Congress should ask Berwick why 3 government agencies got funds to do the same research

President Barack Obama couldn’t get Donald Berwick through the front door into the top position at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Obama slid Berwick in through the back door via a recess appointment. Life News said on Wednesday Berwick will finally testify before the Senate Finance Committee.

Berwick is widely described as “rationer-in-chief” because of his approach to delivering medical care. He’s made statements that suggest the “rationer” descriptive is appropriate. Berwick told Biotechnology Healthcare magazine in 2009 we should ration “with our eyes open.” And he also said, “At some point, for ‘an added benefit,’ we might say ‘we wish we could afford it, but we can’t.’”

“We” of course being the government.

“Benefit” of course applying to most of us unless we have the money to buy better care. Fact is money will always determine the level of your care.

Democrats rolled money into studying effectiveness—three government agencies received funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for comparative effective research: US Dept. Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. This is one time I hope the project wasn’t “shovel ready” because all that talk of death panels brings to mind the shovel used to dig a grave.

COST SAVING OPTIONS FOR GOVERNMENT
It doesn’t help that Obama’s so-called fiscal commission wants to cut Medicare.

It also doesn’t help that many in the government are freaking out because the baby boomer generation is headed for government benefits that have been promised all our lives and we’ve paid into those benefit plans for the same period.

Suddenly the vast workforce that funded retirement and benefits for the greatest generation is of no value—indeed, we are a liability.

Isn’t it strange that all these wonks are eager to take scissors to benefits for hardworking Americans but they never talk about benefits that are questionable?

Here’s a little comparative effectiveness for you. In 2006, estimates reflected approximately 10 percent of the population of Mexico resided in the U.S. For healthcare, head to the nearest emergency room and the taxpayer picks up the tab.

We still have an open door policy on immigration and we provide handsomely for those seeking economic benefits. In March, 2009, the Center for Immigration Studies disclosed figures about those benefits: “In 2008, 53 percent of all households headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) with one or more children under age 18 used at least one welfare program, compared to 36 percent for native households with children. Immigrant use of welfare tends to be much higher than natives for food assistance programs and Medicaid. Use of cash and housing programs tends to be very similar to natives. A large share of the welfare used by immigrants is received on behalf of their U.S.-born children. But even households with children comprised entirely of immigrants still have a welfare use rate of 47 percent.”

You will never hear a single politico or bureaucrat address immigration (legal or otherwise) as a fiscal issue although it is.

US taxpayers are, at the point of a gun, very generous. We might take a hard look at the millions in foreign aid we give to countries that basically despise us. Why would we cut domestic benefits instead of starting with cuts to benefits abroad?

Then there’s the missing $100 billion dollar man. Comparing the effectiveness of dad vs. no-dad in the home is a real eye-opener. The National Fatherhood Initiative released a report about the annual public costs of father absence—the direct cost inspired the title of the report: “The federal government spends $99.8 billion dollars every year on programs - such as child support enforcement and anti-poverty efforts - that support father-absent homes.” That’s just the direct cost, by the way.

Remember Octo-Mom? Perhaps by now she’s parlayed all the free advertising she got into a financial stream that pays for all those kids. We taxpayers can hope

Meanwhile no one is talking about the cost of those addicted to prescription drugs, or for that matter, promiscuity. How much does free sex cost the American taxpayer? Alcohol addiction? Violence in crime-ridden neighborhoods where there’s a Level One trauma several times a week? Habitual speeders who cause fatalities on our roadways? You think they’ll start putting a photo of a corpse on bottles of your favorite vodka?

FREE MARKET IDEAS
If we wanted real government healthcare reform, there’s a direct path to it. Every single American could cancel his health insurance policy, government or private market. And let the free market take it from there.

Meanwhile, permit people to buy insurance for whomever they want to. Regardless of your position on gay marriage, isn’t it a good thing to permit same-sex partners to insure their mates? We can insure our cars for whatever driver we designate. Shouldn’t the same be true for bodies?

Private insurance companies are no saints—some of their actions have been despicable and regulations are necessary. But putting your body in the hands of a government “comparative effectiveness” expert is a form of passive suicide.

Who makes the call on who’s worthy of living? Do you really want a government bureaucrat to do it?

Obama could initiate some comparative effectiveness at the federal level. We don’t need three agencies duplicating work, especially work that isn’t “shovel ready.” Senate Finance members could start their questioning by asking Berwick why we funded the same research at three different agencies.

 And maybe then ask him what’s going to be done about the 23 percent cut in Medicare reimbursements doctors will face if Congress doesn’t give that lame duck a crutch by Dec. 1.

(Commentary by Kay B.Day/Nov. 17, 2010)