[From the DNC]
Tom Coburn should be ashamed of this brand of irresponsible fear-mongering that simply puts him in the same league as some of the most radical, right-wing fringe elements of the Republican Party. Clearly, the AARP wouldn't endorse any plan that would have seniors 'die sooner' as Senator Coburn irresponsibly claims.
The bill before the Senate, and the one passed by the House, eliminates wasteful subsidies to insurance companies and overpayments to other providers. It reduces the size of the prescription drug donut hole and doesn't cut one dime of benefits for seniors on Medicare - it strengthens Medicare for the long haul. There is no place in this debate for the type of lies being spread by the likes of Tom Coburn. Please see below for a fact check on Coburn's irresponsible and utterly false claims:
RHETORIC: Coburn Said The Senate Health Care Plan Would Take Money From Medicare And Tell Seniors: "You're Going To Die Sooner." Sen. Tom Coburn: "$5 trillion more under government control which will raise costs ultimately in the health care sector. And if it doesn't raise costs and we're truly going to take this money from Medicare, what it's going to do to our seniors, I have a message for you: 'You're going to die sooner.' And they're going to go, 'that isn't true. That isn't true.'" [Senate Floor, 12/1/09]
RHETORIC: Coburn Said The Medicare Advisory Commission, Using Comparative Effectiveness Research, Would Tell Doctors What "They Can And Cannot Do." Sen. Tom Coburn: "When you restrict the ability of the primary care-givers in this country to do what is best for their senior patients, what you are doing is limiting their life expectancy. The Medicare Advisory Commission and the cost effectiveness comparative-ness panel will tell the doctors what they can and cannot do, ignoring the 20% of the people that that is exactly the wrong prescription for." [Senate Floor, 12/1/09]
REALITY: COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH WON’T LEAD TO RATIONING OR ISSUING OF GUIDELINES ON CARE
FactCheck.org: The Claim That Funding Comparative Studies Is A "Critical Step Toward Rationing" Is Wrong; Comparative Effectiveness Research Is Forbidden From Issuing Restrictions Or Even Guidelines On Care. "To be sure, the cost factor prompts critics to say the research will lead to the government, or perhaps insurance companies, denying certain medical procedures based on cost alone. Proponents say such research provides valuable information to the public and physicians on which procedures work best and whether more costly treatments are actually more effective. Patients United Now, a 501(c)3 project of Americans for Prosperity Foundation, says in its back-up that funding comparative studies is 'a critical step toward rationing,' but ARRA specifically forbids the council coordinating such research from issuing any restrictions or even guidelines on care." [FactCheck.org, 8/10/09]
PhRMA Treasurer And Johnson & Johnson Executive: Comparative Effectiveness Research Does Not Limit Treatment Options For Patients. Discussing the $1.1 billion available for comparative effectiveness research through stimulus funds, the Wall Street Journal Health Blog wrote, “comparative effectiveness is different than cost effectiveness, said PhRMA treasurer and J&J executive David Norton. Cost effectiveness puts a ceiling on price, which can limit the treatment options for patients...Focusing not on cost but on which drugs, medical devices and hospital services are the most effective is the key to comparative effectiveness, according to Norton.” [Wall Street Journal Health Blog, 4/6/09]
Sen. Grassley: I Share Concerns Of Rationing And Government Interference, “But I Also Think That Comparative Effectiveness Research If Done Properly Can Be A Very Valuable Tool In Helping Promote Higher Quality Care.” Sen. Grassley said during the second day of Senate Finance Committee markup: “the chairman's mark creates a new patient-centered outcome research institute to conduct comparative effectiveness research. And no, I’m not going to raise cane about comparative effectiveness research. There's some aspects of it very good. You know, we have heard a lot of concern about this time of research. Maybe resulting in rationing or government bureaucrats getting between you and your doctor. Even though I share those concerns, that's not my interest in this amendment. But I also think that comparative effectiveness research if done properly can be a very valuable tool in helping promote higher quality care. I think the concerns about comparative effectiveness exists because the government is too involved in the research. So, this has benefits beyond just what I’m trying to do here with the governance of the project. What this kind of research should be about is about patients, doctors, academics, and researchers. Not people in government. So I want to create a clear line between the federal government and this research. So my amendment would prohibit any cabinet secretaries or other government officials from serving on the board of the patient-centered outcome research institute. as many of my colleagues know, I’ve done extensive oversight of charitable organizations over the last eight years. And that is included reviewing governance of these organizations.” [Sen. Grassley, Senate Finance Committee markup of America’s Healthy Futures Act of 2009, 9/23/09]
Bush Health Care Appointee Defended Comparative Effectiveness Research: The Purpose “Is To Give Clinicians And Patients Information They Need To Make Decisions.” The Wall Street Journal reported on fears of comparative effectiveness research potentially denying access to care, and quoted Carolyn Clancy, the director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush: “‘the overarching purpose of the program is to give clinicians and patients information they need to make decisions.’ That could include, she said, information on effectiveness, safety and costs.” [Wall Street Journal, 4/15/09]
AMA President: “The AMA Supports Comparative Effectiveness Research As A Way To Provide Physicians With Information On Which Treatment Works Best.” Nancy Nielsen, president of the American Medical Association wrote in the National Journal Online: “The AMA supports comparative effectiveness research (CER) as a way to provide physicians with information on which treatment works best.” [National Journal, 4/21/09]
REALITY: MEDICARE SAVINGS DO NOT CUT BENEFITS, THEY STRENGTHEN MEDICARE
FactCheck.org: “We Never Have Said That Seniors Would Suffer ‘Massive Cuts To Medicare Benefits’ Under [Health Reform Legislation], And In Fact Have Done Our Best To Debunk [Those] Claims.” FactCheck.org wrote: “We never have said that seniors would suffer ‘massive cuts to Medicare benefits’ under the pending House or Senate overhaul bills, and in fact have done our best to debunk claims to that effect.” [FactCheck.org, 11/3/09]
AARP Applauded The Senate For Bill: “Makes Progress Towards Achieving Meaningful Relief For Millions Of Older Americans…Makes Improvements To The Medicare Program.” AARP said in a press release: “We applaud the Senate for merging the Finance and Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committees’ bills and taking another important step toward fixing what’s wrong with our health care system. Under the leadership of Majority Leader Reid and Senators Baucus, Harkin and Dodd, the legislation announced today makes progress toward achieving meaningful relief for millions of older Americans who still face challenges accessing affordable, quality health care services. The new Senate bill makes improvements to the Medicare program by creating a new annual wellness benefit, providing free preventive benefits, and—most notably for AARP members—reducing drug costs for seniors who fall into the dreaded Medicare doughnut hole, a costly gap in prescription drug coverage.” [AARP, 11/18/09]
AARP Warned Seniors Against “Myths and Scare Tactics” In Health Reform Debate, Said “None Of The Health Care Reform Proposals Being Considered By Congress Would Cut Medicare Benefits.” AARP wrote in a myth-vs.-fact health reform website that, “There are special interest groups trying to block progress on health care reform by using myths and scare tactics. Like the notion that health care reform would ration your care, hurt Medicare or be a government takeover. Actually, these are false statements.” AARP concluded about the Medicare claim that, “[n]one of the health care reform proposals being considered by Congress would cut Medicare benefits or increase your out-of-pocket costs for Medicare services.” [AARP, Myths Vs. Facts]
Posted on
Friday, December 4, 2009
by Karina Henderson
filed under