Re: Obama Tries to Sneak Major Health Care Reform into the Stimulus Bill

I have to confirm that the above is true.

My sister-in-law is, like #4 in command at J&J, and sits at the head of Jansen, the mental health drug division at J&J. In other words, she IS Big Pharma. She was selected to be one of Obama's health care policy analysts- an AMAZING opportunity for her. Her job, first, was to point out before Obama took office, that there was nothing in his health care package for mental health care, and she has been there every step of the way to see that the health care plan worked for her particular piece of the health care picture.

I saw my sister-in-law at Christmas- I love her dearly, but believe me, we don't agree on much. I grilled her on this health care policy. She thought it was great, because she wanted to know what the concerns were that she might have to face when she got to Washington. What they are going for is "standard of care." They want to be sure that every patient receives the same quality of care for each and every health care need there is. She said most hospitals are providing this care already. This policy ensures that EVERYBODY is complying. No matter what the patient presents with, there is a set procedure for it, and every doctor, clinic, hospital, etc will have to comply with it. Why? To keep malpractice lawsuit costs down. Yup, the ol' cya.

Now I had questions. "What if a patient refuses a treatment? For instance, when I broke my pelvis last year, I wanted to refuse heparin shots, because I knew I was relatively healthy and wouldn't develop blood clots in my legs while on bed rest. But they said it was hospital policy, and I was in too much pain to fight it." My sister-in-law said, "the patient won't have much say-so. These are proven methods that work for most people, and a good hospital will 'give hip fracture patients heparin shots' in order to protect themselves in case a blood clot does develop. Insurance companies won't cover a hospital or a doctor or a patient if this standard procedure isn't followed. This health care policy protects everybody."

Me again: "Well, what if a doctor wants to try alternatives?"
She: "Why would he want to do that if the medical literature and scientific studies show that there are procedures or pharmaceuticals that are already proven to be effective for a certain condition?"
Me: "What if it's an incurable disease like cancer or what I have, and a doctor wants to try stuff, you know, alternative healthcare?"
She: "Then the patient pays the cost privately."
Me: "So this isn't really about the patient at all."
She: "No, no, no, no! It's about each patient receiving the best, proven to be effective medical care available. It's about standardization nationwide. It's about any doctor in any state being able to pull up a patient's medical history and have it available to him in an instant. It's a very good thing. It will make the healthcare system in America much more streamlined."
Me: "So it's like national standardized tests in the public schools."
She: "Yes- exactly. Just like we would want every child in this country to receive the best education available in this country (hold me back, sisters), we also want each patient to receive the best health care possible."

So my sister-in-law's job is this- the Obama health care policy advisers tell the analysts like my sister-in-law what they want to accomplish. The analysts are supposed to find the science/supporting data to back up the policy. If the science/data isn't there, the analysts tell the advisers, and the advisers go back to the drawing board. They keep doing this until everybody (Pharma, FDA. AMA, etc) is happy enough, and then they present the policy to the President for his final approval.

Are they going to Big Brother this (check your medical files before you can board a plane, etc)? I don't know yet. But a lot of what is in the article above is actually true. It's just a matter of what your personal mindset is as to whether you think this is a good thing or not.

Donna