| The Sinning Senator's at it again ... lying to the voters of Louisiana. He released a web-only campaign ad that claims that Congressman Charlie Melancon voted for the Democrats' health care reform bill in his committee.
The truth, however, is different. Charlie voted against the bill in committee (.pdf alert), stating that he was concerned about the costs of the bill, as well as the lack of a prohibition on federal funds being used to pay for abortions under the public health care plan.
Now let's look at the two amendments, yeah, that's right, AMENDMENTS, that Charlie voted against in committee:
Amendment #1 to HR 3200
Rep. Mike Rogers, a Republican from Michigan, who has received over $817,000 in campaign donations from the health sector over his career, introduced an amendment (.pdf alert) that would prevent the federal government from using comparative effectiveness research "to deny or ration care." But the way Rep. Rogers' amendment was written would have prevented the federal government from using comparative effectiveness research at all ... which would be the goal of an industry-bought shill, particularly when comparative effectiveness research has been used to advance high quality patient care.
For example, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) relied on results from the National Emphysema Treatment Trial -- comparing lung volume research surgery (LVRS) to medical therapy - in issuing a decision to restrict coverage of the surgery. The study found that LVRS did not improve survival, but did increase the chance of improved exercise capacity, and increased the risk of death and complications for many patients. As a result, CMS limited coverage to patients who were likely to realize a benefit from it and were not at high risk of death. The use of such evidence in this instance was pro-patient by ensuring that patients have access to an equally effective treatment without the risk of increased complications.
The Democrats already have an amendment ready to roll on this issue that would allow comparative effectiveness research, but would also safeguard patient care. It's the Christensen-Inslee-Upton-Walden amendment, and it will do the following:
- Creates an independent Institute to oversee the research program so it is separate from the government's cost-control agenda and insulated from undue political influence;
- Ensures appropriate communication and use of results by requiring the research Institute to recognize differences in patients (including differences based on race, ethnicity and gender), separating the research Institute from policy decision-makers, and protecting the ability of physicians to tailor their use of the CER results to the needs of individual patients;
- Promotes a focus on patient and provider information needs by focusing on patient health outcomes rather that cost-effectiveness analysis;
- Includes explicit requirements for openness and transparency throughout the research process.
I've been told that it will be considered in the Committee once Congress returns from the recess. It is also my understanding that Charlie supports this amendment, but I will check to make sure he votes for it once it is considered by the Committee in the fall.
Amendment # 14A-001 to HR 3200
Rep. Phil Gingery, another Republican from Georgia, who has received over $2,000,000 in campaign donations from the health sector over his career, introduced an amendment that says no federal employee or political appointee can dictate how a medical provider practices medicine.
This is clearly a messaging amendment ... in other words, it serves no purpose other than to be put in an ad for GOP elected officials to hit the Democrats with.
However, this amendment is clearly unnecessary ... as there were many amendments that passed by voice vote, which means that the entire committee voted to let it pass, including Charlie himself. One of those amendments was introduced by Rep. Gingrey, (.pdf alert) and it states:
In conducting its duties under this subsection, the Center for Quality improvement shall not develop quality-adjusted life year measures or any other methodologies that can be used to deny benefits to a beneficiary against the beneficiary's wishes on the basis of the beneficiary's age, life expectancy, present or predicted disability, or expected quality of life.
Hmmm ... sounds like they can't tell a medical provider how to practice medicine, no?
I wonder when the Sinning Senator will be truthful to the voters of Louisiana. It seems apparent that his relationship with the truth has never been good. |
