Government Health Care Rationing: Sorry Ladies, No Drugs for You

on October 14, 2010 at 10:11 AM

Jenny EriksonLast week we learned that ObamaCare hurts small to medium businesses by offering special waivers to the big boys like McDonald's. What good are rules if they keep changing?

It's (relatively) easy to pass a law requiring all citizens to purchase health insurance. The difficulty lies in actually providing medical attention to everyone who needs it. Here's a secret that Nancy Pelosi forgot to tell you: Health insurance does not equal health care.

Since the government can't force anyone to be a doctor, nurse, or drug-developing scientist, there's a finite number of health care providers. In a free market, people rise up to supply the demands of society. In an ObamaCare world, people don't want to be doctors anymore, because there's just too much hassle and red tape involved with government-run health care.

Now we have fewer doctors and more people wanting cheap (or free!) medical attention. (Sidebar: When are accountants going to be mandated? Because I could sure use one of those to figure out my taxes.) Something has got to give; the question is what?

Apparently the answer is services and drugs specifically for women. Last year, the U.S. Preventative Task Force recommended a reduction in the number of mammograms women receive in their 40s and beyond.

Recently, the FDA has been playing around with rationing the use of Avastin for women with breast cancer. The cutting-edge drug has been proven to extend the lives of women suffering from advanced breast cancer. The drug could still be marketed to treat other cancers such colon and lung cancer. This move suggests that the FDA is keen on rationing women's access to health care.

From Holly Pitt Young:

When the FDA takes something "off label," it is actually rationing treatment. It essentially gives Medicare and most insurance companies permission and justification to deny coverage for the medication.

Government health care at work: Good-bye innovation, hello rationing.

Image via Tech Askew

Filed Under: barack obama, discrimination, feminism, human rights, in the news, politics

Like What You Just Read?

Click the "Like" button below to get Jenny Erikson's stories on Facebook.

Comments (10)

Alyssa11307

on Oct 14, 2010 at 10:20 AM

FDA has been doing this for years, this has nothing to do with "ObamaCare", or what sane, rational people refer to as health care reform.

The FDA routinely re-evaluates drug labeling when there is a safety or efficacy concern. In terms of your cherry-picking of one particular drug for which the label was re-evaluated, I can assure you, its not an arbitrary decision. Having attended FDA panel meetings myself (they are open to the public, you know, you could educate your self a bit and actually attend, or at least read the transcripts....), these topics get debated, and debated, and DEBATED, by DOCTORS. NOT by the government. The FDA panel is made up of DOCTORS who make these decision.

So PLEASE. For the love of god, do some research before you blame stuff like this on "government run healthcare". This has absolutely NOTHING to do with "government run healthcare". Doctors made this decision.

Report this comment

LKRachel

on Oct 14, 2010 at 10:26 AM

regardless of whether the FDA or "Obamacare" are causing issues with available healthcare- it is VERY true that we don't have enough doctors right now (in every specialty). and that problem is only going to get worse b/c it's already a pain in the butt for doctors to deal with insurance companies and ambulance chasing predatory lawyers and there are less and less qualified people entering the field when what we need is MORE. There are lots of changes that need to be made to the current healthcare system before it's going to be able to provide for the entire nation.

Paternoster

on Oct 14, 2010 at 11:50 AM

The sheep are running to the wolves on this matter: Medicare (federal government) regulations and insurance, which frequently go hand in hand, have created the problems that make a career in medicine less and less attractive. Insurance already dictates medicine and how physicians practice - everything from the drug they can write, a test they order, to what they will or won't be paid for services provided.What we need is for everyone to become educated on the FACTS (for example, no hospital has ever foreclosed on someone's home - bad medical debt doesn't even count against you when being underwritten for a home loan - so the only financial devastation that will be suffered in reality will be by the institution/provider writing off the debt), and take a modicum of personal responsibility. Want to know why a bandaid in the hospital costs $5.00? Ask Medicare (federal government). After all, they set the fee schedule that providers and private payors use as the foundation for billable charges and maximum allowables under their plans. With respect to facts:

1. the Vitter amendment prevents the USPSTF recommendations from being leveraged by insurance companies to deny coverage for mammography services:

http://vitter.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=54e9c8c4-927c-9728-d951-00a9784c60e5

2. As understanding of subcellular (molecular) processes grows, so does more personalized medicine - what works for one patient may actually be harmful in another. For example, breast cancer patients have tumor cells tested for estrogen & progesterone receptors before surgeons & oncologists begin Herceptin therapy - the drug can cause cardiovascular problems and is very expensive, so why administer it to a patient whose particular cancer cells won't respond to the therapy? This had NOTHING to do with rationing, and everything to do with what is in the best interest of that particular patient.

I know little about Avastin except that impedes vascular growth, thereby decreasing blood flow feeding the tumor. This is more commonly seen in colon and hepatic (liver) cancers than breast tumors which tend to grow by extension or metastasize via the lymphatic system. I'm just guessing, but its limited utility with respect to this particular cancer may be an explanation for the labeling change?

lovinangels

on Oct 14, 2010 at 11:53 AM

Sounds very similar to the journal entry I wrote on cm when they were talking about passing this bill. Yes, I did see this coming.

Nonmember comment from Jen

on Oct 14, 2010 at 12:01 PM

This is one thing that can't be blamed on Obama. Doctors think they need to make a killing to make a living and they won't be able to do that nearly as well on government run insurance. I'm not a fan of it by any means but I'm done hearing doctors whine they are not going to get rich and are shutting their doors. That shows exactly why they became doctors. Not to help people but to do what my former OB has done; build a mansion on a hill outside town and have a menagerie of exotic animals while his nurse practioners do all the work. Or do what the doctors my mother works for did; drop the decent insurance they had for the employees and go for the bottom of the barrell garbage even though they have consistantly made huge profits. Or what the ones I worked for did; try to bully employees to not take the health insurance offered by the practice so they take home more money. Sorry, no sympathy for doctors, or the healthcare industry in general from me today.

on Oct 14, 2010 at 12:25 PM

Right.

How dare anyone who went to school for 10+ years after college, employs people (one of those small business owners we keep talking about), is exposed to massive liability daily, and puts in (depending on specialty) 12 or more hour days between procedures in the OR/office hours/evening hospital rounds, and pays tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars for malpractice insurance expect to make a six-figure income?

What assholes.

evwsquared

on Oct 14, 2010 at 2:21 PM

I've never been to the FDA for medical care. Have you? I didn't know that they had a clinic there!

You, and that woman, really have NO understanding of what off label use is.

I need to keep reminding myself that bloggers don't need to write about facts like real journalists do.

on Oct 14, 2010 at 3:43 PM

BWAHAHAHAHAHHAAAA!!!

By "that woman", I assume you mean Holly Pitt-Young? Wanna guess how she comes by this level of expertise?

http://www.wattsconsultinggroup.com/team/wcg-hollypittyoung.html

Holly Pitt Young
Partner

Holly has many years of experience working with organizations to develop successful government affairs strategies. Recently, she served as Senior Vice President for the Political Involvement Practice at Democracy Data & Communications where she worked with over 100 corporations, trade associations, and non-profit organizations to develop effective PAC and grassroots mobilization programs.

Previously, Holly served as a legislative adviser and PAC director for Winston & Strawn LLP where she lobbied for firm clients and created the PAC management practice. In addition, she has hosted events and fundraisers for more than 50 Members of Congress and worked on Capitol Hill for Representatives Charles Taylor of North Carolina and Doc Hastings of Washington State.

Holly has spoken at many conferences as well as provided political-giving background interviews for the Legal Times, Washington Post, Bloomberg, Bloomberg TV, Washington Times, and Roll Call. Holly holds a BA in Political Science from Campbell University and attended graduate school at Regent University.

Classic.

hoticedcoffee

on Oct 14, 2010 at 4:10 PM

Health insurance does not equal health care.

In an ObamaCare world, people don't want to be doctors anymore, because there's just too much hassle and red tape involved with government-run health care.

Yup, yup, aaaaaaand yup. Way to go, Obamabots!