JANUARY 25, 2015 |
 |
 |
|
|
Healthcare for me,
but possibly
not for thee |
Dr. Fodeman contends that Obamacare
undermines the ability of doctors to treat their patients. Doctors
may be forced to treat the “average” patient based on
government-created protocols—instead of treating their own
“individual” patients. The law creates agencies that could design
treatment protocols that ultimately determine what procedures and
treatments will be covered…
continue reading |
|
Hour One:
Dr. Jason Fodeman
Blog |
 |
|
 |
DR. JASON FODEMAN
|
Dr.
Jason Fodeman: “One example is the Patient-Centered Outcomes
Research Institute (PCORI), one of the many bureaucratic agencies
created under the law. The institute’s mandate is to conduct
government-sponsored research comparing the efficacy of medical and
surgical interventions. It draws its conclusions not from individual
patient outcomes but on the average outcomes of a pre-set
population. Many observers fear that federal regulators might use
this research to limit or refuse to cover treatments that it deems
“ineffective.” Medicare, for example, could consider PCORI’s
findings when determining what procedures it will or won’t cover and
how it will reimburse those interventions. This would limit patients
from getting the care that they need and want.”
Dr.
Jason Fodeman: “PCORI’s methodology is contradictory to the ethos of
healthcare. Our profession cares first and foremost for the
individual patient, every one of whom is unique. Physicians need the
flexibility to treat not the “average” patient but the actual
patient. Yet under the PCORI, physicians’ professional judgment
regarding treatments for individuals could be replaced with rigid
rules set by regulators. This would ignore the crucial differences
between different patients as well as the various cultural,
religious, and life experiences that patients bring with them to the
doctor’s office. It should go without saying that government-set
treatment protocols can’t meet the unique needs of every patient.”
Dr. Jason Fodeman: “Another potential patient-harming ACA programs
is the Value-Based Payment Modifier (VBPM), which establishes an
arbitrary cost limit for physicians involved in Medicare. Doctors
who transgress this threshold will be punished with fiscal
retribution…This also threatens to compromise patient health
outcomes and access. A doctor nearing the VBPM limit may face a
perverse choice whether to administer a necessary treatment. It will
put tremendous pressure on physicians to avoid ordering tests,
consults, or medicines that their patients may need—almost certainly
resulting in worse medical care.”
Dr. Jason Fodeman: “Compounding these problems will be one of the
most-controversial bureaucracies created by the ACA: The Independent
Advisory Board (IPAB). Composed of fifteen unelected bureaucrats,
IPAB has the power to “recommend” legally binding cuts to Medicare
in an attempt to hold down spending. Most of these cuts will take
the form of lower reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals.” |
|
Healthcare for me,
but possibly not for thee |
sfiber optic exam,
and ENT consultation. Ultimately, the doctors concluded that he has
acid reflux.
As the leader of the free world, Obama certainly deserves top notch
medical care. Yet the breadth and quality of medical care that he
received starkly contrasts with the diminished care that too many
Americans could soon receive thanks to the Affordable Care Act.
As a physician, I strive to give the best medical care to every
patient who walks through the door. The ACA has the potential to
undermine my ability to do this in a number of ways.
One example is the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI),
one of the many bureaucratic agencies created under the law. The
institute’s mandate is to conduct government-sponsored research
comparing the efficacy of medical and surgical interventions. It
draws its conclusions not from individual patient outcomes but on
the average outcomes of a pre-set population. Many observers fear
that federal regulators might use this research to limit or refuse
to cover treatments that it deems “ineffective.” Medicare, for
example, could consider PCORI’s findings when determining what
procedures it will or won’t cover and how it will reimburse those
interventions. This would limit patients from getting the care that
they need and want.
PCORI’s methodology is contradictory to the ethos of healthcare. Our
profession cares first and foremost for the individual patient,
every one of whom is unique. Physicians need the flexibility to
treat not the “average” patient but the actual patient. Yet under
the PCORI, physicians’ professional judgment regarding treatments
for individuals could be replaced with rigid rules set by
regulators. This would ignore the crucial differences between
different patients as well as the various cultural, religious, and
life experiences that patients bring with them to the doctor’s
office. It should go without saying that government-set treatment
protocols can’t meet the unique needs of every patient.
Another potential patient-harming ACA programs is the Value-Based
Payment Modifier (VBPM), which establishes an arbitrary cost limit
for physicians involved in Medicare. Doctors who transgress this
threshold will be punished with fiscal retribution.
This also threatens to compromise patient health outcomes and
access. A doctor nearing the VBPM limit may face a perverse choice
whether to administer a necessary treatment. It will put tremendous
pressure on physicians to avoid ordering tests, consults, or
medicines that their patients may need—almost certainly resulting in
worse medical care.
Compounding these problems will be one of the most-controversial
bureaucracies created by the ACA: The Independent Advisory Board (IPAB).
Composed of fifteen unelected bureaucrats, IPAB has the power to
“recommend” legally binding cuts to Medicare in an attempt to hold
down spending. Most of these cuts will take the form of lower
reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals.
This, along with other provisions of the law, makes it highly likely
that many doctors could no longer afford to accept Medicare. As a
result, patients will have a harder time finding it. Ultimately,
this will result in longer waits for the patients who need care the
most.
At first glance, the three examples I’ve named mainly apply only to
Medicare. Yet trends in Medicare inevitably influence—and even
dictate—trends in the private insurance market, as studies in recent
years have demonstrated. Changes in Medicare reimbursement rates
typically lead to changes in private insurance reimbursement rates.
Similarly, insurers typically mimic changes in Medicare coverage.
Given these trends, the Affordable Care Act is likely to lead to
longer waits, restricted access, and worse health care for a
significant percentage of patients. |
|
11/17/2014 Doctor:
How Medicaid fails the poor
11/08/2014 Knoxville
Senteniel "Medicaid
expansion could add to delays"
11/14/2013 Dr.
Jason Fodeman, MD – ACA website failure is not the real problem
10/19/2012 PPACA
and the Future of Medicine: A young physician speaks out.
02/19/2010 Obamacare
Bends the Cost Curve Up: Here Is How to Bend It Down
02/17/2010 "Bending
the Curve": What Really Drives Health Care Spending
06/25/2009 Health
Information Technology: The Case for a Sound Federal Policy
11/29/2009 Defensive
medicine costs
04/21/2009 Obama's
Cure Worse Than What Sickens Us |
|
"Technocracy Rising"
- Part 2 |
(Continued from last week) |
www.TechnocracyRising.com |
 |
Today's guest:
Patrick Wood |
|
And another episode of
scare-the-crap-out-of-you radio
:-) |
Last week we visited with Tracee Mann about the technology embedded
within Common Core. That looked at a specific application of
Technocracy and focused the web that is strangling our privacy and
our ability to make our own choices.
Click HERE to access that show page.
. |
 |
|
The dark horse
of the New World Order is not Communism, Socialism or Fascism. It is
Technocracy.
With meticulous detail and an abundance of original research,
Patrick M. Wood uses Technocracy Rising to connect the dots of
modern globalization in a way that has never been seen before so
that the reader can clearly understand the globalization plan, its
perpetrators and its intended endgame.
In the heat of the Great Depression during the 1930s, prominent
scientists and engineers proposed a utopian energy-based economic
system called Technocracy that would be run by those same scientists
and engineers instead of elected politicians. Although this radical
movement lost momentum by 1940, it regained status when it was
conceptually adopted by the elitist Trilateral Commission
(co-founded by
Zbigniew
Brzezinski and
David
Rockefeller) in 1973 to become its so-called "New International
Economic Order."
In the ensuing 41 years, the modern expression of Technocracy and
the New International Economic Order is clearly seen in global
programs such as Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, Green Economy,
Councils of Governments, Smart Growth, Smart Grid, Total Awareness
surveillance initiatives and more.
Wood contends that the only logical outcome of Technocracy is
Scientific Dictatorship, as already seen in dystopian literature
such as Brave New World by Aldous Huxley (1932) and Nineteen
Eighty-Four by George Orwell (1948), both of whom looked straight
into the face of Technocracy when it was still in its infancy.
With over 250 footnotes, an extensive bibliography and clarity of
writing style, Wood challenges the reader to new levels of insight
and understanding into the clear and present danger of Technocracy,
and how Americans might be able to reject it once again.
|
 |
Technocracy
Rising
 |
Please note: Your
book(s) will be personally signed by the author! Price discounts for
quantity purchases are available in the Shopping Cart, starting at
10% off for two books. |
|
Video:
Patrick Wood
presents Technocracy to the Eagle Forum Conference |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INDEX OF RADIO
SHOWS |
SEARCH |
|
WE THE PEOPLE RADIO |
|
|
|
|