Tom Daschle’s Blueprint for Health Reform - He & his "group" will decide approved treatments.

Tom Daschle’s Blueprint for Health Reform
Posted by Jacob Goldstein
November 20, 2008

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/11/20/tom-daschles-blueprint-for-health-reform/

The former Senator who will be Obama’s Secretary of Health and Human Services shares a lot of his new boss’s views. But in his recent book on health reform, Tom Daschle goes beyond Obama’s agenda.

The Health Blog mentioned as much yesterday, but last night we picked up a copy of the book (Critical: What We Can Do About the Health Care Crisis) to get a better sense of where Daschle might take things.

Daschle says Medicare should pay more for care that leads to good outcomes, and should stop paying for unnecessary or harmful treatments. Like Obama, he says Americans who want to keep their employer-based insurance should be allowed to do so, but people should also be able to buy insurance from the pool that covers federal employees, or from a new pool based on a similar model.

He also argues that all Americans should be required to buy health insurance — a key difference from Obama, who argues that only children should be required to have health insurance. (Plenty of powerful Dems, Max Baucus and Hillary Clinton, have also called for mandates).

Perhaps the most striking part of Daschle’s plan is his call to create a Federal Health Board, modeled on the Federal Reserve Board that manages monetary policy. The basic idea is to create an institution, run by experts, that answers to the government but is “largely insulated from the politics and passions of the moment,” he writes.

“Like monetary policy, health-care policy shouldn’t be subject to the whims of subcommittee chairmen and special interests,” Daschle continues.

The board wouldn’t regulate the private insurance market, but it would have power over federal health-care programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, whose decisions are often followed by private insurers. It would also set the terms for private insurers who wanted to participate in the federal employees’ insurance pool.

Perhaps most importantly, the Board would assess the effectiveness and costs of various treatments.

He stops short of saying the U.S. should have a U.K.-style, hard-and-fast rule on cost-effectiveness. But he does say the U.S. “won’t be able to make a significant dent in health-care spending without getting into the nitty-gritty of which treatments are the most clinically valuable and cost effective.”

...........

And just who will decide on what types of treatments "they" will cover?? This is disturbing to someone whose family has an MS patient that must go from one type of treatment to another as their illness progresses.

:dilemma:

I want to hear a lot more about this. Who are his "experts" on these issues and if they are using tests results where did that come from?

You can have a government board decide, that is responsible to the people - or you can keep letting random insurance companies decide, your choice.

The board in Oregon regulates what is covered in the Oregon Health Plan.

However, Obama is also calling for some sort of regulatory agency that will require every insurance company to have a basic plan so anybody who has private insurance will be guaranteed a set of coverage and won't be surprised by any fine print.

for various diseases and conditions, progressing from the least to the most invasive, consequently, the least to the most expensive.

It sounds like they are talking about something similar on a national scale, as applied to gov't sponsored insurance programs.

It's not the same thing as saying "Tom Daschle will decide your treatment plan."

edit: As for deciding the efficacy of treatments, you have to do those studies. You have to decide which treatment gives the most benefit to the most people. Doing one such study was how we found out recently that all the old school heart disease drugs were just as effective as all the new drugs that are hyped and are more expensive. So why wouldn't you still use the older drugs if they work the same and are cheaper?

It does say his "group" will decide treatments. I just want to make sure they don't cut out the treatments for patients that need the care the most! I want to hear more on this and soon I hope. Who will be on this "board" and what are their expertise in each field? How will the tests be done? Are they going to use information that is all ready out there and who did these tests?

But it's the WSJ, so I'm not inclined to think that their motives are sweet or kind when it comes to discussing national healthcare.

I personally favor an American NHS. No bones about it. But I will accept an interim step that involves a general weakening of the insurance industry.

and for your information, I am a chronic person. I have congenital heart defects. and yes, routine check ups have been denied payment for me before. I know all about it.

And I mean literally! My son was kicked out of a hospital because they couldn't figure out what was wrong with him and we had to take him to another until we finally got help from a State run Medical Center that figured out his problem in less then 15 minutes - I kid you not!

Best of luck to you! Let's hope they get this right for God sake!

trust him to remember anything about MY fucking health care.

impressed with his main idea--that of a Fed. health board then nor now.
The book is rather small---not much new in it at all except for the idea of the Federal Board.

We can only hope and pray the truth will come out and we can find a way to finally get the quality of care we should have in this country! After reading about all the "speeches" Daschle was paid for by the HMO's insurance companies I am really concerned about it more then I was before.

Hillary (maybe from Edwards??) discussed the administration of a universal health plan. She said we have the Federal Medicare system--the bureaucracy is already in place (yes it could be twitted to make it more efficient and cost productive).

Now Daschle wanted to add ANOTHER Federal layer of bureaucracy. That is not the answer.

...whether private or public. This seems like scaremongering from the WSJ.

this is why Daschle is being supported by both the Repugs and the Dems for this slot. They don't want to upset the applecart of the insurance companies. Let's face it - there will be some movement on the healthcare front - but it will be only window dressing to show that something has been done with healthcare - it will be a small modification - something that the insurance market can live with and we'll still be living under the most oppressive whims of the insurance industry. As far as I'm concerned the fix is in. We will not get the kind of healthcare reform that we need and the healthcare industry will continue to roll like they've been rolling.

We need Single Payer and Universal Healthcare. That won't happen and if I were Teddy Kennedy - I wouldn't associate my name with anything that Daschle pushes for.

BTW - How is Teddy doing as I haven't heard much since his problem during the inauguration?

KENNEDY ON HHS NOMINEE TOM DASCHLE
February 2, 2009

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WASHINGTON - Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, today released the following statement regarding former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle's nomination to be Secretary of Health and Human Services:

"Tom Daschle is a dedicated public servant and will be an outstanding Secretary of Health and Human Services. I look forward to working with him on the cause on my life: providing quality, affordable health care for all Americans.

"Tom himself raised the issue and took all necessary steps to correct his innocent mistake months ago. I know Tom Daschle. I know his character. And I look forward to his confirmation."

:headbang: :fistbump: :headbang: :fistbump:

More here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8162455

Get profits out of health care and we will all get healthier.

:fistbump:

Do you think single payer will pay for every and any procedure anybody wants?

Plenty wrong with letting private insurance exist at all, let alone free of regulations.

on futile treatment. There needs to be a long hard look at what is done, when in the illness it is done, and is the treatment actually going to change an outcome. You'd be surprised at the amount of aggressive treatment dying elderly people receive, and it serves no purpose. It isn't palliative or curative. Someone has to draw the line and it is long overdue, but you can bet this will cause an uproar. Funny how we want to treat people at the end of their life to the grave, but kids and people in the prime of their life are expected to go without.