Doctors see benefit in end-of-life controversy

[VaYank5150]

Doctors see benefit in end-of-life controversy - Health care- msnbc.com

<Del will be so proud>

The paragraphs, buried deep in the 1,000-page House health reform bill, appear innocuous, but they have ignited a firestorm among critics predicting government-sponsored euthanasia.

The controversy, over proposed Medicare funding of end-of-life counseling, has come to epitomize some of people’s deepest fears about the government’s role in health care.

Yet physicians who work with patients on end-of-life planning say that while they are surprised and upset about criticism of the proposal, it has brought needed attention to what they view as a long under-funded and overlooked service. Jon Radulovic, vice president for communications at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, says the debate dispute “is providing the end-of-life care community with an opportunity to talk about what good care is and the services that are available.”

So, the GOP protesters (Sarah Palin, Grassley) think they know better than the doctors? Isn't that precisely what so many people find wrong with the insurance companies?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Doctors see benefit in end-of-life controversy - Health care- msnbc.com

<Del will be so proud>

The paragraphs, buried deep in the 1,000-page House health reform bill, appear innocuous, but they have ignited a firestorm among critics predicting government-sponsored euthanasia.

The controversy, over proposed Medicare funding of end-of-life counseling, has come to epitomize some of people’s deepest fears about the government’s role in health care.

Yet physicians who work with patients on end-of-life planning say that while they are surprised and upset about criticism of the proposal, it has brought needed attention to what they view as a long under-funded and overlooked service. Jon Radulovic, vice president for communications at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, says the debate dispute “is providing the end-of-life care community with an opportunity to talk about what good care is and the services that are available.”

So, the GOP protesters (Sarah Palin, Grassley) think they know better than the doctors? Isn't that precisely what so many people find wrong with the insurance companies?

And don't these folks CLAIM to want government out of the process so families and doctors can make those choices together?

Darn - that's just what they've got in this bill.

So what are they whining about again?

 

[VaYank5150]

So what are they whining about again?

I honestly don't have a clue. This portion of the legislation would have allowed people to have more choices.....why is that a bad thing to the GOP?

 

[Xenophon]

Isn't there a provision that Doctors will be paid extra for giving this council?

 

[VaYank5150]

Isn't there a provision that Doctors will be paid extra for giving this council?

Not at all. It simply states that this new healthcare platform will pay for a session once every 5 years.

 

[Immanuel]

And don't these folks CLAIM to want government out of the process so families and doctors can make those choices together?

Darn - that's just what they've got in this bill.

So what are they whining about again?

When you think about it, it is funny how the arguments have changed sides here.

For decades liberals have screamed that the government should stay out of their bodies/womb/bedrooms. Now, they are begging for the government to take control of their health care. During those same decades conservatives have been demanding that the government do something to stop a woman's so-called right to kill her baby and now they are demanding that the government get out of our life choices. /shrug

Go figure!

Immie

 

[Xenophon]

No, it says that they will be paid extra for giving this.

Don't recall exactly where i saw it, but I did see it.

Which leads me to the conclusion that of course they like it, it means more money for them.

 

[Immanuel]

No, it says that they will be paid extra for giving this.

Don't recall exactly where i saw it, but I did see it.

Which leads me to the conclusion that of course they like it, it means more money for them.

And when their fees are slashed by government bean counters they will be needing every dime they can get.

Immie

 

[Zoom-boing]

This is all a moot point anyway. They killed the provision.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No, it says that they will be paid extra for giving this.

Don't recall exactly where i saw it, but I did see it.

Which leads me to the conclusion that of course they like it, it means more money for them.

Wherever you saw it, they were lying to you. Read the bill, its fairly clear.

Moot point anyway, since it's been taken out of the most recent update of the bill.

 

[VaYank5150]

No, it says that they will be paid extra for giving this.

Don't recall exactly where i saw it, but I did see it.

If they are not being paid for it now, I guess you could say they would be paid "extra" for it under this plan. But, I also think that is kind of stretching it a bit.

 

[Xenophon]

No, it says that they will be paid extra for giving this.

Don't recall exactly where i saw it, but I did see it.

Which leads me to the conclusion that of course they like it, it means more money for them.

Wherever you saw it, they were lying to you. Read the bill, its fairly clear.

Moot point anyway, since it's been taken out of the most recent update of the bill.

Sorry but no, someone had quoted dircetly from the bill and backed it with links, so they wern't lying.

Happily this entire mess is going down in flames.

If they want to do reform, do it right, this is just confusion and spending.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No, it says that they will be paid extra for giving this.

Don't recall exactly where i saw it, but I did see it.

Which leads me to the conclusion that of course they like it, it means more money for them.

Wherever you saw it, they were lying to you. Read the bill, its fairly clear.

Moot point anyway, since it's been taken out of the most recent update of the bill.

Sorry but no, someone had quoted dircetly from the bill and backed it with links, so they wern't lying.



Happily this entire mess is going down in flames.

If they want to do reform, do it right, this is just confusion and spending.

Here's the relevant section of the old bill - there's nothing in it about doctors getting paid "extra" to do it. The section simply says that the public option insurance will pay for such consultations once every 5 years.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c1111jRUwW:e513253:

 

[Care4all]

they DID NOT get paid extra, simply not true....

the bill specifically said, that IF YOU WANTED COUNSELING on a living will and other medical options at the end of life, then insurance...medicare, would pay for it, once every 5 years.

NO they DID NOT get paid extra...

26 states have THIS VERY PROVISION already in their State Laws...the SPIN was ALL lies...

the bill is online...linked in a kazillion other threads, it only states that if you want this kind of counseling, then your insurance would pay for this service, once every 5 yrs....which i would have taken advantage of with my doctor and so would have my husband....

it ain't dead yet, it is in the house version, not in the senate's, then in Conference, a compromise can be had.

care

 

[nodoginnafight]

Did the house take end of life counseling reimbursements out of their bill? I heard Grassley say he was gonna kill it in the senate bill, but I'm unclear if he has the power to do that.

Anyway - Xenophon - I think the term "get paid EXTRA" is what is causing my confusion. They'd get paid - just like they get paid for every office visit as I read it, but I don't see anything about "extra"

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think it's pretty sad that a campaign of lies could kill something that could be a valuable tool for the people who want it, but I guess they figure it's not worth sabotaging the whole sheebang over.

 

[Sweet Willy]

What seems so idiotic and disingenuous about this particular point is that the purpose of this "end of life planning" is precisely so YOU have control over how your certain demise is handled.

 

[Immanuel]

As I have said before, I have no problem with the end of life counseling part of the bill. I have recently had an experience with hospice and palliative care and think that counseling if it is done as the bill is written would be a good thing. I have also had training as a certified financial planner, no I am not a CFP as I never took the exam, but living wills and the likes are part of that training in regards to estate planning. I think the idea of informing patients of the requirements of such planning and what hospice care is for, is a good thing.

That being said, I do have some concerns with the provision. Not in what the provision says but rather how it is interpreted.

When my father was dieing we had medical professionals inform us that there was little hope and that we should prepare for the inevitable. The clear insinuation was that we should consider whether we would want to let him live on life support or "pull the plug". These medical professionals were on the verge of telling us that we should pull the plug if we got that far. The hospital he was in told us we had to move him out and either take him home to die or to hospice care.

Okay, seeing how, pulling the plug is not yet legal, I must wonder about how far hospital staff will go when they are encouraged to counsel patients near the end of life. Will they go so far as to "recommend" refusing treatment to patients that are not in their opinion, worth trying to keep alive? To me, that is an alarming thought. Assisted suicide is one thing, but there is a fine threshold between the patient's right to die and his/her being killed out of the "goodness" or maybe greed of a "loved ones" heart.

Immie