By Gary Starr for the Neville Awards July 12, 2010
Yes, everyone knows that George Bush recess-appointed John Bolton as U.N. ambassador…after a contentious Senate confirmation hearing.
Obama's choice to head Medicare - the Leftist, socialist free-market hating Dr. Donald Berwick (Harvard) didn't even get a hearing because Sen. Max Baucus, Senate Finance Chairman, knew that a Berwick hearing could not have stood the light of day.
Dr. Berwick is now our Rationer-in-Chief. In a 2008 speech to Britain's National Health Service on the occasion of its 60th Anniversary Berwick said this:
"You could have protected the wealthy and the well, instead of recognizing that sick people tend to be poorer and that poor people tend to be sicker, and that any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized, and humane must - must - redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and less fortunate. Excellent healthcare is by definition redistribution. Britain, you chose well."
"...please don't put your faith in market forces. It is a popular idea: that Adam Smith's invisible hand would do a better job of designing care than leaders with plans can do. I do not agree. I find little evidence anywhere that market forces, bluntly used, that is, just consumer choice among an array of products with competitors' fighting it out, leads to the health care system that you want and need."
"The decision is not whether or not we will ration care - the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open." Berwick said to the National Institutes of Health publication in 2009, when he was just president and CEO of the Institute for Health Care Improvement.
So after eighteen months of Senate and House Democrats denials that Obamacare is really just another Leftist wealth redistribution scheme it turns out that, in the words of Obama's handpicked Medicare czar, Obamacare is actually a wealth redistribution scheme. Who knew?
Dr. Berwick now assumes control of a bureaucracy with a budget larger than the Defense Department and that controls 4% of GDP today, hitting 5.9% by 2020 if the Congressional Budget Office is right (more than likely the estimate is too low).
Berwick waxes poetic about Britain's NHS: "I am romantic about the National Health Service," he told the London audience in 2008, referring to the British single-payer system. "I love it," Dr. Berwick added, going on to call it "such a seductress" and "a global treasure." He routinely points to the NHS as a health-care model for the U.S.
From the Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell:
When Linda O'Boyle was diagnosed with bowel cancer, her doctors told her she could boost her chances of survival by adding the drug cetuximab to her regimen. But the rationing body for Britain's National Health Service, the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), had previously ruled that the drug was not cost-effective and therefore would not be paid for by the government. So O'Boyle liquidated her savings and paid for the drug herself. But this is not allowed under NHS rules. When government bureaucrats found out that O'Boyle had purchased the drug with her own money, she was denied NHS treatment and died within months.
Defenders of Britain's health care rationing system may try to claim that this tragic death is an outlier in an otherwise acceptable government run health care system. They are wrong. It is the point of the system. As socialized medicine and infanticide advocate Peter Singer has argued in The New York Times, the NICE bureaucrats must ration care or else free government health care would bankrupt the British economy. "NICE had set a general limit of £30,000, or about $49,000, on the cost of extending life for a year," Singer writes. Following this logic, Singer supported NICE's decision not to allow British citizens the kidney cancer fighting drug Sutent. As a result of this, and many other rationing decisions Britain, has one of the lowest cancer survival rates in the Western world. While 60.3% of men and 61.7% of women in Sweden survive a cancer diagnosis, in Britain the figure ranges between 40.2% to 48.1% for men and 48% to 54.1% for women. And NICE's rationing has not just hit cancer patients. Doctors have warned that patients with terminal illnesses are being made to die prematurely under the NHS rationing scheme. And according to the Patients Association, one million NHS patients have been the victims of appalling care in hospitals across Britain.
From Investor's Business Daily article The President's One-Man Death Panel:
It is understandable why the administration would want to keep Berwick's views under the radar. He has praised the U.K's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), which he says has "developed very good and very disciplined, scientifically grounded, policy-connected models for the evaluation of medical treatments from which we ought to learn."
Last year, the Orwellian-named NICE unveiled plans to cut annual steroid injections for severe back pain to 3,000 from 60,000. "The consequences of the NICE decision will be devastating for thousands of patients," Jonathan Richardson of Bradford Hospital's Trust told London's Daily Telegraph.
"It will mean," said Dr. Richardson, "more people on opiates, which are addictive and kill 2,000 a year. It will mean more people having spinal surgery, which is incredibly risky and has a 50% failure rate."
And here we thought the first rule of medicine was to do no harm.
If Berwick wants to imitate Britain's model, perhaps he can explain why breast cancer in America has a 25% mortality rate while in Britain it's almost double at 46%.
Prostate cancer is fatal to 19% of American men who get it; in Britain it kills 57% of those it strikes.
Berwick is tasked with finding ways to reduce the growth of Medicare from its average rate of 4% over the last two decades to the ObamaCare mandate of 2%, in order to find enough money to fund the new entitlement. This can only be done through rationing care to the very young and the very old….the implementation of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel's (Rahm Emanuel's brother who is Obama's Chief of Staff) 'Complete Lives' system that places a value on one's contribution to society.
The White House agrees: "The fact is, rationing is rampant in the system today, as insurers make arbitrary decisions about who can get the care they need. Don Berwick wants to see a system in which those decisions are transparent-and that the people who make them are held accountable."
The people who write this lunacy believe there is no difference between rationing through individual choices and price signals and rationing through politics and bureaucracy. In his 1996 book "New Rules," Dr. Berwick argued that one of "the primary functions" of health regulation is "to constrain decentralized, individual decision making" and "to weigh public welfare against the choices of private consumers."
Berwick is Marx and Mengele all rolled into one insane package.
Berwick calls for "protocols, guidelines, and algorithms for care," with the "common underlying notion that someone knows or can discover the 'best way' to carry out a task to reach a decision, and that improvement can come from standardizing processes and behaviors to conform to this ideal model."
And guess who will determine the "best way"?
It will be the little technocrats that get embedded into the medical system. Dr. Berwick, in his bureaucratic wisdom, will look for "savings." It will also be a system where the "public welfare" will have the power to trump the mere "choices of private consumers."
Even Max Baucus, the Senate Finance Chairman, issued a statement critical of this end-around, but he lied about the reason. Baucus claimed Republicans were stalling the appointment "for political purposes," even they don't have the numbers to stall anything. Mr. Baucus never scheduled hearings and the nomination paperwork wasn't even finished 11 weeks after he was named.
After the Summer of Healthcare Townhalls the last thing most Democrats want now is another ObamaCare controversy. The White House wanted to dodge a public debate and a contentious Senate hearing on Dr. Berwick. He's a too obvious reminder of the price controls and care restrictions that are inevitable with ObamaCare.
Read the Berwick's 2008 text here:
Dr. Donald Berwick: Here, in the NHS, you have historically put primary care - general practice - where it belongs: at the forefront. The NHS is a bridge, it's a towering bridge, between the rhetoric of justice, and the fact of justice. No one in their right mind could expect that to be easy. …
Here, in England, accountability for the NHS is ultimately clear. Ultimately, the buck stops in the voting booth. You place the politicians between the public served and the people serving them. That is why Tony Blair commissioned new investment and modernization in the NHS soon after he took office, it is why the government has repeatedly modified policies in the search for traction, it is why your government now chartered the report by Lord Darzi. Government action in the NHS is not mere restlessness or meddling or recreation; it is accountability at work through the maddening, majestic machinery of politics.
In the United States, we fund health care through hundreds of insurance companies. Any American doctor or hospital interacts with a zoo of payment streams. Administrative costs for that zoo approach 20% of our total health care bill, that's at least three times as much as in England, maybe more.
In the United States, these hundreds of insurance companies have a strong interest in not selling health insurance to people who are likely to need health care. Our insurance companies try to predict who will need care, and then to find ways to exclude them from coverage through underwriting and selective marketing. That increases their profits. Here, you know that that is not just crazy; it is immoral.
So, you could have had a simpler, less ambitious, less troubled plan than the NHS. You could have had the American plan. You could have been spending 17% of your GDP to make health care unaffordable as a human right instead of spending 9% and guaranteeing it as a human right. You could have kept your system in fragments and encouraged supply-driven demand, instead of making tough choices and planning supply. You could have made hospitals and specialists, not general practice, your mainstay.
You could have obscured - you could have obliterated - accountability, or left it to the invisible hand of the market, instead of holding your politicians ultimately accountable for getting the NHS sorted. You could have let an unaccountable system play out in the darkness of private enterprise instead of accepting that a politically accountable system must act in the harsh and, admittedly, sometimes very unfair, daylight of the press, public debate, and political campaigning. You could have a monstrous insurance industry of claims, and rules, and paper-pushing, instead of using your tax base to provide a single route of finance.
You could have protected the wealthy and the well, instead of recognizing that sick people tend to be poorer and that poor people tend to be sicker, and that any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized, and humane must - must - redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and less fortunate.Excellent healthcare is by definition redistribution. Britain, you chose well. …
Is the NHS perfect? Far from it, far from it. I know that as well as anyone in this room. From the front line to Whitehall, I have had the privilege to observe its performance and even to help to measure its performance. The large scale facts are most recently summarized in the magisterial report by Sheila Leatherman and Kim Sutherland sponsored by The Nuffield Trust, the report called The Quest for Quality: Refining the NHS Reforms. They find some good news. For example, after ten years of reinvestment and redesign, the NHS has more evidence-based care, lower mortality rates for some major disease groups (especially cardiovascular diseases), you have lower waiting times for hospital, outpatient, and cancer care now, more staff and technologies are available, you have in many places better community-based mental health care, and you are starting to see falling rates of hospital infection.
Important, large scale patient safety campaigns have begun here in England, as well as in your cousins in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. There is less progress in some areas, especially by comparison with other European systems, such as in specialty access, in cancer outcomes, in patient-centeredness, in life expectancy and infant mortality for socially deprived populations. In other words, in improving its quality, two facts are true: the NHS is en route, and the NHS has a lot more work ahead.
So how can you do even better? I have ten suggestions:
First, put the patient at the center - put the patient at the center of your system of care. Put the patient at the center for everything you do. …
Second, stop restructuring. In good faith, in good faith and with very sound logic, the leaders of the NHS and the government have sorted and resorted local, regional, and national structures into a continual parade of new aggregates and new agencies. Every single change makes sense, but the parade doesn't make sense. It drains energy and confidence from the workforce and the middle managers, who learn not to take risks, but rather to hold their breaths and to wait for the next change. It is, I think, time to stop. No structure in a complex management system is ever perfect. Every structure brings with it both good news and bad. There comes a time, and the time has come, for stability, on the basis of which, paradoxically, productive change becomes easier and faster, as the good, smart, committed people of the NHS - the wonderful one million people - find the confidence to try improvements without fearing the next earthquake.
Third, strengthen the local health care system - community care systems - as a whole. What you call "health economies" should become the core of design: the core of leadership, management, inter-professional coordination, and goals for the service. This is the natural unit of action for the Service, but it is yet unrealized as a unit of action. … I personally believe that the NHS has gone too far in the past decade toward optimizing hospital care - which is a fragment - and has not yet optimized the processes of care for communities. You can do that. I think it is your destiny to do that.
Fourth, to help do that, reinvest in general practice and primary care. These, not hospital care, are the soul of a proper, community-oriented, health-preserving care system. General practice, not hospitals, is the jewel in the crown of the NHS. It always has been. You must save it. And you must build it.
Fifth, please don't put your faith in market forces. It is a popular idea: that Adam Smith's invisible hand would do a better job of designing care than leaders with plans can do. I do not agree. I find little evidence anywhere that market forces, bluntly used, that is, just consumer choice among an array of products with competitors' fighting it out, leads to the health care system that you want and need. …
Sixth, avoid supply-driven care like the plague. Unfettered growth and pursuit of institutional self-interest has been the engine of low value in the United States' health care system. It has made it unaffordable, and it has not helped patients at all.
Seventh, develop an integrated approach to the assessment, assurance, and improvement of quality. This is a major recommendation of Leatherman and Sutherland's report, and I totally concur. England now has many governmental and quasi-governmental organizations concerned with assessing, assuring, and improving the performance of the NHS. But they don't work well or seamlessly with each other. …
Eighth, please heal the divide among the professions, the managers, and the government. Since at the least the mid-1980's, a rift developed that has not yet healed between the professions of medicine formally organized and the reform projects of government and the executive. I assume there is plenty of blame to go around on this, I assume that the rift grew despite the best efforts of many leaders on both sides. But, the toll has been very heavy: resistance, divided leadership, demoralization, confusion, frustration, excess economic costs, and occasionally technical mistakes in the design of care. The NHS and the people it serves can ill afford another decade of misunderstanding. …
Ninth, train your health care workforce for the future, not for the past. That workforce will need to master a whole new set of skills relevant to the leadership of and the citizen in, the citizenship in the improvement of your health care as a system - patient safety - crucial, continual improvement, teamwork, measurement, patient-centeredness, and so on, to name but a few. …
Tenth, and finally, aim for health. I suppose your forebears could have called it the NHCS, the "National Health Care Service," but they did not. They called it the "National Health Service." Maybe they meant it. Maybe they meant to create an enterprise whose purpose was not care, but health. Maybe they knew then, as we surely know now, even before Sir Douglas Black and Sir Derek Wanless and Sir Michael Marmot, that great health care, technically delimited, cannot alone produce great health. …
The only thing that exceeds my admiration for the NHS is my hope for the NHS. I hope that you will never, never give up on what you have begun. I hope that you realize and reaffirm how badly you need, how badly the world needs, an example at scale of a health system that is universal, accessible, excellent, and free at the point of care - a health system that is, at its core, like the world that we wish we had: generous, hopeful, confident, joyous, and just. Happy birthday!