SUBSCRIBER LOGIN






Search First Things

Advanced Search

RSS

Secondhand Smoke
Archives

Categories

Monthly


« Previous  |Home|  Next »         

Tuesday, September 14, 2010, 4:02 PM
Wesley J. Smith

It is very clear that the Obama Administration knows its approach to health care is unpopular.  Thus, the short term Medicare head, Donald Berwick–who Obama gave a recess appointment to so he wouldn’t have to testify in a Senate Committee about his rationing views–pretended that we can expand coverage, while not raising prices and not cutting care in a speech yesterday.  What a joke.  From the Associated Press story:

The nation’s health system can’t be transformed by rationing medical care, President Barack Obama‘s new Medicare chief said Monday in his first major speech.  Dr. Donald Berwick’s appointment earlier this summer without Senate confirmation was contentious because some Republicans accused him of being willing to deny care to save on costs. Since then, the administration has kept Berwick out of the limelight, turning the otherwise well-known medical innovation guru into something of a mystery man in Washington.

Berwick broke his silence Monday, telling an audience of health insurance industry representatives that pushing back against unsustainable costs cannot and should not involve “withholding from us, or our neighbors, any care that helps” or “harming a hair on any patient’s head.” Berwick also said he doesn’t think federal bureaucrats have all the answers when it comes to remaking the system. “A massive, topdown, national project is not the way to do this,” he told a conference hosted by America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry lobbying group.

“Some Republicans accused.”  No, he said it himself.   As the story points out:

Republicans have seized on previous comments from Berwick, such as this one from an interview last year: “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care – the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. And right now, we are doing it blindly.” They say that raises questions about what Berwick really thinks of rationing. Berwick’s supporters counter that rationing already takes place, through actions of insurance companies, and all he wants is to bring the medical decision-making process into the open.

That’s not the same thing at all as “not harming any hair on a patient’s head,” and in fact, endorses explicit rationing. Besides, Berwick is also on record as applauding NICE and the NHS’s top-down, rationed care approach, as I pointed out at this SHS post, in which he extolled the NHS for “planning supply,” (e.g. rationing) and “redistributing wealth,” and also stated:

‘I am a romantic about the NHS; I love it,’ and ‘the NHS is not just a national treasure, it is a global treasure.’”

It’s melting down!  People are denied important medical services.  Hospitals are filthy.  People are left waiting in ambulances before going into the ER.  Cancer patients and others are denied efficacious treatment based on QALY quality of life bean counter analyses. (Just do a search on this site under “SHS Meltdown” to see scores of stories I have carried here.) 

Berwick can pretend to change his spots.  But we know what he really believes.  And next year, when his temporary appointment ends, he will most likely be out of a job.

7 Comments

    Markus
    September 14th, 2010 | 6:32 pm

    I express slight disagreement about this post. It is possible that Dr. Berwick has changed his views of rationing and the NHS. If so, let him testify before Congress under oath about his views.

    That should put the views of this “mystery man” less mysterious.

    Wesley J. Smith Reply:

    Markus: Nothing stops him from so stating without testimony. The story said he didn’t take questions from press. They continue to keep him isolated.

    Craig Henry
    September 14th, 2010 | 8:53 pm

    I can cautiously sympathize with the circumspection reflected in Markus’ optimistic assessment. This administration has at at times shown itself somewhat educable; witness the continuation of Bush era approaches to Iraq and incarcerated terrorist suspects despite all the pre-election rhetoric bombast to the contrary. Though something approaching an explicit admission of the same would be more encouraging. And, as I outlined in other comments, it still shows an unhealthy affection for top-down, vaguely defined, federal influence (i.e., PCORI) on how health care effectiveness research should be administered.

    Mr. Smith’s point is well-taken: transparency of priorities and intent can be easily demonstrated with … well, even a modicum of transparency.

    HistoryWriter
    September 16th, 2010 | 4:35 pm

    I would love to comment on this article, but Wesley can’t make assurances that he won’t censor that with which he disagrees.

    Wesley J. Smith Reply:

    History Writer: Are you 4? Keep this up and you’re blackballed, not because you disagree with me, but because you are not mature enough to engage in idea intercourse. I’m serious. I don’t have time for this nonsense.

    safepres
    September 17th, 2010 | 12:13 am

    What really annoys me is the idea that if you are concerned about rationing, you must be a member of the right. As a disability advocate I was concerned about rationing before Obamacare and I will be concerned about it long afterwards, and it angers me that some on the left has maligned this concern to the point that it is ignored as political chicanery. (Although that is partially the right’s fault for, with the exception of some in the right to life community, ignoring the issue of rationing and now SUDDENLY caring about it now that Obamacare is on the table). Or, that’s how it seems to me.

    Wesley J. Smith Reply:

    safepres: I agree with you. It seems to me that opposing rationing should be a liberal agenda item. Indeed, I mourn the loss of that kind of liberalism.

Links

Blogs

Find Us

Contact