Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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: one_less who wrote (443454)	8/15/2003 12:59:27 PM
From: laura_bush	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Anti-cancer drugs cut by Medicare By Bob Cusack Cancer doctors see a coordinated effort by the White House and Congress to siphon federal money from cancer treatment and use it for prescription drugs currently not covered by Medicare. The Bush administrationâ€™s unexpected move to cut Medicare payments for cancer drugs has left some oncologists feeling they are being targeted unfairly. In an act that caught many healthcare experts off guard, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) indicated last week that it will soon issue a new regulation that will propose cutting Medicare payments for cancer drugs. The proposed change of policy was first reported in The New York Times. Medicare does not pay for most outpatient prescription drugs but does cover some under certain circumstances, such as drugs used with organ transplantation and chemotherapy. This comes at a time when Congress has made headway on fixing the reimbursement system for cancer drugs. Government auditors have said the current policy has cheated taxpayers for years. As part of their respective Medicare reform bills, the House and Senate have passed legislation that would lower payments for cancer drugs. Oncologists, however, claim that the legislation would hamper patient access to care because it would lower their Medicare reimbursements as well. CMS Administrator Tom Scully has vowed repeatedly to fix the payment system if Congress doesnâ€™t act. Some healthcare experts and political observers view the new regulation as a maneuver to apply pressure on Congress to pass legislation this year. Others say itâ€™s a pressure move on oncology groups to cut a deal with Congress. A CMS spokesperson said the administration wants to make sure the payment system is revamped quickly, adding that Medicare patients will continue to pay higher co-pays until the reimbursement formula is recalculated. Government auditors have concluded that Medicare overpayments for cancer and other drugs cost the taxpayers more than $1.6 billion a year. Now that the administration is poised to issue its regulation, there are some in the oncology community who feel they are being singled out. In an Aug. 11 e-mail that was widely circulated, Gregory Patton of U.S. Oncology, a medical network of cancer physicians, said: â€œNot to be too paranoid, but a pattern is emergingâ€¦it looks as if the intent is to redistribute substantial Federal funding now consumed by cancer care to other more politically expedient and visible uses such as prescription drugs. Scullyâ€™s obvious strategy is to impose changes administratively rather than through the less controllable, less certain, and much slower legislative meat grinder. We in the oncology community are high profile targets.â€ Patton said that â€œitâ€™s an overstatement to view this as a classic struggle of good vs. evil, but it does seem to boil down to a basic test of pure political muscle. This is the arena where this battle will be won.â€ He adds in the e-mail that â€œmobilizing our patients through appropriate organizationsâ€ is essential to defeating the proposed cuts. Patton, who has lobbied on Capitol Hill on the issue, said he was commenting as one practicing physician and not on behalf of U.S. Oncology. He said he may have been too hasty in his criticism because after further review, Patton believes CMSâ€™s plan is not as bad as he originally thought. However, it has more negatives than positives, he added. If outpatient chemotherapy is not viable because of government cuts, there is no backup for cancer patients, Patton stressed. The prospects of Medicare reform legislation becoming law are unclear, and the cancer drug issue is just one of many that House and Senate officials will tackle in the conference. The cancer drug issue has been no stranger to controversy. In a June meeting, oncology lobbyists clashed with top lawmakers on the subject. Several lawmakers, including House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.), objected strongly to the advertising campaign that the oncologists had launched. Congressional aides expect that oncology groups will lobby Congress to block the administrationâ€™s new regulation and continue to press for legislation sponsored by Reps. Charlie Norwood (R-Ga.) and Lois Capps (D-Calif.). That bill, oncologists say, would lower Medicare payments for cancer drugs but not hamper patient access to care. But key GOP lawmakers have rejected the Norwood-Capps legislation as insufficient. Aides say that oncology lobbyists wrote the bill themselves. In another twist, a former Medicare spokeswoman has spoken out against the administrationâ€™s regulation. In a letter to The New York Times, Joyce Winslow suggested the new rule would deliver â€œa belly punch to patients fighting for their lives.â€ CMS is not planning to respond to the letter, which will likely be used as political ammunition to try to thwart the proposed cuts. hillnews.com

To: one_less who wrote (443454)	8/15/2003 1:20:38 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

No Jewell, no matter how hard you try to change the subject the posts are all linked back to your original post and my response. No matter how hard you try to make this out to be a disagreement on the pentagon or the SF Chronicle, or try to make it cnyndwllr vs Bush, the plain truth is that it was, and is, all about your taking of a position that revealed your true lack of empathy for the men and women that are sacrificing much, including sometimes their lives, in Iraq. Here's your initial post: >>"To:CC who wrote (442909) From: Jewel_o_the_West Thursday, Aug 14, 2003 2:15 PM View Replies (6) \| Respond to of 443471 Is it your position that we should spend more on the troops? Their needs are paid for. The extra pay is gratuitous. Of course, I would support any government decision to give extra gratuitous cash to everybody...the government has all the money and can make more, right...that's where money comes from right. So, you would like lots of it with no limits as I would, and for every body else too. Good plan CC. Why put limits on it for pete's sake."<< My reply: >>"To:Jewel_o_the_West who wrote (442911) From: cnyndwllr Thursday, Aug 14, 2003 2:35 PM View Replies (1) \| Respond to of 443471 Jewell, re: >>"Is it your position that we should spend more on the troops? Their needs are paid for. The extra pay is gratuitous." Did you really think this out or is this a knee jerk "support Bush" reaction? Let's work it through. Why should we up the hazardous duty pay and family allowance for our troops overseas during this Iraqi occupation? Why shouldn't we? Remember that it's all about competing interests for the dollars we have. Aren't there things that we're spending a couple of hundred million a year on that you see as less deserving than these funds? If you're really objective you'll analyze this in terms of fairness among competing interests for limited dollars, efficiency in keeping an all-volunteer army, and the importance of keeping up morale among men and women that are having a rough time. Remember, despite the preconceptions of many among the Bush elite, the men and women who go to war are human beings with their own thoughts, dreams and pride. If you treat them like pawns in a game of kings, they will know it and you can expect their performance to suffer. The Bush people have shown their disdain for the character, pride and resolve of the Iraqi population but this breaks new ground. I suspect this is yet another failure of the Bush administration's top people to understand average Americans. We've certainly done our share to promote that disdain by swallowing every doubletalk rationale they've thrown at us but when it comes to this kind of disrespect, I don't believe our people will ignore it so easily. I believe that if he persists in this path he will learn that America meant it when it got behind our troops. After all, they are us even if they aren't the "them" that constitute the powerful men in and behind the Bush administration."<< I would have though you couldn't have dug deeper but your later argument that: >>" People know (or should know) why they enlist in the military. There is no reason for me to answer for people who don't know why they are there. The conditions they are living under are an awful struggle that these people opted for when they signed up,"<< was a really compassionate one as well, wouldn't you agree? Why don't you just say that it would be a travesty to reduce this pay for our soldiers in Iraq? Why don't you just say that this president owes it to them to be sure that doesn't happen? Why don't you just say that you wouldn't support that kind of a pay reduction? Why don't you just admit that volunteering for the service does not mean that anything we do to our soldiers is ok because they "opted" for it when "they signed up?" Being wrong is common; stubbornly persisting in being wrong when you know it is uncommonly foolish and more than a little dishonest.