School districts across America are labeling children as having mental disorders on the basis of subjective screening questions which frequently produce false-positive results. This testing is being done often without parents giving consent and isn’t necessarily done for the child’s interest; schools receive more funding for students diagnosed with a disorder and the child might unnecessarily be put on dangerous psychiatric drugs. In this podcast, advocates for the Parental Consent Act of 2011, John Spagnola and Arlene Tessitore, join Michael Ostrolenk to discuss this proposed law which would mandate informed parental consent for school-based screenings. Click here to read a coalition letter in support of H.R. 2769 to learn more about this issue. Please ask your Representative and Senators to support this legislation. Rep. Ron Paul, Sen. Rand Paul, and Rep. Marsha Blackburn are already supporting this bill. To add your name and organization to the coalition letter contact Mr. Spagnola at spag@gte.net.

Listen

(This is why it is vital to provide federal employees with extensive whistle-blower protections) 

The Food and Drug Administration secretly monitored the personal e-mail of a group of its own scientists and doctors after they warned Congress that the agency was approving medical devices that they believed posed unacceptable risks to patients, government documents show.

Full article-

 background documents from our friends at National Whistleblower Center

Yes, according to Dr. Jane Orient, Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons in her recent Op-Ed in the Washington Times.  

State health officials want to mandate flu vaccinations for nearly all hospital and nursing-home employees, with no religious or other personal exemptions, saying patient protections outweigh individual choice.

Read more:Colorado wants mandatory flu shots for most hospital and nursing home workers - The Denver Posthttp://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_19823527#ixzz1kwsampTh

Of course Dr. Jane Orient , Executive Director of the Association of American Physians and Surgenos said in the article above- 

"The right of Americans to make their own medical decisions should be respected,"   and she of course is correct.  No American should be coerced into taking a drug or chemical againt their will especially one's that might cause harm.

Adrienne Burk's article in Forbes does an excellent job providing a brief overview of the conflicts between tax payer funded science and corporate interests.   The best quote from the article is

“publishers have turned to the approach that uncompetitive corporations have always used in America: lobbying for legislation to protect their unsustainable model.”

 LEARN MORE about the battle against transparency and innovation in science -

In this podcast with Michael Ostrolenk, Richard Amerling, MD summarizes how these top-down, one-size-fits-all, “cookbook” protocols hurt patients. Dr. Amerling is Associate Professor of clinical medicine at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, and the Director of Outpatient Dialysis at the Beth Israel Medical Center.

SAN DIEGO, Nov. 28, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Dr. Wayne Iverson, San Diego physician and candidate for the US House of Representatives in the California 52nd Congressional District, today commented on the surprise announcement from Washington, D.C. "The abrupt resignation of Don Berwick as the head of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) signals a dramatic shift in this nation's healthcare policy." The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was signed into law in March of last year as the Obama Administration's efforts combined with a highly partisan 111th Congress attempted to gain full US government control over private health and medical care in this country. Donald Berwick was handed the top spot in the Medicare Administration during a Congressional recess because of his interest and expertise in government-controlled single-payer healthcare systems. This appointment circumvented Congress, which could have blocked the appointment because of the controversial provisions contained in PPACA. According to Dr. Iverson, "as Berwick vacates this post so goes the Administration's plans for government-mandated universal healthcare coverage."

Obamacare has been unraveling in recent months as the nation does a reality check on the practical aspects of what such massive changes in healthcare will cost and what it will do to the traditional patient-doctor relationship. Already, key provisions in the new healthcare law have been declared unconstitutional in both a lower court and appeals court. The US Supreme Court last week consented to review whether Obamacare is constitutional and should be allowed to go forward as written or be canceled out in its entirety. Dr. Iverson said, "the changes at the highest level of the Medicare Administration indicates to me that a solid case for repealing PPACA by the US Supreme Court appears to be inevitable."

Dr. Iverson went on to say, "Congress needs to continue making progress to get American healthcare back on track. The legislature needs to quickly pass a bill that provides for the immediate and complete removal of the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) provision in Section 1848 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. On January 1, 2012, SGR automatically forces an additional 27.4% cut in healthcare benefits to seniors by reducing payments to physicians." The cut Dr Iverson mentioned is in addition to the automatic 2% cut which is a result of the failed efforts of the controversial Super Committee formed in August when the US debt ceiling was increased under massive protests across the country. According to Dr Iverson, "Congress can continue to do the important work of the legislative branch of the US government by preserving our seniors' access to their physicians and medical care. The people's Representatives need to do the work they were voted into office to do. Protecting our nation's seniors and their healthcare with repealing SGR is in line with that duty and obligation."

Photo of Dr. Wayne Iverson:
http://www.ereleases.com/pic/2011-Wayne-Iverson-MD.jpg

CONTACT: Dr. Wayne Iverson, WayneIverson2012@gmail.com, 858-674-4542

RELATED LINK: http://www.WayneIverson2012.com

PAID FOR BY: Wayne Iverson for Congress

APPROVED BY: Dr. Wayne Iverson

Adele Hite is the Policy Chair and founder of the Healthy Nation Coalition. The coalition works to expose the aws and misuse of science in the formation of our nation’s dietary guidelines. Promulgated by USDA, these guidelines are not based in current science and have resulted in a 30 year decline in our population’s health. Individuals should be empowered to become informed about what works best for their individual nutritional needs.

Congressmen Huelskamp and Graves wrote a letter to the the House Appropriations Committee asking that attempts by HHS to create a national governement database of patients' private medical records be defunded.   CLICK HERE to read the letter.

By: Elizabeth Lee Vliet, M.D.

It was a sad day recently when a married menopausal woman learned that her recent Pap test was positive for human papilloma virus (HPV). “How could this happen?” she asked. “I have not had sex with anyone but my husband since we married 30 years ago.”

Over the past year, her husband had several trips overseas for weeks at the time. She suspected the positive HPV indicated he had been unfaithful, but when she asked him, he said, “Oh, it can be latent for a long time.”

I showed her my records from 2008 and 2009: Paps were HPV negative. Her newly positive HPV likely means her husband had had sex with an infected person during his travels. She broke down weeping.

HPV is an increasingly prevalent sexually transmitted disease that can hit women of all ages and increases the risk of invasive cervical cancer—another reason she was upset about becoming HPV positive. She now faced hard decisions. As she left, I felt sad watching her suffer with the impact of this news on her marriage.

This kind of painful situation happens daily in doctors’ offices. Such personal and private pain should remain between the patient, physician, and family.

My patients are horrified at the idea that such personal health information could be released to a government database, open to anyone with access to the system. But your privacy is another casualty of the damage caused by Obamacare’s new rules and regulations governing health professionals.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently released new federal regulation that requires private health insurance companies to give health records of every person they insure to the government.

Although government jargon in the HHS rules distracts from their real goal, the end result is clear: government bureaucrats would have access to the health records from all private insurance companies—including yours—whether you want them to or not.

Under the new rules, the Federal government will own and control your medical records, without your permission. The government will be your new “overlord” controlling your medical information on federal computers in a federal database. You will no longer be able to control who sees your medical information.

The most personal aspects of your life are slated to be sent to Washington by your private insurance carrier for all your medical visits. This provides individual medical data for the federally run Comparative Effectiveness Research coordinating panel of experts. This panel of government-appointed experts, copying the rationing approach in Britain, will decide what treatment is allowed for individuals, based on government criteria such as:

• cost of treatment
• effectiveness as determined by government experts
• your “quality life years” remaining

Beyond privacy issues, there is major concern about safety of your medical information when hackers can penetrate even highly secure federal agency computers such as the Pentagon, VA, and Department of Defense. Hackers stole millions of medical records from the Veterans Administration, and patients were at risk for identity theft.

David Blumenthal, M.D., the President’s former “health information czar,” admitted that “no infrastructure exists in most areas of the country for secure health information exchange among providers and between providers and consumers.”

Medical privacy? The Obama administration’s health czars seem more concerned about power and control over your medical care than protection of your private medical information.

In summary, the Obamacare “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” of 2010 and the “Stimulus Bill” of 2009 gave the federal government total control of very personal aspects of your life:

• money that is currently in the private healthcare sector
• your private personal and family health information
• your access to timely medical care
• the types of treatment you will be allowed to have, based on your age and value to society

If you value your privacy and freedom to choose your medical treatment, then you need to consider candidates in 2012 who vow to defund, dismantle, and repeal Obamacare. We need patient-centered reform that puts freedom back into our hands as our Founders intended. Ronald Reagan warned: Socialism begins with government control of medicine.

Elizabeth Lee Vliet, M.D. is a preventive and climacteric medicine specialist with medical practices in Tucson AZ and Dallas TX that take an integrated approach to evaluation and treatment of women and men with complex medical and hormonal problems. Dr. Vliet is also President of International Health Strategies, Ltd., whose mission is twofold: liberty and privacy in treatment options and preservation of the Oath of Hippocrates focus on the individual patient.

Dr. Vliet is the 2007 recipient of the Voice of Women award from the Arizona Foundation for Women for her pioneering advocacy for the overlooked hormone connections in women’s health. Dr. Vliet received her M.D. degree and internship in Internal Medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School, then completed specialty training at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Dr. Vliet is a Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

Dr. Vliet has appeared on FOX NEWS, Cavuto, Stuart Varney Show, Fox and Friends and syndicated radio shows across the country addressing the economic and medical impact of the new healthcare bill.

By Elizabeth Lee Vliet, M.D.,

Kaiser Family Foundation just released further bad news about the poorly named Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”). American families facing a bad economy, high unemployment, and crashing home values now get hit with another cost increase: higher health insurance premiums that are rising more every year.

Obama’s campaign focused on “hope and change,” but I suspect these winds of “change” are ones that most Americans did not “hope” for, did not want, and would like to escape.

Look at the bleak facts:

In 2011, the annual health insurance premium for a family of four was pushed above $15,000 for the first time ever.

The 2011 annual health insurance premium was 31% higher than 2006, and 113% higher than in 2001.

Health insurance premiums were 9% higher in 2011 than in 2010. And the media says there is no inflation? Did your income go up 9% from 2010 to 2011? Not for the vast majority of Americans!

Hurricane Irene wreaked visible damage all along the Eastern seaboard this fall. The damage from Obamacare’s extensive new mandates and regulations is less visible, but no less damaging to individuals, families, businesses, and our overall economy. At least we had warning that Hurricane Irene was coming and could take steps to prepare and protect ourselves. But we were falsely promised that the hurricane named Obamacare would lower costs, improve access to health insurance, and “protect patients.” Even in this earliest stage, with only a fraction of the mandates implemented, we are seeing massive damage.

Obamacare advocates like to blame the “greedy” insurance companies. But most of the blame for higher premiums is directly caused by the Obamacare first wave of mandates and regulations.

As of the fall of 2010, all insurance policies must:

1. keep adult “children” up to age 26 on parents’ policies,
2. provide “free” preventive care and screenings for everyone
3. cover pre-existing medical conditions for children

Adding this coverage unavoidably means the policy will have to cost more.

Obamacare regulations already control practically every decision a private insurance company can make. It is only going to get worse as government “medicrats” micromanage every single aspect of insurance coverage.

When the government gets in the middle, it always costs more. Think hugely inflated prices for solar panels made by Solyndra. Think high-priced toilets when the Pentagon pays. Think $16 dollar muffins for government bureaucrats to eat at government conferences. The government is buying? Triple or quadruple the price!

As health insurance premiums spiral up at this rate, more and more families will be forced away from the private policies and into Medicaid. This is not an “unintended consequence.” The goal of this Administration, as Obama himself has said on tape, is to drive private insurers out of business when people are unable to afford the policies that are “Obamacare-compliant.” The end result is the “public option” of fully socialized medicine that was the intent all along. Obamacare will destroy the private sector in medicine and make people dependent on the federal government, with the federal bureaucrats controlling every aspect of your medical care.

Real reform would put Americans—instead of the government or the insurance company—back in the driver’s seat as patients and savvy consumers. Americans need to take back their rights, including the right to choose how, when, where, and with whom to seek medical care and health insurance. Only then will we see premiums start to decrease.

Patient power. Not government power. What a novel idea!

Elizabeth Lee Vliet, M.D. is a preventive and climacteric medicine specialist with medical practices in Tucson AZ and Dallas TX that take an integrated approach to evaluation and treatment of women and men with complex medical and hormonal problems. Dr. Vliet is also President of International Health Strategies, Ltd., whose mission is twofold: liberty and privacy in treatment options and preservation of the Oath of Hippocrates focus on the individual patient.

Dr. Vliet is the 2007 recipient of the Voice of Women award from the Arizona Foundation for Women for her pioneering advocacy for the overlooked hormone connections in women’s health. Dr. Vliet received her M.D. degree and internship in Internal Medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School, then completed specialty training at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Dr. Vliet is a Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

The Obama Administration is setting up the rules and regulations to establish a federal Health Insurance Exchange in every State. This will put all insurance and health care delivery under federal control. The Exchange could best be called a "lobster trap". Once installed, it'll be almost impossible to get out. The deadline for your comments is next Wednesday, September 28. Please take this opportunity to say NO.  (sample comment below)

Deadline - Comment by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Wednesday, September 28, 2011.

Directions for Submission
Go to http://regulations.gov. Click "Submit a Comment." Enter CMS-9989-P as the Keyword or ID. Click "Search." The name of the proposed rule is, "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Establishment of Exchanges and Qualified Health Plans."

Copy & Send
Before or after you click "submit," please send us a copy of what you sent. Email it to info@cchfreedom.org

Sample Comment (if you do not want to have your letter tagged as a "form letter," please alter the sample below, use some or all of your own words, or add at least one sentence of your own to the comment):

I oppose this proposed federal rule to implement a federal health insurance exchange in every State in the country. I oppose claims that the exchange will provide "choice," "competition" and "clout" when it will actually restrict health insurance options, violate patient privacy, monitor my compliance with the unconstitutional individual mandate to purchase health insurance, and expand government dependency into the middle class through federal subsidies. The rule uses the word "require" 628 times. This means federal control. I request the proposed rule be withdrawn until the U.S. Supreme Court issues a ruling on the constitutionality of the federal health care reform law.

From the first page of CCHF's public comment:

...We oppose the overreach of federal authority, the false advertising, the false “flexibility” claims with no meaningful flexibility for States, the continued discussion of an HHS-run “federal” Exchange while the Administration has no plans or money to create or run one—every State-based Exchange will actually be a Federal Exchange—the controls implemented over patient care and the many uses of the word “require” and “must” while still claiming the Exchange offers choice, competition, clout, and “flexibility.”

In general, we are opposed to the proposed exchange regulation, which requires States to set up a federal structure by which the federal government can control virtually all facets of health care nationwide. We conclude by asking HHS to withdraw the entire rule.

...The specific concerns we have chosen to address regarding the exchange proposals, although there are many more, are titled:

• Endless Stream of Exchange Regulations
• Overreach of Federal Authority – proposed codification must be withdrawn
• False Advertising
• Exchange is Government Entity
• Privacy Protection Ruse
• Myth of a “Federal” Exchange
• Ruse of “Flexibility” for States – a long list of examples
• Discrimination against Average Citizens
• Elimination of an Entire Industry by a Government Entity

To read the entire CCHF comment...

The Obama Administration may soon require all citizens to have a federally-imposed national patient ID card. The deadline for your comments is Tuesday, September 6 - the day after Labor Day.

This "machine-readable" patient ID card (and perhaps number) would allow implementation of the controversial national health data system -- the Nationwide Health Information Network (NHIN) -- to which President Obama appropriated $23 billion in the "economic stimulus" bill. The NHIN is a "network of networks" made by connecting State health information exchanges with federal software. Comprehensive private medical and mental health data could be electronically linked on any and all patients using the card within the State health information exchange. The government and others -- a total of 2.2 million entities according to the federal government -- could access patient data without patient consent for the purpose of intruding in the confidential patient-doctor relationship and rationing care.

Take this opportunity to say NO. (sample comment below)

DEADLINE:  Tuesday, September 6, 2011, 5:00 p.m.

TO SUBMIT: CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS

Go to http://regulations.gov. Select "Open for Comment/Submission" Enter CMS-0032-IFC as the Keyword or ID. Click "Submit a Comment." The name of the proposed rule is, "Administrative Simplification: Adoption of Operating Rules for Eligibility for a Health Plan and Health Care Claims Status Transaction."

SAMPLE COMMENT: (to be considered a valid comment, please use some or all of your own words, or add at least one sentence of your own...or write your very own comment)

I oppose any attempts to impose a patient identification card, as considered in the Project SwipeIt Study, and inferred by the Department's assumption of cost savings by "a single set of operating rules" nationwide for every health care transaction. I also oppose a single set of operating rules nationwide. A national patient identification card with a national (single) set of operating rules will infringe on my privacy rights and eliminate State's rights over health care. These rules should be withdrawn.

BACKGROUND:
The plan for a national patient ID card is hidden in a 38-page, three column interim final rule.

The ID card is more or less inferred by the fact that the administration is presuming its use in their calculation of savings for a single set of operating rules:

"In 2009, the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) ... developed costs estimates of implementing a machine-readable patient ID card. ...The Project SwipeIt study demonstrated the quantifiable benefits to administrative simplification...The MGMA cites many resources that were used to gather their data for their analysis. We find that the data used in the MGMA study are relevant to our analysis and therefore we will use some of this data in our calculations of provider savings. We invite public and industry stakeholder comments on our assumptions." "...This results in $560 million to $700 million in annual savings for providers due to implementation of operating rules for the eligibility for a health plan transaction."

ALSO in the proposed rule: "Section 1173(g)(1) of the Act, as added by section 1104(b)(2) of the Affordable Care Act, requires the Secretary to ‘‘adopt a single set of operating rules for each transaction * * * with the goal of creating as much uniformity in the implementation of the electronic standards as possible.’’

One major report lists the following as a benefit of machine-readable ID cards to patients: The card will "Allow use of a single health ID card to access to information about multiple benefits (Note: due to privacy concerns, health ID cards do not hold data, but rather serve as a key to access data);"

A government-imposed requirement for a national patient ID card (which may include a national patient ID number) is THE key to the establishment of a national health data system and with it...national health care. Please comment before 5:00 p.m. on THIS Tuesday, September 6, 2011.

Citizens' Council for Health Freedom
1954 University Ave. W, Ste. 8
Saint Paul, MN 55104
651-646-8935
www.cchfreedom.org

"CCHF exists to support patient and doctor freedom, medical innovation, and the right of citizens to a confidential patient-doctor relationship."

CCHF ACTION ALERT!
August 30, 2011

The Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), established under Obamacare, has asked the American public to comment on the Institute's definition of "patient-centered outcomes research."

DEADLINE -  THIS Friday, September 2.

In short, PCORI's definition is deceptive and leaves the public thinking that PCORI (pronounced "pee-CORE-ee") is going to do great work. However, the definition is not patient-centered. It's government-centered. Despite assertions to the contrary, the controversial "comparative effectiveness research" will be used by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to make insurance coverage decisions for all citizens.

Click HERE to make a statement or two on any one of the five questions or just use the space at Question #5 to make a general statement. Then press "Submit."

Find our public comments on PCORI's five questions below.  See #5 in particular. Feel free to use our comments to come up with an overarching comment or two about the entire endeavor.

PCORI is the new name for one of the so-called "death panels" established in the "economic stimulus" bill, the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. The controversial FCC was repealed in Obamacare and replaced by PCORI....which is required by law to conduct "comparative effectiveness research."

Please comment by midnight on Friday.

I'd appreciate it greatly if you could let me know by email that you did. Thank you in advance!

Twila Brase, RN, PHN
President, CCHF
651-646-8935

CCHF COMMENTS to FIVE QUESTIONS:

1. Does the definition place appropriate emphasis on, and convey the importance of, the “patient-centeredness” of the PCORI mission?           

Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom is writing to express our deep concern over the definition of so-called “patient-centered outcomes research” (PCOR). We are also concerned that the Institute (PCORI) has requested input on pilot projects to determine methodology for conducting the research and placed an August 31, 2011 deadline on those comments, which is before the Institute has even received and fully evaluated the public’s comments on the definition of the research.

CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCH
Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is not "patient-centered." It is government centered. The move to empower government appointees to conduct comparative effectiveness research proved so controversial in the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“economic stimulus”) that the Obama Administration repealed the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research in the Federal health care reform law (Section 6302) and replaced it with the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Notably, the Finance Committee called PCOR ‘an alternative term’ to comparative effectiveness research (CER).”

DECEPTIVE DEFINITION
In the same vein we are concerned that the words within the PCOR definition will mislead the public. Although the definition adopted by PCORI says the research “helps people make informed health care decisions and allows their voice to be heard in assessing the value of health care options,” the federal health care reform statute specific to PCORI makes it clear that 19 government appointees will be focused on making decisions that will, in concert with the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, determine coverage decisions for more than 300 million Americans.

RESEARCH FOR RATIONING
Although the statute states that the comparative effectiveness research (CER) findings are “not be construed as mandates, guidelines, or recommendations for payment, coverage, or treatment.” and that “Nothing...shall be construed as…authorizing the Secretary to deny coverage of items or services under such title SOLELY on the basis of comparative clinical effectiveness research” (my emphasis), the statute also says, 

“‘‘SEC. 1182. (a) The Secretary MAY only USE evidence and findings from research conducted under section 1181 to make a determination regarding coverage…IF such use is through an iterative and transparent process which includes public comment and considers the effect on subpopulations.” (my emphasis)

This statutory language along with the word “solely” provides a huge loophole for federal control over medical decisions and enables health care rationing.

THREE MORE CONCERNS
There are other concerns with the assumption in the “MAY only USE” statement: First, who are the lucky few that get deferential treatment because the Secretary deems them part of a “subpopulation”?

Second, what about the medical and preferential distinctions of each individual within the so-called “subpopulations”? In truth, every patient is a “subpopulation” with unique qualities, physiology, DNA, preferences, cultural and religious views, responses to medications, emotional strength, mental aptitude, compliance issues, etc., but the PCORI statute in the federal health care reform law, and these statements are premised on a cookie cutter view of individuals.

Third, most of the public does not know a Federal Register exists nor do they monitor it every day to discover calls for public comment. Few will keep track of every condition or treatment being considered by PCORI or HHS for coverage determinations. There will be many conditions under consideration. The new ICD-10 coding system will increase the number of disease classification codes from 17,000 today to 155,000 two years from now.  

PEOPLE’S VOICE
Thus we do not believe, despite the proposed words within the definition, that PCOR or PCORI will “help people make informed health care decisions and allow their voice to be heard in assessing the value of health care options.” 

The voice of the people is best heard, and most timely heard, in their doctor’s office, with a doctor who is free to treat them as the patient and the doctor see fit, not as the government dictates.

Despite what is written in PCORI’s Rationale statement (“this recognizes that different people value things differently and that value is in the eye of the beholder”) we do not believe 19 political appointees sitting around a table can or should determine “value” for more than 300 million Americans.
 

2. Is the definiton consistent with the intent of the statute that established PCORI?

The definition of PCOR is not in line with the intent of the PCORI statute. The intent of the statute is to place 19 political appointees in charge of determining the medical research agenda of the nation. The intent is to funnel billions of taxpayer dollars into organizations that agree to conduct government-approved and government-funded research that meets the agenda of the federal government to standardize the practice of medicine and ration health care services.

The definition does not tell the American public the truth about what PCORI will do and how the research will actually be determined and used. As noted in the Federal health care reform law, the plan is to broadly disseminate and incorporate PCORI’s comparative effectiveness research findings into the practice of medicine, using computerized clinical “decision support” tools:

‘‘(b) INCORPORATION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS.—The Office, in consultation with relevant medical and clinical associations, shall assist users of health information technology focused on clinical decision support to promote the timely incorporation of research findings disseminated under subsection (a) into clinical practices and to promote the ease of use of such incorporation.

3. Is the definition broad enough to include the range of research that PCORI should fund?

The federal government should not be establishing a national health care research agenda, by committee or other means, or using taxpayer dollars to do it. PCORI is being funded by a diversion of Medicare dollars, leaving less for patient care, and a head-tax on insurance companies. This head-tax will increase the cost of health insurance policies, leaving individuals with fewer dollars to pay for the care that is denied under PCORI’s pronouncements of “value” and “cost effectiveness.”

It is further notable how research often fails to address the impact on individuals in the general population. For various reasons (age, compliance, co-morbidities, etc.) research studies often exclude many individual that will arrive someday at a doctor’s office with the condition that is being studied. Researchers have no idea if the finding of the research would impact the excluded in the same way it impacts those included in the study. This means that research findings must be taken with a grain of salt.

We are further concerned with the statute’s intent to target people with chronic conditions in an effort to address so-called “gaps in evidence in terms of clinical outcomes, practice variations and health disparities.” It is clear that HHS plans to access comprehensive data on individuals in this research, potentially using patient data to needlessly target providers and to tie the hands of doctors who practice individualized care.

The federal health care reform statute states the extraordinary intrusion into the patient-doctor relationship under PCORI:

“The Secretary shall, with appropriate safeguards for privacy, make available to the Institute such data collected by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services under the programs under titles XVIII, XIX, and XXI, as well as provide access to the data net- works developed under section 937(f) of the Public Health Service Act, as the Institute and its contractors may require to carry out this section. The Institute may also request and obtain data from Federal, State, or private entities, including data from clinical databases and registries.”
 

4. Does the definition adequately convey the rationale outlined in the rationale document?

The definition appears to convey much of the Rationale statement, but it does not convey the REQUIREMENTS of the federal health care reform law. At the end of the day, the law rules.

PCORI leadership and members can say that they intend to give patients a voice, uphold individual differences, and meet the individualized needs of patient, but PCORI is a government committee of 19 government appointees.

The language of the law, not the committee’s Rationale statement, is what has the force of law. Yet nothing in the Rationale or the PCOR definition conveys that fact to the public. Nothing gives them a true picture of how their medical records will be used and how the research findings are likely to used to negatively impact their access to medical care.
 

5. Please use the following space to provide any additional comments you have about the definition.

The Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute’s definition of “patient-centered outcomes research” is deceptive.

The definition does not accurately inform the public about the centralized decision-making agenda of the law, the power of the Institute to determine a national research agenda, the power of the Secretary to use the CER research findings to ELIMINATE the patient’s voice (and the doctor’s voice), and the fact that the federal health care reform statute, not the PCORI definition or rationale, is the final word on how PCORI will be used.

This is one reason the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute has been given the pejorative name “death panel.” People are rightly concerned about rationing of health care services by a 9 to 5 government committee of people who do not know the patient’s name and have no professional obligation to meet the need of the patient in the exam room who will be impacted by the research agenda and the government-funded research findings.

We believe the Secretary of HHS will use the supposedly objective backdrop of PCORI’s judgments and the supposedly objective findings of government-funded research to determine for all Americans the “value” of various health care options, especially for people with chronic conditions. These decisions are expected to lead to coverage determinations that eliminate access to services valued by many individuals, but deemed by HHS to be “of insignificant value” or “not cost effective.”

People with their doctors will make a million different “value” decisions every day that government officials would not make, cannot understand, and likely disagree with. That’s the American way and that is each American’s right as a free citizen.

“Value” cannot be determined by government or a government-appointed committee. Bias, groupthink, artificial deadlines, pressures of the federal budget, committee member value systems, and individual preferences of committee members will shape the committee’s research priorities and value decisions.

In the world of AUTOMOBILES, this would be like giving government officials the right to fund and conduct research to determine which vehicles have the most value (General Motors, for instance) and to then use that research to limit American’s right to access cars and trucks deemed “of insignificant value” (Ford, perhaps). But in the case of health care, individual lives are at stake due to the power of imposed government value judgments.

Thus, PCORI, despite its stated definition of research and it’s stated understanding of the the unique values of individuals, is an expensive, taxpayer-funded danger to patient-centered care, medical innovation, and individual freedom.

The definition of PCOR should warn the public.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD A PRINTABLE FLIER

The Lehigh Valley COALITION for Health Care Reform Proudly Presents a Constitution Day Educational Workshop.

AGENDA:

Doors Open at Noon     

1 p.m. - Welcome and Introduction The Nuts and Bolts of ObamaCare - What Happens When? Donna Baver Rovito, Chair, Lehigh Valley Coalition for Health Care Reform  

A Constitution Day Question - Is ObamaCare Constitutional?  How ObamaCare Affects Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania House Representative Doug Reichley (PA-134th)          

How ObamaCare affects Families, Children, and Seniors and Why Doctors Oppose It.  Elena R. Farrell, D.O., Docs 4 Patient Care – PA Chapter Co-Founder

How ObamaCare affects Personal Liberty, Taxpayers, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Deficit.  K. Nicholas Pandelidis, M.D., Docs 4 Patient Care – PA Chapter Co-Founder

How ObamaCare affects Businesses, Workers, Job Creation, and the Economy. Samuel Denisco, Director of Government Affairs, PA Chamber of Business and Industry

Break - Light Refreshments

How ObamaCare affects Doctors, Patients, Access to Care, Quality of Care, and American Medical Innovation. Richard A. Armstrong, M.D., F.A.C.S, Chief Operating Officer, Docs 4 Patient Care

What YOU Can Do to Help Defeat ObamaCare - Three Grassroots Efforts Right Here in PA.  Pennsylvania Health Care Freedom Act (HB42) - Terrence O’Connor, Esq.

Nullification - William Taylor Reil

Health Care Compacts - John Morningstar

One More Time -IS ObamaCare Constitutional?  Federal Efforts to Defund, Repeal, Replace ObamaCare. Speaker: Rep John Shadegg (AZ-3), Retired

Replacing ObamaCare: Why Separate Reforms Can Win the Day. John F. Brinson, Chair, Lehigh Valley Tax Limitation Committee

Effective Solutions - What Would Be Better than ObamaCare? Alieta Eck, M.D., President Elect, Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), Co-Founder, Zarephath Health Center

3:50 p.m. - Break, Breakout Sessions with all speakers, Visit Exhibits

4:10 p.m. - Panel discussion, Questions from the Floor and Online Viewers. Moderator:  Donna Baver Rovito

4:55 p.m. – Closing  

Doors will remain open until 6 p.m.

Click here for a map to the event location.

Stay tune for details about how to watch online. 
Details will be posted at the MeetUp Event Page:
http://www.meetup.com/Lehigh-Valley-Coalition-for-Health-Care-Reform/events/27077301/

Health care professionals, policy experts, and advocates will explain how the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, (a.k.a. “ObamaCare”) affects every American citizen.

Topics include:

The Nuts, Bolts, and
Implementation Timeline of “ObamaCare”

How “ObamaCare” affects:

• Personal Liberty and Health Care Choice,
• Families, Children, Seniors and Health Insurance
• Taxpayers, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Deficit
• Businesses, Workers, The Economy, and our States
• Doctors, Patients, Medical Innovation and Access to Care

Also – The REFORMS we really need, updates on State and Federal efforts to eliminate the new health care law, and what YOU can do to help.

The Eleventh Circuit has rendered a stunning rejection of the heart of ObamaCare: its individual mandate. This 2-1 decision establishes that is unconstitutional for Congress to force citizens to buy a particular product, in this case government-approved health insurance.

The Association of American Physicians & Surgeons filed an amicus brief on the side of 26 states -- more than half of the nation -- in challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare. Officially entitled the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare is based on its unprecedented requirement that Americans buy insurance products against their wishes.

Congress has never before compelled the People to buy something, and this appellate court found this to go beyond the limits in the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Congress and the President may regulate interstate commerce, but an individual decision not to purchase government-approved health insurance is a far cry from interstate commerce that government may regulate.

In saving the nation from the scourge of ObamaCare, the Eleventh Circuit also preserved our constitutional republic. If the federal government were found to possess legitimate power to order Americans to buy whatever products the government chose, then that would have spelled the end of many of our freedoms. Fortunately, the appellate court found that there are meaningful limits on governmental power.

Surprisingly, the Eleventh Circuit did not invalidate all of ObamaCare, and instead severed the individual mandate from its other provisions. But this is little consolation to the Obama Administration and its supporters, because without the individual mandate there is insufficient funding for the other sweeping and draconian provisions in the law. It then collapses like a pup tent.

One consequence of this ruling is that it virtually guarantees review of this issue by the U.S. Supreme Court, though it is not clear when. If the Obama Administration seeks en banc review by the entire Eleventh Circuit -- a tactical decision that must be made within 45 days -- then it may not be until 2013 when the Supreme Court renders the final verdict nullifying ObamaCare. Hopefully by then the election of 2012 will have rendered its own verdict against this unconstitutional imposition on Americans.

The entire 300+ page decision can be read at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/62177323/Florida-et-al-v-Dept-Of-Health-Human-Services-et-al

You're Invited... To a FREE screening of a new documentary that exposes the false promises made by ObamaCare through an examination of the failure of government medicine in Canada. 

 What happens when "the GOVERNMENT becomes your DOCTOR?"

Wednesday August 24, 2011
6:30pm to 8:00pm

Location: 

Poinsettia Senior Mobile Home Park
Recreation Center
13648 Edgemoor Street
Poway, CA  92064

To RSVP:

By email: WayneIverson2012@gmail.com

By phone: 858-674-4542

Wayne Iverson, MD will be presenting this movie and hosting an informal discussion before and after the film. Dr. Iverson is a San Diego physician at Scripps La Jolla, OMSS Representative CMA, & AAPS Coordinator California Chapter. http://www.CAAAPS.org  

Producer Logan Darrow Clements shows what happens when "the government becomes your doctor" using licensed news footage from Canadian TV, interviews with doctors, patients, journalists, a health minister, a Member of Parliament, a doctor who went on a hunger strike as well the producer's own Canadian relatives. Clements even rents a hospital to show the mismatch between supply and demand in a medical system run by politicians.

SICK and SICKER puts ObamaCare on ice with cold hard facts from Canada.

Can't attend? You can watch a clip & buy your copy today at http://www.sickandsickermovie.com/