OPINION section.
And in the first two paragraphs, there are multiple examples of why this is opinion not based on facts.
Earlier this month, the Food and Drug Administration banned doctors from prescribing Avastin, (doctors were not banned from prescribing the medication) a potent but costly drug, to patients with advanced-stage breast cancer. According to the FDA, the drug doesn't offer "a sufficient benefit in slowing disease progression to outweigh the significant risk to patients." Yet in some clinical trials Avastin has halted the spread of patients' cancer for months, (it wasn't some trials. It was one trial, that was paid for by the manufacturer and used to get accelerated approval. Four subsequent studies showed no benefit in halting the spread of patient's cancer) providing respite to women and their families wracked by physical and psychological pain (Avastin does not treat pain and I do not know of any study which showed that the use of Avastin compared to not using Avastin resulted in improved pain relief).
Ponder the FDA's justificationthere wasn't "sufficient" benefit in relation to Avastin's risks. Sufficient according to whom? For your wife, mother or daughter with terminal breast cancer, how much is an additional month of good-quality life worth? And what costs should be weighed? Like all drugs, Avastin has side effects including bleeding (fatal hemorrhage) and high blood pressure. But isn't the real cost to these women a swifter, less dignified death? The FDA made a crude cost calculation; as everyone in Washington knows, it wouldn't have banned Avastin if the drug cost only $1,000 a year, instead of $90,000. (I have yet to be seen any FDA document or statement which mentions the cost of this medication.)
This is a perfect example of what happens when people FEEL instead of THINK.
and they are correct btw , it can still be prescribed for other forms of cancer but NOT breast cancer....
and they are correct btw , it can still be prescribed for other forms of cancer but NOT breast cancer....
It CAN be prescribed for breast cancer. It is just not FDA approved.
We prescribe a whole shitload of things that are not FDA approved.
All that approval does is allow a drug company to list that indication on the medications package insert. No approval, no indication.
and they are correct btw , it can still be prescribed for other forms of cancer but NOT breast cancer....
It CAN be prescribed for breast cancer. It is just not FDA approved.
We prescribe a whole shitload of things that are not FDA approved.
All that approval does is allow a drug company to list that indication on the medications package insert. No approval, no indication.
I understand that. I believe that without the fda blessing it will not be approved by ins. co's....(?)
there are prices out there btw for avastin, and no I have not seen the fda speak to the price.
It CAN be prescribed for breast cancer. It is just not FDA approved.
We prescribe a whole shitload of things that are not FDA approved.
All that approval does is allow a drug company to list that indication on the medications package insert. No approval, no indication.
I understand that. I believe that without the fda blessing it will not be approved by ins. co's....(?)
there are prices out there btw for avastin, and no I have not seen the fda speak to the price.
Correct. It will not be approved by insurance companies because they will not approve any medications that has been proven to be ineffective.
It CAN be prescribed for breast cancer. It is just not FDA approved.
We prescribe a whole shitload of things that are not FDA approved.
All that approval does is allow a drug company to list that indication on the medications package insert. No approval, no indication.
I understand that. I believe that without the fda blessing it will not be approved by ins. co's....(?)
there are prices out there btw for avastin, and no I have not seen the fda speak to the price.
Correct. It will not be approved by insurance companies because they will not approve any medications that has been proven to be ineffective.
and it is quite reasonable to assume that if Avastin cost $100 per year instead of $90,000, the FDA would not be making this type of benefit vs. risk assessment.
I understand that. I believe that without the fda blessing it will not be approved by ins. co's....(?)
there are prices out there btw for avastin, and no I have not seen the fda speak to the price.
Correct. It will not be approved by insurance companies because they will not approve any medications that has been proven to be ineffective.
It hasn't proven to be ineffective.
The FDA found that the benefits may not be outweighed by negative side effects.
The women with advanced stages of breast cancer likely disagree. Avastin has improved length and quality of life for such women; and it is quite reasonable to assume that if Avastin cost $100 per year instead of $90,000, the FDA would not be making this type of benefit vs. risk assessment.
Correct. It will not be approved by insurance companies because they will not approve any medications that has been proven to be ineffective.
It hasn't proven to be ineffective.
The FDA found that the benefits may not be outweighed by negative side effects.
The women with advanced stages of breast cancer likely disagree. Avastin has improved length and quality of life for such women; and it is quite reasonable to assume that if Avastin cost $100 per year instead of $90,000, the FDA would not be making this type of benefit vs. risk assessment.
Actually, it has been proven ineffective, which you'd know if you actually read the information, rather than spitting out talking points. The FDA is removing their approval for it because... (drumroll) it doesn't keep people alive longer.
FDA Ruling On Avastin A 'Critical Test' For Agency, New York Times Editorial Says
You are an idiot.
I have seen three people with END STAGE dementia die within weeks of having hip replacements. I have also seen a lady receive chemo for breast cancer, when she was in the last stages of dementia, and couldn't even remember she had received chemo or that she had breast cancer by the time she got home from the appointment. Like I said, you have no clue what you are talking about.
One of the ladies who received a hip replacement, died a week later. She had end stage dementia and cogestive heart failure. The place I used to work for, turned the doctor in for medicare fraud. The doctor should have proved end of life counceling for her and her and her family, instead of performing a hip replacement.
This bill also does not mean they cannot decide to receive certain care, it just means the doctor will explain their options, and what the proper plan should be.
I don't give a shit about your sob stories. I watched My mother die last year and had to make decisions about her. And guess what, we did it all WITHOUT the stinking Guberment sticking their friggen noses in it.
now you are dismissed.
Correct. It will not be approved by insurance companies because they will not approve any medications that has been proven to be ineffective.
It hasn't proven to be ineffective.
The FDA found that the benefits may not be outweighed by negative side effects.
The women with advanced stages of breast cancer likely disagree. Avastin has improved length and quality of life for such women; and it is quite reasonable to assume that if Avastin cost $100 per year instead of $90,000, the FDA would not be making this type of benefit vs. risk assessment.
Actually, it has been proven ineffective, which you'd know if you actually read the information, rather than spitting out talking points. The FDA is removing their approval for it because... (drumroll) it doesn't keep people alive longer.
FDA Ruling On Avastin A 'Critical Test' For Agency, New York Times Editorial Says
It hasn't proven to be ineffective.
The FDA found that the benefits may not be outweighed by negative side effects.
The women with advanced stages of breast cancer likely disagree. Avastin has improved length and quality of life for such women; and it is quite reasonable to assume that if Avastin cost $100 per year instead of $90,000, the FDA would not be making this type of benefit vs. risk assessment.
Actually, it has been proven ineffective, which you'd know if you actually read the information, rather than spitting out talking points. The FDA is removing their approval for it because... (drumroll) it doesn't keep people alive longer.
FDA Ruling On Avastin A 'Critical Test' For Agency, New York Times Editorial Says
That's not what the press release says.
FDA begins process to remove breast cancer indication from Avastin label
Hmmm, perhaps the nurse was wrong. Looks like that won't happen until 2013.
The First Stick
Excessive Readmissions
In addition to the financial incentives noted above, Healthcare Reform also contains financial reductions in Medicare payments as disincentives. For example, beginning in fiscal year 2013, if a hospital experiences excessive readmissions when compared to expected levels of readmissions for certain conditions, the hospitals Medicare inpatient payments will be reduced. Healthcare Reform identifies three initial conditions to evaluate for excessive readmissions: (1) heart attack; (2) heart failure; and (3) pneumonia. The reduction in Medicare payments would be the larger of a floor adjustment factor established under the Healthcare Reform laws2 and the excess readmissions ratio.3 Beginning with fiscal year 2015, HHS is instructed to expand the list of applicable conditions beyond the three noted above to include the conditions identified by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission in its report to Congress in June of 2007 and also include other conditions and procedures as determined appropriate by [HHS]. HHS is also instructed to make all of the readmission rate information available to the public. Hospitals will be provided with the opportunity to review and comment on their hospital-specific data prior to this information being made public.
http://www.wahcnews.com/newsletters/whn-gsb0710.pdf
Isn't this saying that Medicare payments will be reduced if a patient is admitted excessively for heart attack, heart failure, or pneumonia? And this list will be expanded starting in 2015. Who is determining what is 'excessive'? The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. Isn't that the government? Or am I reading this wrong?
