Just don't call them "Death Panels"

[ConservativeDad]

Wonder how SCOTUS would feel about this if it applied to them?

Although media reports covering ObamaCare have centered mainly on the health insurance mandate and hidden tax increases, the real danger of ObamaCare lies in the official sanction of "mercy death" for America's seniors as a means of reducing federal medical outlays. No, ObamaCare doesn't say this outright. It simply limits hospital readmissions for those using Medicare, thereafter automatically committing said Medicare recipients to hospice facilities, called "community-based care." Consider the following from Section 3025:

IN GENERAL.-With respect to payment for discharges from an applicable hospital (as defined in paragraph (5)(C)) occurring during a fiscal year beginning on or after October
1, 2012, in order to account for excess readmissions in the hospital, the Secretary shall reduce the payments that would otherwise be made to such hospital....

ObamaCare defines "readmission" as

... the case of an individual who is discharged from an applicable hospital, the admission of the individual to the same or another applicable hospital within a time period specified by the Secretary from the date of such discharge.

In essence, this ominous provision caps hospital visits, the reason being irrelevant. Government bureaucrats will now decide when patients have seen the doctor enough. Such a proposition is ludicrous, not to mention impossible to quantify.

Nevertheless, when patients reach their maximum number of readmissions, they are to be placed in the "community-based care transitions program," under the direct control of the Health Secretary:

IN GENERAL.-The Secretary shall establish a Community-Based Care Transitions Program under which the Secretary provides funding to eligible entities that furnish improved care transition services to high-risk Medicare beneficiaries...

HIGH-RISK MEDICARE BENEFICIARY.-The term ‘‘high-risk Medicare beneficiary'' means a Medicare beneficiary who has attained a minimum hierarchical condition category score, as determined by the Secretary, based on a diagnosis of multiple chronic conditions or other risk factors associated with a hospital readmission or substandard transition into post-hospitalization care, which may include 1 or more of the following:

(A) Cognitive impairment.

(B) Depression.

(C) A history of multiple readmissions.

(D) Any other chronic disease or risk factor as determined by the Secretary.

To clarify, the above provision gives the Health Secretary the discretion to remove life-extending treatment from the reach of seniors and place them in state wards for the purposes of making the "transition" to death as painless as possible. This "transition" can be activated for virtually any reason, including "a history of multiple readmissions" or "risk factor." Both of these qualifiers describe more than half the country, making this provision a transparent attempt by government to cut costs by forcibly cutting lives short.

Link

 

[xotoxi]

Wonder how SCOTUS would feel about this if it applied to them?

Although media reports covering ObamaCare have centered mainly on the health insurance mandate and hidden tax increases, the real danger of ObamaCare lies in the official sanction of "mercy death" for America's seniors as a means of reducing federal medical outlays. No, ObamaCare doesn't say this outright. It simply limits hospital readmissions for those using Medicare, thereafter automatically committing said Medicare recipients to hospice facilities, called "community-based care." Consider the following from Section 3025:

IN GENERAL.-With respect to payment for discharges from an applicable hospital (as defined in paragraph (5)(C)) occurring during a fiscal year beginning on or after October
1, 2012, in order to account for excess readmissions in the hospital, the Secretary shall reduce the payments that would otherwise be made to such hospital....

ObamaCare defines "readmission" as



In essence, this ominous provision caps hospital visits, the reason being irrelevant. Government bureaucrats will now decide when patients have seen the doctor enough. Such a proposition is ludicrous, not to mention impossible to quantify.

Nevertheless, when patients reach their maximum number of readmissions, they are to be placed in the "community-based care transitions program," under the direct control of the Health Secretary:

IN GENERAL.-The Secretary shall establish a Community-Based Care Transitions Program under which the Secretary provides funding to eligible entities that furnish improved care transition services to high-risk Medicare beneficiaries...

HIGH-RISK MEDICARE BENEFICIARY.-The term ‘‘high-risk Medicare beneficiary'' means a Medicare beneficiary who has attained a minimum hierarchical condition category score, as determined by the Secretary, based on a diagnosis of multiple chronic conditions or other risk factors associated with a hospital readmission or substandard transition into post-hospitalization care, which may include 1 or more of the following:

(A) Cognitive impairment.

(B) Depression.

(C) A history of multiple readmissions.

(D) Any other chronic disease or risk factor as determined by the Secretary.

To clarify, the above provision gives the Health Secretary the discretion to remove life-extending treatment from the reach of seniors and place them in state wards for the purposes of making the "transition" to death as painless as possible. This "transition" can be activated for virtually any reason, including "a history of multiple readmissions" or "risk factor." Both of these qualifiers describe more than half the country, making this provision a transparent attempt by government to cut costs by forcibly cutting lives short.

Link

You are clearly not very knowledgable.

Hospitals not being paid for readmissions exists currently. It is a quality measure, which encourages hospitals to not discharge someone too early and make sure that when they are discharged, they remain healthy and out of the hospital.

Hospitals are paid by DRG, or Diagnosis Related Group. Which means that a hospital will receive a chunk of money for each admitted patient based on their diagnosis and their severity. Therefore, the hospital is paid the same whether the patient stays for 2 days or 10 days.

Clearly, it behooves the hospital to discharge as quickly as possible, but to protect against inappropriately early discharges, they hospitals are dinged for readmissions.

Make sense?

 

[Madeline]

I don't see where this regulation is directed at seniors. I also think medical reimbursement is so complex that lifting one section out of context will invariably lead to misunderstandings.

But having said all that, I favor death panels. People live too long in too sickly a condition. Extraordinary care for the very aged is not what most Americans want for themselves; it should not be foisted on them against their will.

 

[Luissa]

I don't see where this regulation is directed at seniors. I also think medical reimbursement is so complex that lifting one section out of context will invariably lead to misunderstandings.

But having said all that, I favor death panels. People live too long in too sickly a condition. Extraordinary care for the very aged is not what most Americans want for themselves; it should not be foisted on them against their will.

I think family members need to be informed exactly what will happen to their loved on. I saw way too many people with dementia receive care that they didn't need, or that made their condition worse. They should still have the final decision, but they should be more informed.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

My Dad, a Veteran and according to Obama a "right wing extremist" has a "history of multiple readmissions" he's probably what Obama's Eugenicists have in mind as a person who has exhausted his "useful life years"

 

[ConservativeDad]

You are clearly not very knowledgable.

Hospitals not being paid for readmissions exists currently. It is a quality measure, which encourages hospitals to not discharge someone too early and make sure that when they are discharged, they remain healthy and out of the hospital.

Hospitals are paid by DRG, or Diagnosis Related Group. Which means that a hospital will receive a chunk of money for each admitted patient based on their diagnosis and their severity. Therefore, the hospital is paid the same whether the patient stays for 2 days or 10 days.

Clearly, it behooves the hospital to discharge as quickly as possible, but to protect against inappropriately early discharges, they hospitals are dinged for readmissions.

Make sense?

And you are clearly full of shit.

DRG's are used to cap Medicare payments. Show me where they allow goverment bureaucrats to decide if you are even allowed to go into the hospital.

It's OK. It must be hard to see clearly with your head so far up your ass

 

[G.T.]

Where does it say they aren't allowed to be readmitted, all I see the disallowance referencing is payment. This encourages the Hospital to do a better job, because they CANT REFUSE the readmittance and thus would NOT GET PAID FOR IT.

Readmissions aren't being limited to the person(s) with the illness.

 

[G.T.]

And it doesn't even say "not pay," it says "reduce the payments." Sheesh.

 

[WillowTree]

obie wan can tell you libturds all day long there won't be rationing of care for senior which is equal to death panels, and you can believe him all day long cause you are stupid like that.. but he did steal 960 Billion dollars from Seniors and they are the people who need medical care the most. so he did in fact secure the death of millions of seniors. obie wan lied old people died.

 

[Luissa]

You guys are fucking clueless. Xotoxi proved the OP was full of shit, lets move on.

 

[Luissa]

provides funding to eligible entities that furnish improved care transition services to high-risk Medicare beneficiaries...

This sums it up. And like I said Xotoxi explained what it meant, Conservative Dad has no clue what he is talking about.

 

[WillowTree]

You guys are fucking clueless. Xotoxi proved the OP was full of shit, lets move on.

you move on. you little libturd you.

 

[WillowTree]

Wonder how SCOTUS would feel about this if it applied to them?

Although media reports covering ObamaCare have centered mainly on the health insurance mandate and hidden tax increases, the real danger of ObamaCare lies in the official sanction of "mercy death" for America's seniors as a means of reducing federal medical outlays. No, ObamaCare doesn't say this outright. It simply limits hospital readmissions for those using Medicare, thereafter automatically committing said Medicare recipients to hospice facilities, called "community-based care." Consider the following from Section 3025:

ObamaCare defines "readmission" as



In essence, this ominous provision caps hospital visits, the reason being irrelevant. Government bureaucrats will now decide when patients have seen the doctor enough. Such a proposition is ludicrous, not to mention impossible to quantify.

Nevertheless, when patients reach their maximum number of readmissions, they are to be placed in the "community-based care transitions program," under the direct control of the Health Secretary:
To clarify, the above provision gives the Health Secretary the discretion to remove life-extending treatment from the reach of seniors and place them in state wards for the purposes of making the "transition" to death as painless as possible. This "transition" can be activated for virtually any reason, including "a history of multiple readmissions" or "risk factor." Both of these qualifiers describe more than half the country, making this provision a transparent attempt by government to cut costs by forcibly cutting lives short.

Link

You are clearly not very knowledgable.

Hospitals not being paid for readmissions exists currently. It is a quality measure, which encourages hospitals to not discharge someone too early and make sure that when they are discharged, they remain healthy and out of the hospital.

Hospitals are paid by DRG, or Diagnosis Related Group. Which means that a hospital will receive a chunk of money for each admitted patient based on their diagnosis and their severity. Therefore, the hospital is paid the same whether the patient stays for 2 days or 10 days.

Clearly, it behooves the hospital to discharge as quickly as possible, but to protect against inappropriately early discharges, they hospitals are dinged for readmissions.

Make sense?

NO it doesen't make sense. DRG's pay a set amount for each diagnosis. Same ten grand is paid for appendicitis no matter if the patient is aged ten or seventy. Now who is expected to recover within the set time? Yes, the ten year old. Now if the seventy year old makes the recovery within the set time fine and dandy, if he doesn't the hospital eats the cost. Not so fine and dandy.

 

[Luissa]

I am so sick of that damn cat.

 

[RDD_1210]

You guys are fucking clueless. Xotoxi proved the OP was full of shit, lets move on.

you move on. you little libturd you.

When all else fails, use an insult.

 

[xotoxi]

Wonder how SCOTUS would feel about this if it applied to them?

Link

You are clearly not very knowledgable.

Hospitals not being paid for readmissions exists currently. It is a quality measure, which encourages hospitals to not discharge someone too early and make sure that when they are discharged, they remain healthy and out of the hospital.

Hospitals are paid by DRG, or Diagnosis Related Group. Which means that a hospital will receive a chunk of money for each admitted patient based on their diagnosis and their severity. Therefore, the hospital is paid the same whether the patient stays for 2 days or 10 days.

Clearly, it behooves the hospital to discharge as quickly as possible, but to protect against inappropriately early discharges, they hospitals are dinged for readmissions.

Make sense?

NO it doesen't make sense. DRG's pay a set amount for each diagnosis. Same ten grand is paid for appendicitis no matter if the patient is aged ten or seventy. Now who is expected to recover within the set time? Yes, the ten year old. Now if the seventy year old makes the recovery within the set time fine and dandy, if he doesn't the hospital eats the cost. Not so fine and dandy.

DRGs take into consideration the condition/diagnosis AS WELL AS the severity of the patient.

If there is a seventy year old who is as healthy and spry as a ten year old, then they would be paid the same.

Otherwise, the seventy year old with an appendectomy would likely be paid more because of comorbities.

The hospital will not only get paid for the appendectomy, but also for monitoring and treating their diabetes, their COPD, their HTN, their angina...as long as all of those things are documented in the initial admission note.

 

[xotoxi]

Where does it say they aren't allowed to be readmitted, all I see the disallowance referencing is payment. This encourages the Hospital to do a better job, because they CANT REFUSE the readmittance and thus would NOT GET PAID FOR IT.

Readmissions aren't being limited to the person(s) with the illness.

True. The hospital is required BY FEDERAL LAW to admit the patient if an admission is necessary (i.e., the hospital cannot refuse admission).

So, if people truly want to take Federal Law out of healthcare, then hospitals will be able to pick and choose who they will see and who they will treat.

Let capitalism reign!!! Let hospitals make a choice!

 

[WillowTree]

You are clearly not very knowledgable.

Hospitals not being paid for readmissions exists currently. It is a quality measure, which encourages hospitals to not discharge someone too early and make sure that when they are discharged, they remain healthy and out of the hospital.

Hospitals are paid by DRG, or Diagnosis Related Group. Which means that a hospital will receive a chunk of money for each admitted patient based on their diagnosis and their severity. Therefore, the hospital is paid the same whether the patient stays for 2 days or 10 days.

Clearly, it behooves the hospital to discharge as quickly as possible, but to protect against inappropriately early discharges, they hospitals are dinged for readmissions.

Make sense?

NO it doesen't make sense. DRG's pay a set amount for each diagnosis. Same ten grand is paid for appendicitis no matter if the patient is aged ten or seventy. Now who is expected to recover within the set time? Yes, the ten year old. Now if the seventy year old makes the recovery within the set time fine and dandy, if he doesn't the hospital eats the cost. Not so fine and dandy.

DRGs take into consideration the condition/diagnosis AS WELL AS the severity of the patient.

If there is a seventy year old who is as healthy and spry as a ten year old, then they would be paid the same.

Otherwise, the seventy year old with an appendectomy would likely be paid more because of comorbities.

The hospital will not only get paid for the appendectomy, but also for monitoring and treating their diabetes, their COPD, their HTN, their angina...as long as all of those things are documented in the initial admission note.

What a crock of shit.

 

[ConservativeDad]

Where does it say they aren't allowed to be readmitted, all I see the disallowance referencing is payment. This encourages the Hospital to do a better job, because they CANT REFUSE the readmittance and thus would NOT GET PAID FOR IT.

Readmissions aren't being limited to the person(s) with the illness.

Now have someone read sec 3026 to you. This allows for the patient filling any of these conditions

(A) Cognitive impairment.

(B) Depression.

(C) A history of multiple readmissions.

(D) Any other chronic disease or risk factor as determined by the Secretary.

to be shunted off to "transition" care instead of being readmitted to hospital care. What do you suppose people who fit in one or more of those categories might be "transitioning" to?

 

[xotoxi]

NO it doesen't make sense. DRG's pay a set amount for each diagnosis. Same ten grand is paid for appendicitis no matter if the patient is aged ten or seventy. Now who is expected to recover within the set time? Yes, the ten year old. Now if the seventy year old makes the recovery within the set time fine and dandy, if he doesn't the hospital eats the cost. Not so fine and dandy.

DRGs take into consideration the condition/diagnosis AS WELL AS the severity of the patient.

If there is a seventy year old who is as healthy and spry as a ten year old, then they would be paid the same.

Otherwise, the seventy year old with an appendectomy would likely be paid more because of comorbities.

The hospital will not only get paid for the appendectomy, but also for monitoring and treating their diabetes, their COPD, their HTN, their angina...as long as all of those things are documented in the initial admission note.

What a crock of shit.

That's the way it is.