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 These rules should be withdrawn.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/



The California Chapter of AAPS is pleased to learn that AAPS Board Member, San Diego physician, & AAPS California Chapter Coordinator, Wayne Iverson, MD, MBA has opened an Exploratory Committee for the New Congressional District in San Diego County that incorporates the area of Tierrasanta-Poway-La Jolla.

Doctor Iverson has long been an effective leader in the fight for physicians and patients and is now stepping up to explore the possibility of representing the newly formed Congressional district in southern California in which he works and resides.

Our nation’s doctors and patients are in desperate need of more effective advocates in DC who aren’t afraid to challenge the powers-that-be who’ve continually increased their bureaucratic stranglehold on U.S. medical care. With 202 lawyers in Congress and only 19 physicians it is no wonder that doctors and their patients are often on the losing side of DC policy-making.

 Dr. Iverson co-founded the National Doctors Tea At Doctors Tea Party 8/7/2010Party, with his San Diego colleague Adam Dorin, MD, to highlight physician opposition to the PPACA.  He and Dr. Dorin have energized and informed citizens by organizing and speaking at workshops, rallies, town halls, and even film screenings, across Southern California.

Please learn more about Dr. Iverson and his exploratory committee by visiting his websites and social media pages. Feel free to contact him with any comments, questions, and messages of support!

————————————————————

Wayne Iverson, MD, MBA

AAPS Coordinator CA Chapter http://www.CAAAPS.org

2nd E-mail: WayneIverson2012@gmail.com

Office: 858-674-4542

Website: http://www.WayneIverson2012.com

Blog: http://www.WayneIverson2012.wordpress.com

Facebook People: Wayne Iverson

Facebook Political Org: Wayne Iverson 2012 Exploratory Committee

Twitter: @WayneIverson

Click to read more ...

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 July 27^th, 2011
6:30pm to 8:00pm

Location: Great Hall, Schaetzel Center Scripps* Memorial Hospital

La Jolla (SMHLJ) 9888 Genesee Avenue,

 La Jolla, CA 92037

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/

*THE CONTENTS OF THIS FILM HAVE NOT BEEN VIEWED OR ENDORSED BY SCRIPPS HEALTH.  Click here to read full disclaimer.

Health care sharing is an innovative free market solution helping patients to plan for unexpected and expensive medical care, instead of paying large premiums to the bureaucratic insurance plan that may or may not cover the care you need when you need it. On this episode of MediTalk, VP of Samaritan Health Sharing Ministries will discuss how these plans work and what the implications are of PPACA for their future.

Listen live at 9pm EDT - July 18, 2011

CLICK HERE to listen live or to listen later to the archived podcast.

Everybody seems to think that doctors swear to the Oath of Hippocrates, and follow a long ethical tradition dating back to the 5th century before Christ.

Not anymore. The new doctors seem to be making it up as they go along. The tradition is not being set by a white beard who sat at many a patient’s bedside, taught a generation or more of disciples, earned the respect of his contemporary colleagues, and wrote a corpus of observations and reflections still esteemed millennia after his death.

Full Article-http://www.aapsonline.org/index.php/site/article/roll_over_hippocrates/

Join us Monday, June 27, 2011, on MediTalk: Twila Brase of Citizens' Council for Health Freedom will expose some of the myths concerning medical privacy, including the truth about HIPAA privacy rules.

Instead of protecting patient privacy, HIPAA is essentially a federal license to intrude.

Also, Ms. Brase will discuss the warehousing of newborns' genetic information. Newborn babies in the United States are routinely screened for a panel of genetic diseases. Since the testing is mandated by the government, it's often done without the parents' consent. In many states, such as Florida babies' DNA is stored indefinitely.

CCHC supports patient and doctor freedom, medical innovation, and the right of citizens to a confidential patient-doctor relationship.

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN LIVE AT 9PM

Did you miss the live webcast?  You can listen to the archived podcast at the above link anytime.

Two traditionally "left-wing" media outlets publish article on examples of how free market solutions can work for patients and doctors.

from Huffington Post 5/26/2011
Direct Primary Care: Skip The Insurer, Get Better Health Care?

Health insurance costs have skyrocketed, making preventative care a near-impossibility for many Americans. But a unique system has sprung up, skirting around the insurance industry entirely: direct primary care practices. And the impact, proponents say, isn't just financial. Direct primary care clinics could dramatically increase the quality of health care, too.

The idea behind direct primary care practices (DPCPs) is that patients pay a modest, monthly fee (often adjusted according to age and existing conditions) and receive direct access to their doctor.

This means practices generate revenue directly from fees and not from billing insurance companies or ordering tests.

So what are the health implications of these plans? Proponents say they are plentiful.

Because the fee model limits the amount of time doctors have to spend filling out insurance paperwork or battling over coverage, they have more time to devote to patient appointments.

READ ENTIRE STORY

----------------------------------

from Minnesota Public Radio 6/20/2011
Doctor as renegade -- accepts cash, checks, eggs or pie, not insurance

Osakis, Minn. — Dr. Susan Rutten Wasson sits on the corner of a bed in the cramped bedroom of Alice Johnson, a 91-year-old Osakis resident everyone calls "Grandma Alice." She's examining Johnson's arm, which is swollen, she's determined, because of a tight sleeve cuff.

Also in the room are Alice's daughter, Ione, and granddaughter, Anne, who lives downstairs in the farmhouse Johnson has occupied for decades. A Rottweiler mix as big as a Shetland licks the face of 18-month-old Sarah, Rutten Wasson's daughter, who sits on the doctor's lap.

It's more a scene from the days of frontier medicine than from the modern health care system. And that's because Rutten Wasson, 42, is a throwback to a time before HMOs, electronic health records and hospitals with fountains in their lobbies. She sees patients the same day they call if she's not booked up, spends at least a half-hour per visit — compared to the more typical 15 minutes — and usually charges only $50 for a consultation. She takes cash or check, but no insurance — and sometimes accepts gratuities of a dozen fresh eggs or a pie.

READ ENTIRE STORY

At the annual American Medical Association’s House of Delegates meeting in Chicago, the delegates reaffirmed the AMA’s support for the linchpin of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) by a vote of 326-165.

The AMA calls it “individual responsibility.” But it means the individual insurance mandate. An amendment to allow the states to choose whether to impose a mandate was soundly defeated.

Numerous physicians spoke passionately and eloquently against the mandate, referring to constitutionality challenges, freedom issues, and the opposition of physicians and numerous medical organizations. The AMA admits to having lost 12,000 members since 2009, many because of the AMA’s endorsement of PPACA.

Click to read more ...

Listen tonight and participate in a live webcast to discuss the AMA vote today that reaffirms their support of ObamaCare, despite the opposition of a majority of patients & doctors across the country.

AAPS President Lee Hieb, MD and Ex-Canadian, now American, physician Lee Kurisko, MD will lead the conversation and also discuss free market solutions that will work to increase quality, decrease costs, and improve access to care.

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN LIVE AT 9pm EDT on June 20, 2011.

Did you miss the live webcast?  You can listen to the archived podcast at the above link anytime.

by Jane M. Orient, M.D.,

The latest Mediscare ad shows Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) pushing an old woman in a wheelchair off a cliff. The Republicans are allegedly killing “Medicare as we know it.” But this is a diversion from the real question: What will “healthcare reform” or ObamaCare do to Granny? Democrats may hope to keep Americans from figuring that out until after the 2012 election.

The Medicare issue is demagogued to gain votes in every electoral cycle. And hardly any politicians are telling the whole story.

Click to read more ...

Join in on the MediTalk webcast tonight to hear how RomneyCare hurts doctors and patients in Massachusettes. Kristine Soly, MD is a cardiologist in Massachusetts.  She does not accept money from the government or insurance companies, but works directly for her patients.  Her patients are happier and so is she.  CLICK HERE TO LISTEN LIVE AT 9PM Eastern Daylight Time on June 6, 2011.

Did you miss the live webcast?  You can listen to the archived podcast at the above link anytime.

By: Tamzin Rosenwasser, M.D.,

Suppose you went into a grocery store, and found no prices on anything. You ask a clerk how much five pounds of potatoes would be, and he asks you whether you are 65 or older. You’re taken aback, but you tell him you are 64, and he asks whether your income is less than $40,000.00 a year. Startled, you say it is more than that, and then he asks whether you have food insurance. Why would the price of potatoes depend on the buyer’s age, income, and insurance status, rather than on the cost of growing, transporting, and stocking the potatoes? That would be absurd.

Click to read more ...

America's Civic's Teacher, US Airforce Veteran & Healthcare scholar and author, Dave Racer joins MediTalk this evening to discuss the faulty reasoning used by ObamaCare proponents to rationalize their support and and how to make them realize their errors.  

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN IN AT 9PM Eastern Daylight Time on May 30, 2011.

Did you miss the live webcast?  You can listen to the archived podcast at the above link anytime.

AAPS held a briefing May 26 at the Cannon House Office Building in DC to educate Congressional and think tank staff members about how ObamaCare damages the patient-physician relationship.

Click to read more ...