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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Lane3 who wrote (12277)12/11/2009 4:59:05 PM
From: Peter Dierks  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 42652
 
Moderates uneasy with Medicare plan
Tags:Health Care Reform,Harry Reid,Olympia Snowe,Joe Lieberman,Lamar Alexander,Ron Wyden,Ben Nelson,Public Option,Medicaid
By CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN
12/10/09 7:14 PM EST

Senate moderates who are the linchpin to passing a health care reform bill raised fresh worries Thursday about a proposed Medicare expansion, complicating Majority Leader Harry Reid’s hopes of putting together a filibuster-proof majority for the legislation in the coming days.

Two days ago, the Medicare proposal appeared to be the elusive bridge between liberals, who were being forced to give up a public health insurance option, and moderates, who said they couldn’t vote for a bill that included one.

But by Thursday, the shine had dimmed, as senators grew restless over a lack of information and declined to commit their votes until they could review the legislative language and the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate. Republicans also stepped up their criticism of the plan.

The three moderates — Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and liberal Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), whose votes could make or break health reform this year — expressed varying degrees of resistance to the Medicare idea.

Snowe said the Medicare expansion exacerbates an “already-serious problem,” with the low government reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals that serve Medicare patients. It could force her to vote no, she said.

Lieberman indicated that he was growing “increasingly concerned” about the proposal.

And Nelson said allowing people ages 55 to 64 to purchase Medicare coverage could simply be an intermediate step on the way to an entirely government-run health care system — “which I do not like.”

“I wouldn’t be surprised if this thing does not become a viable option,” Nelson said. “I think it is going to be the lesser of the popular things, but I am keeping an open mind.”

On the floor, Republican senators waved around a scathing editorial from The Washington Post, reading the headline several times throughout the day: “Medicare sausage? The emerging buy-in proposal could have unintended consequences.”

They seized upon one sentence in particular — that the proposal “is a far more dramatic step toward a single-payer system than lawmakers on either side realize.”

“I’m very puzzled ideas like this are being cooked up behind closed doors two weeks before Christmas, and we don’t know what they are,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.).

Reid will not release details — even to senators — until he receives the CBO analysis, which isn’t expected until early next week. At that point, Reid has less than two weeks to tweak the plan if the price tag is too high, brief his caucus, lock down the votes and clear a series of procedural hurdles for final passage.

The Medicare buy-in proposal has been kicked around policy circles for years, but it has been absent from the current health care debate. Democrats had become intimately familiar with the ins and outs, benefits and ramifications of the public option because it was all anybody talked about for the past year.

But the lack of detailed discussion of the buy-in could work against Reid’s bid to wrap up the bill by Christmas.

“It’s going to be a challenge, but it is doable,” said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). “It is a major part of health reform that has clearly not gotten the airing of, say, the public option.”

Even the most ardent supporters of health care reform said they had too many questions and too few answers.

“What is the impact on the stability of Medicare? If we are going to expand it to 3 million people, then how are we going to pay for it?” Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) asked Thursday. “One of the ideas of health reform was to ensure the stability and solvency and benefit package of Medicare for a few years.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), an ardent government option supporter, spoke favorably of the Medicare plan in the Senate bill. “There’s certainly a great deal of appeal about putting people 55 and older on Medicare,” she said.

She also said the House and Senate bills “are perhaps 75 percent compatible” — though the remaining 25 percent are major issues, such as federal funding for abortion, immigration and the start dates for new programs.

For Snowe, she said her opposition stemmed from the reimbursement rates for medical providers, which are lower than the rates paid by private insurers.

“I have serious concerns,” Snowe told reporters. “I just think that is the wrong direction to take.”

Snowe said she could not see a way for Senate Democratic leaders to even tweak the proposal to win her vote.

“I can’t see it,” said Snowe, who met Wednesday with President Barack Obama.

Asked if it meant she would oppose the health care bill, Snowe said: “Among other issues. There would be other issues. That is part of it.”

Lieberman, another key undecided moderate, said his level of unease with the Medicare buy-in is also rising.

“I am increasingly troubled about the proposal,” Lieberman said. “I am worried about what impact it will have on the Medicare program’s fiscal viability and also what effect it will have on the premiums paid by people benefiting from Medicare now.”

Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said efforts were under way to address concerns raised by senators, including the low reimbursement rates for hospitals and doctors.

“All of the problems that people have mentioned, we are mindful of,” said Schumer, who worked to develop the package with 10 moderate and liberal senators. “Every one you have mentioned has been brought up in our discussions, and we didn’t ignore any of them.”

Reid would not say whether he has 60 votes for the “broad agreement” announced Tuesday night.

“We’ll find out when we have the vote,” Reid said, “but I’m feeling pretty confident today.”

Patrick O’Connor contributed to this report.

politico.com



To: Lane3 who wrote (12277)12/13/2009 8:04:32 AM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 42652
 
Poor being turned away from free cancer screenings

By VALERIE BAUMAN
The Associated Press
Saturday, December 12, 2009 11:51 PM

ALBANY, N.Y. -- As the economy falters and more people go without health insurance, low-income women in at least 20 states are being turned away or put on long waiting lists for free cancer screenings, according to the American Cancer Society's Cancer Action Network.

In the unofficial survey of programs for July 2008 through April 2009, the organization found that state budget strains are forcing some programs to reject people who would otherwise qualify for free mammograms and Pap smears. Just how many are turned away isn't known; in some cases, the women are screened through other programs or referred to different providers.

"I cried and I panicked," said Erin LaBarge, 47. This would have been her third straight year receiving a free mammogram through the screening program in St. Lawrence County. But the Norwood, N.Y., resident was told she couldn't get her free mammogram this year because there isn't enough money and she's not old enough.

New York used to screen women of all ages, but this year the budget crunch has forced them to focus on those considered at highest risk and exclude women under 50.

"It's a scary thought. It really is," said LaBarge, who fears she's at a higher risk because her grandmother died of breast cancer.

The Cancer Society doesn't have an estimate for what percentage of breast cancer diagnoses come from mammogram screenings, but says women have a 98 percent survival rate when breast cancer is caught early, during stage I. That shrinks to about 84 percent during stages II and III, and just 27 percent at stage IV - when cancer has reached its most advanced point.

"I already know there are women who are dying whose lives we could have saved with mammography and other detections," said Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer for the society.

In New York, the Cancer Society says providers in Manhattan, Brooklyn and western Queens, and in Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester counties project they'll perform nearly 15,000 fewer free mammograms for the fiscal year ending April 2010, compared with the previous year.

The Cancer Society has no way to count how many women are being turned away, and many providers don't keep track of how many are denied screening, or whether those women find another alternative. The cost of screening varies, but the average mammogram is about $100, while a Pap screen can range between $75 and $200, according to the society.

Project Renewal Van Scan, which gives mammograms around New York City, usually targets 6,000 women a year but has cut back to 3,100 this year, director Mary Solomon said.

Each state handles free screenings differently. Some use state funds to supplement federal funding, while others get private assistance from the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation and other groups.

At least 14 states cut budgets for free cancer screenings this year: Colorado, Montana, Illinois, Alabama, Minnesota, Connecticut, South Carolina, Utah, Missouri, Washington, Ohio, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Arkansas.

Some states that have cut their budgets have found ways to maintain services; some states that haven't reduced their budgets still find themselves having to turn women away because they don't have enough funding.

"This is rationing of health care by offering (screenings) only in the first half of the fiscal year, or by cutting back on those programs," Brawley said. "It's rationing that is leading to people dying."

New York, which has fought for two years with deficits in the billions, used to screen women of all ages for breast cancer, but after $3.5 million in budget cuts this year, women under 50 - like LaBarge - are no longer eligible unless they have the breast cancer gene or a serious family cancer history. Despite LaBarge's family history, she was denied screening because of her age and a lack of funding.

"We don't do this lightly," said Claudia Hutton, spokeswoman for the agency. "This is not a cut that we would have made if the state had the money, but the state just does not have the money."

The issue of when women should get mammograms erupted into controversy last month when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended that the exams not be given routinely until women are 50, and then every two years.

That broke with the Cancer Society's long-standing position that women should begin getting mammograms at the age of 40 and annually thereafter; the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends mammograms every one to two years for women in their 40s and every year after age 50.

The American Cancer Society opposes the federal task force recommendations.

"I think they made a mistake here," Brawley said.

In 2009, the Cancer Society estimates, 34,600 women between 40 and 49 will be found to have breast cancer nationwide; in that age group, 4,300 breast cancer deaths are projected this year.

Oregon, with 57,000 eligible women, now limits free screenings to 6,000 annually, said Amy Manchester Harris, manager of the Breast and Cervical Cancer Program. Many states, including Oregon, still screen women with symptoms, such as a breast lump.

"It's pretty painful" to turn women away, said Shari House, owner of the Pearl Health Center in Portland.

"They get angry, they get depressed, they get hopeless," she said. "It's like having a door slammed in your face."

Sarah Gudz, who directs the Ohio Department of Health's Breast and Cervical Cancer Project, said higher unemployment and more people without insurance has increased the pool of women seeking free screening.

Ohio allocated $2.5 million for 2008-09; state funding dropped to $700,000 for 2009-10. Last year Ohio served nearly 17,000 women, but the state is projected to fund 14,000 screenings in 2009-10.

The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that since 1991, the free screening program has provided more than 8 million exams to more than 3.4 million women, detecting more than 39,000 breast cancers, 2,400 invasive cervical cancers and 126,000 pre-malignant cervical lesions.

The American Cancer Society's Cancer Action Network says the economy has forced cutbacks in screenings at a time when more people are uninsured.

The society surveyed programs for July 2008 through April 2009 and found that state budget strains are forcing some programs to reject people who would otherwise qualify for free mammograms and Pap smears.

In some cases women are screened by other programs or referred to different providers.

New York used to screen women of all ages. This year's budget crunch has forced them to focus on those at highest risk and exclude women younger than 50.

washingtonpost.com