9/28/2009 10:16:00 AM Coalition: Keep focus on patients
Coalition’s main points
Here are the major tenets of the advocacy work being done by the Coalition to Protect Patients' Rights in regard to health care reform:
- Prevent Congress from including a "public option" that could result in the loss of private health insurance for millions of Americans.
- Maintain the right of patients and physicians to privately contract for medical care without government penalties.
- Ensure that any comparative effectiveness research policy includes absolute prohibitions on government interference with the patient-physician relationship.
- Promote the use of health information technology as long as it is done in a responsible way that protects patients confidential medical records.
- Advocate market enhancements that increase access to medical care and put patients in control of their treatment.
Stacy Wright has multiple sclerosis. Because of a work-related layoff, she also has no health insurance.
One might think that the Omaha resident would be leading the cause for the kind of health care reform that President Barack Obama is pushing for.
But that would be wrong.
She's gravely concerned about any hint of what's being called a public option in health care reform that would lead to a more nationalized, impersonal health care system.
"With a public option, I'm concerned that the result will be that people like me won't be able to be as involved in my own treatment and the kind of relationship I have had with my doctor," Wright said.
Wright, for example, is on a medication for fatigue that is not approved by the Federal Drug Administration for treatment of multiple sclerosis. But it works well for her.
"It's helping millions of people like me, but if this nation goes to a more standardized system of health care, I fear that kind of treatment won't be approved in the future," she said.
Wright was in Norfolk late last week along with two other members of the Nebraska steering committee of the nationwide Coalition to Protect Patients' Rights. The coalition is a nonpartisan grassroots coalition made up of patients, health care professionals and others who are dedicated to seeing patient-centered health care reform.
In Nebraska, the steering committee's main purpose is to provide input and counsel to U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson. Coalition members say they are not yet entirely sure how the Democratic senator will vote on health care reform when and if it comes before the full Senate.
Dr. Lewiston Birkmann, a neurologist in Lincoln, said he fears that any form of public option will trigger massive government involvement in health care to the detriment of patient-physician relationships.
"We need to be able to continue to focus on the best choice for the individual, not what some government guidelines dictate," he said.
Dr. Bob Kruger, a retired pediatric pathologist from Omaha, said he has trouble imagining working in the medical field if decisions were made primarily on financial considerations rather than what is best for patients.
"In some government-run systems, the needs of patients do not come first," he said.
All three members of the Nebraska steering committee said there are better ways to address health care reform, but they will take time to put together. In the meantime, the president and his supporters seem more worried about gaining a political victory and want to rush a vote on reform.
"I don't want to see egos or politics involved here. This shouldn't be about winning; it should be about people like me," Wright said.
Birkmann said it's important to realize that health care reform as proposed by the president and fellow supporters may, indeed, provide coverage to all Americans.
"But coverage isn't care," he said. "There's a big difference between the two, and we can't forget that."
Reader Comments
Posted: Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Article comment by:
C. H.
After reading this article, the comments by those interviewed make the case as to why we NEED a public option. Miss Wright talks about worrying whether her drug would be available with a public option, I'm willing to bet right now that since it's not FDA approved insurance wouldnt' pay for it now. Dr. Brinkman talks about, "focusing on what is best for the individual". I whole-heartedly agree. That is NOT what is happening now. Doctors are forced to look at what private insurance companies will cover, not what necessarily is the best for the patient. In California one insurance company DENIES coverage on over 40% of doctor recommended procedures. Dr. Kruger says he is worried about, "working in the medical field if decisions were made primarily on financial considerations rather than what is best for patients." What does he think is happening now. I have heard so many times, "I don't want a Washington bureaucrat coming between me and my doctor", yet that is what goes on everyday in this country with insurance bureaucrats dictating what treatment is prescribed based on what the insurance company will pay for. All the "public option" is designed to do is give some competition to the monopoly insurance companies have. In North Dakota, Blue Cross-Blue Shield has over 90% of the market, in Arkansas over 83%, and the story is the same in other states as well. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a non-partisan organization, has said that the plans before congress would have only 10-15 million Americans on the "public option". That's all it is, an option. Why are insurance companies so scared of competition. Maybe because it spells the end of their "raping" the American people of their hard earned money. Birkman is right when he states, "coverage isn't care", not always, that's for sure. But one thing is certain 100% of the time, non-coverage means no or sub-par care.
