SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: ColtonGang who wrote (160932)7/14/2001 11:25:44 PM
From: puborectalis  Respond to of 769670
 
MONEY & MEDICINE
When Doctors Feel Disposable
By JENNIFER STEINHAUER




he doctor on the line is very angry. What they don't understand, she says, is how hard she works, how many lives she has saved and how much it costs her to run an office. If they did, she said, her voice shaking with anger, they would never make the choices they do.

The subject of her wrath might be managed care companies — and certainly she hates them — but actually, it is you.

For almost a decade now, doctors' anger toward managed care companies has been well documented. But more recently, it seems, some of that anger has turned toward patients.

The patients, not known to be fans of insurance companies themselves, have nonetheless adapted to the companies' dominance by taking on some of their worst qualities, doctors say. The physicians are particularly annoyed with patients who, after their employer makes a change in a health plan, drop them with seemingly little reservation just because they can no longer participate in that plan.

Dr. Bradley A. Radwaner, a cardiologist in Manhattan, described this in a letter he wrote to Eliot L. Spitzer, the New York attorney general, complaining about what he believes are unfair payment practices of managed care companies.

"Since the vast majority of patients cannot distinguish a quality, experienced and well-trained physician from one who is simply personable," Dr. Radwaner wrote, "decisions are made based on $10 co-pays versus paying full fees. Patients want referrals only to `participating' physicians so they have to pay as little as possible."

Citing low reimbursement rates, Dr. Radwaner is winnowing away the number of managed care contracts he will accept.

Many patients would love not to switch doctors. But many do not have the income to pay the full rate, or even a large part of it, and so they must go with doctors who operate within their employers' plan.

Dr. Radwaner argued that many of his patients are lawyers or other high-income professionals who can well afford to pay his fees. "A lot of my patients come in," he said, "pay me $10 and then go down the block and have their teeth done and write a check for $1,200."

Many other doctors share his point of view. Dr. Emile M. Heisiger, a pain specialist at New York University Medical Center, who accepts no managed care plans, feels that patients need to realize that he is worth the full fee. (He once told me that a patient with chronic back pain should forgo "that vacation to Mount Rushmore" and pay him for care rather than going to a less-skilled doctor who happens to be in an insurance plan.)

As Dr. Radwaner put it, "Patients have to realize that they can't get something for nothing." In other words, no first-class flight for the price of coach. Fair enough. But once you apply this market logic to health care, then how do doctors plan to woo and retain customers? Do they offer something akin to frequent-flier miles — one free procedure for every 10 paid at full price? Do they improve customer service, offer to make house calls in a pinch or put lemon slices in the water cooler?

"I have not seen doctors do a lot of market-driven promotion to retain their patients," said Edward Kaplan, a vice president at the Segal Company, a benefits consulting firm in New York. "Not all patients can afford to pay whatever doctors want to charge. And doctors don't reduce their fees for volume. So if you really value your doctor's relationship, those who can afford it will pay the price to stay with them and those who can't don't."

Sometimes, it is the other way around, with doctors sensing that patients associate them with the worst insurance practices. Dr. Mary Yoder, an anesthesiologist in Albuquerque, said she has found that patients have become more suspicious of doctors in recent years, assuming that they subordinate good care to keeping insurance companies happy.

Because patients are told that the priority of H.M.O.'s is to save money, Dr. Yoder said, "they come into the health care environment believing that the providers are not on their side because they have incentive to provide less care."

"That adversarial attitude on the part of the patients is reflected in how they relate to doctors," she added. "There are multiple questions aimed at you, like `Are you really doing this for me?' " This was among many factors that led her to stop clinical practice; she now reviews disability cases.

The future does not look bright. "There is no doubt about it," Mr. Kaplan said. "Physicians think managed care companies have ruined the relationship between them and patients."

Jennifer Steinhauer covers health care for The Times. Her column on the economics of health care appears the third Sunday of each month. E-mail: jestei@nytimes.com.



To: ColtonGang who wrote (160932)7/14/2001 11:37:22 PM
From: puborectalis  Respond to of 769670
 
Republican Games......http://www.sublimedirectory.com/pod.htm



To: ColtonGang who wrote (160932)7/14/2001 11:51:23 PM
From: puborectalis  Respond to of 769670
 
Report: Fla. Accepted Flawed Ballots

By The Associated Press


Recounting process
AP/Amy E. Conn [20K]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A New York Times investigation into overseas ballots that helped George W. Bush win the presidency found that Florida election officials, facing intense GOP pressure to accept military votes, counted hundreds of overseas absentee ballots that failed to comply with state election laws.

The Times published the results of its investigation in Sunday editions. The newspaper's six-month examination of the 2,490 overseas ballots accepted after Election Day found 680 questionable votes.

But while that number is greater than Bush's 537-vote victory in Florida, the paper concluded that Bush still would likely have defeated Al Gore even if those flawed ballots had been discarded.

Gary King, a Harvard expert on voting patterns and statistical models, concluded that Bush's winning margin would most likely have been reduced to 245 votes if the overseas votes had been thrown out. There was only a slight chance that discarding the questionable ballots would have made Gore the winner.


President Bush
AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais [17K]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was impossible to simply count the questionable votes because the ballots themselves are separated from the envelopes containing voter information.

The paper found no evidence of fraud by either party, though it did interview voters who admitted they had cast illegal ballots after Election Day. It found no support for suspicions that the Bush campaign had organized an effort to solicit late votes.

After the uncertain results of Nov. 7, both Gore and Bush began high-pressure postelection campaigns to eke out a victory. The importance of overseas ballots — and particularly military votes — quickly became apparent.

The paper documented a successful effort by Republicans to count the maximum number of overseas ballots in counties won by Bush, particularly those with a high concentration of military voters, while seeking to disqualify overseas ballots in counties won by Gore.


Then-Vice President Gore
AP/Doug Mills, File [20K]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Counties carried by Gore accepted two in 10 ballots that had no evidence they were mailed on or before Election Day. Counties carried by Bush accepted six in 10 of such ballots. Bush counties were four times as likely as Gore counties to count ballots lacking witness signatures and addresses.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told the Times: ``This election was decided by the voters of Florida a long time ago. And the nation, the president and all but the most partisan Americans have moved on.''

``The story reinforces the perception that members of the Bush team believe the rules don't apply to them,'' Democratic Party spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri told the Associated Press on Saturday.

Of the 680 flawed ballots, the paper found: 344 ballots with no evidence they were cast on or before Election Day; 183 ballots with United States postmarks rather than overseas postmarks; 96 ballots lacking the required signature or address of a witness; 169 ballots from voters who were not registered, who failed to sign the envelope or who had not requested a ballot as required by federal law; five ballots received after the Nov. 17 deadline; and 19 voters who cast two ballots, both of which counted.

The total number of flaws exceeds the number of questionable overseas ballots because many of the envelopes had multiple defects.

Although Bush held a fluctuating lead throughout the 36 days of recounts and court fights after Nov. 7, the Florida Department of State's Web site shows that if none of the overseas absentee ballots were counted after Election Day, Gore would have won Florida by 202 votes, and retained Democratic control of the White House.

Benjamin L. Ginsberg, national counsel to the Bush campaign, recalled those days as being ``as hardball a game as any of us had ever been involved in.''

Judge Anne Kaylor, chairwoman of the Polk County canvassing board, said the combination of Republican pressure and court rulings caused her board to count some ballots that would probably have been considered illegal in past years.

``I think the rules were bent,'' said Kaylor, a Democrat. ``Technically, they were not supposed to be accepted. Any canvassing board that says they weren't under pressure is being less than candid.''

Ginsberg said, ``We didn't ask anybody to do anything that wasn't in the law as it existed on Election Day.''

While both the Postal Service and the Pentagon worked hard to ensure the timely delivery of absentee ballots to Florida, the Bush campaign soon began to pressure the Pentagon, the paper said.

Ginsberg faxed a letter to Defense Secretary William S. Cohen, the only Republican in the Clinton cabinet, on Nov. 11 urging that ballots be collected immediately.

In the end, the vast majority of the ballots — 97 percent — arrived before the Nov. 17 deadline. In previous elections, according to records and interviews, as many as a third arrived after the 10-day window had closed.

The Times also found a substantial number of people who knowingly cast their ballots after Election Day. Of the 91 voters interviewed whose ballots had either missing or late postmarks, 30 acknowledged marking ballots late. Only four were counted.

While the Bush campaign loudly criticized a Gore supporter's memo that laid out a strategy to challenge overseas ballots, the Bush team had its own such strategy, the Times reported.

A Bush campaign memo laid out a two-pronged strategy — telling Bush lawyers how to challenge ``illegal'' civilian votes that they assumed would be for Gore and also how to defend equally defective military ballots, the Times said.

Ginsberg acknowledged that they had fought for military ballots while opposing ballots from civilians. Others involved in the campaign denied it.

While the election was finally decided when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to allow a statewide manual recount because of potential equal rights violations, the court never considered unequal treatment of overseas absentee votes.

Gore campaign aides argued they should include overseas votes in their legal challenge, but Gore rejected the idea, Democratic lawyer Joe Sandler told the Times.



To: ColtonGang who wrote (160932)7/14/2001 11:52:22 PM
From: puborectalis  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
President 'Agonizing' on Embryo Question
_____More on Stem Cells_____

By Ceci Connolly
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 15, 2001; Page A01

President Bush has become much more deeply and emotionally involved than is typical for his young presidency in the vexing decision of whether federal money should be used for embryonic stem cell research, according to lawmakers, aides and others who have discussed the subject with him in recent days.

Using words such as "grappling" and "agonizing," they paint a portrait of a man who has become well-schooled in the subtleties of the science involved and has immersed himself in the moral and ethical issues at stake. In fact, the president has become so absorbed in the subject that he has become almost preoccupied with it – and been pushed into a period of true angst over what to do, they said.

"He is spending a great deal of personal time thinking and talking about this. He raises it as non sequiturs in other meetings," said a Democratic health care lobbyist who consults regularly with Bush's policy team, and described Bush as "genuinely very, very conflicted."

As Bush canvasses an eclectic mix of politicians, doctors, religious scholars and, in at least one instance, members of his economic team, he is clearly searching for some kind of compromise that not only takes into account the strong political crosscurrents at play, but also fits his own values.

Bush's struggle over stem cells is unusual for a politician who tends to delegate to subordinates and then make decisions quickly without much apparent introspection. While revealing a more reflective side, Bush's contemplative approach in this case may have exposed him to more political problems by allowing pressure to build from all sides, observers said.

Nevertheless, at the moment, the president seems most inclined to continue to go slow. Despite promises that a decision would be made in late June or early July, several advisers now say they do not expect Bush to make up his mind until after his July 23 visit with Pope John Paul II.

"August recess might not be a bad time," said one of Bush's domestic policy advisers, only half joking about a desire to announce the decision when lawmakers and much of the country are on vacation.

Go slow was the message that Bush heard Tuesday night, when he and senior adviser Karl Rove met at the White House to discuss the issue with two leading bioethicists – Daniel Callahan of the Hastings Center in upstate New York and Leon Kass of the University of Chicago.

Both ethicists steered Bush toward taking a cautious route: for now, only funding research on stem cells obtained from adults. While considered inferior by many scientists, adults cells may turn out to be as useful as those obtained from embryos without posing the problem of having to destroy embryos to get them, they argued.

"It offends a lot of people," Callahan said, recounting the case he made against the research. "Can't we slow this down?"

Twenty-four hours later, at an unrelated meeting, the session with Kass and Callahan – and the desperate quest for a compromise – was still weighing on Bush's mind. "I just heard from some bioethicists who gave me a lot to think about," the president said, abruptly changing the topic from managed care legislation to stem cell research, according to one participant. "It's a tough decision."

At the heart of Bush's consternation is promising, but controversial, research on embryos that in most instances would otherwise be discarded from fertility clinics. Many scientists say that because embryonic stem cells have the ability to transform into virtually any kind of tissue, they hold hope for treating illnesses such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes and cancer. Opponents of the research, however, say it is unethical to destroy potential life to obtain the cells.

In recent days, the scientific picture has become further complicated by reports that a lab in Virginia had created human embryos for the express purpose of extracting stem cells from them, and that a Massachusetts biotechnology company was trying to clone human embryos to obtain the cells.

The breathtaking speed at which the science is moving dominated much of Tuesday's conversation, Callahan said. And it prompted Bush to scribble questions in the margins of newspaper articles reporting the latest developments, according to two aides.

Bush knows the science is racing forward, with or without federal funding, Callahan said. "That's why he feels it would be so wonderful if we could find a compromise."

What is most noteworthy, said the people who spoke to Bush, is how consumed he has become with the ethical ramifications of what was supposed to be quick, quiet delivery on a campaign pledge to protect life and oppose efforts to destroy human embryos.

"He's basically heard all 87 sides of this and is confronting a very fundamental, moral problem," said Callahan, who said he was impressed with Bush's knowledge on the issue. "He really worries about this – that's why he's taking so long."

Callahan, a Democrat who did not vote for Bush, told the president embryonic stem cell research has been "oversold" in much the same way he believes fetal tissue research was "hyped" as a potential cure for Parkinson's 10 years ago.

Kass, a well-known conservative thinker who did not want to discuss the private meeting, reportedly reiterated arguments he has made before two congressional panels that stem cells that can be obtained from adults may offer an equally promising alternative to embryonic cells.

In two conversations with Rep. Nancy L. Johnson (R-Conn.), Bush has reflected on the unexpected complexities of the issue. "The breadth and depth of the controversy was greater than he had understood," said Johnson, who supports the research. More than once, Johnson said Bush told her: "‚'I'm getting a lot of input on this.'‚"

On a flight aboard Air Force One, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said Bush challenged him directly on the moral implications of using federal money to conduct the research.

"He expressed real concern about the moral issues, the potential for life in an embryo," said Specter, another proponent of the research. "He spoke of his concern for using taxpayers' money where there is such a deep division in the country and the moral issue is so profound."

Several participants in Wednesday's meeting on the Patients Bill of Rights said they were startled when Bush raised stem cells with doctors who specialize in areas such as anesthesiology and orthopedics.

"He did surprise us," said I. Howard Fine, president of the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. "It was clear he was considering all the aspects. Everybody appreciated what a difficult decision this is for him."

For months, both sides have ferociously pressed their case. Television commercials and news conferences featuring chronically ill children run parallel to celebrity-studded congressional hearings. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson is one of several antiabortion Republicans urging Bush to pursue the research. On the other side, Catholic Church officials and leaders of prominent antiabortion groups, two of Bush's most valuable constituencies, are lobbying aggressively against a procedure they describe as akin to abortion.

As he has done on Medicare reform, Bush is relying heavily on the counsel of Sen. Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican and former heart surgeon. The pair talk often and some advisers speculate that Bush is waiting for Frist to take the lead. Frist's spokeswoman said the senator was not ready to discuss his views.

Yet that is standard fare in the Washington world of lobbying. Advisers say it is the intensely personal nature of this issue, coupled with the complex ethical dimensions, that have thrust Bush into this unfamiliar role of public agonizing.

Like millions of Americans, Bush and his closest aides have direct experience with some of the debilitating illnesses scientists hope to treat or cure through stem cell advances. The president lost a sister, Robin, to leukemia at age 3. White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr.'s parents suffered from Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. Nancy Reagan, who is watching her husband deteriorate from Alzheimer's, has written in favor of the research.

One GOP strategist saw political benefit in Bush's uncharacteristically drawn-out decision-making.

"The first wave of stories were all about Karl Rove worrying over the politics," said this Republican. "The advantage here in showing some sense of agony is it shows his patience for the complexity of it."

Conservative commentator William Kristol, who does not hesitate to criticize the White House, said he believes administration aides were wrong to expect the typical speedy decision. "I gather Bush is truly grappling with this as a moral issue," he said.