It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to realize that Americans reject rationing of medical care. The Obama Administration denied it would ever happen. They lied. The effort to ration late stage cancer drugs based upon their costs is underway in the case of Avastin. 60 Plus is rightly concerned about the impact that this decision will have down the road on the availability of any and all treatment options for seniors.
And apparently most of America shares their concern.
60 Plus and Logos Communications has just come out of the field with an extensive survey about health care and rationing. The results are extraordinary. In fact, opposition to rationing is so deep, swing voters — both seniors and women — are in open revolt over the pending FDA decision.
This is an issue that cuts across party lines. It cuts across race, age and philosophy. Look at these numbers:
— 47% of registered American voters oppose the recently passed healthcare reform law, compared to 41% who support it. (Note: the sample is much more favorable to ObamaCare than most national polls).
— 56% of registered American voters believe the new healthcare reform law will lead to so-called “rationing” of care. 26% disagree. Even 2008 Obama voters have their doubts: 39% believe it is likely to lead to rationing; 39% do not.
— 82% believe that cost-effectiveness is NOT a justification for rationing, agreeing with the statement, “As a matter of principle, the government should not ration care or deny treatment options based on what it calls “cost-effectiveness.” I don”t trust the government to put a cost on human life.”” Only 7% disagree.
— 71% believe “the government is likely to limit treatment options through Medicare and Medicaid based on cost within the next several years,” compared to 10% who believe it is unlikely. 44% say it is “very likely.”
— 72% believe that the FDA should have nothing to do with “cost-effective” decisions, compared to 16% who want it involved in judging treatments based on cost. 82% of senior swing voters want the FDA to stay out of cost- based decisions.
— 63% of Americans oppose the FDA’s consideration of revocation in the Avastin case, compared to 16% who support it. This includes 68% of senior swing voters who oppose it, 70% of female swing voters, and 60% of Obama voters.
— 78% “worry” that the FDA’s revocation represents the “start of healthcare rationing” in America. 44% strongly agree.
— 87% agree with the statement, “How dare we tell breast cancer patients their insurance doesn’t have to pay for Avastin?” 65% strongly agree. More on this point follows below, but we must alert any politicians who have read this: the anger towards cancer care rationing is palpable. Defend it at your own risk.
Perhaps most importantly:
— 85% report they will be truly “angry” “if the government does in fact ration Medicare and Medicaid,” including 59% who respond it will make them “very angry.” Importantly in this election year, 87% of swing-vote seniors say that Medicare and Medicaid rationing would make them “angry.” The backlash that will result from denying access to cancer therapy drugs like Avastin is potentially severe, both for private insurance companies and the government. 83% would be “angry” if private insurance companies denied Avastin coverage (61% “extremely angry”). 77% would be angry if Medicare and Medicaid denied Avastin coverage (55% “extremely angry”)
— 71% of registered American voters report they would be less likely to vote for any member of Congress who supported the FDA decision on drugs like Avastin. 49% would be “much less likely.”
The debate over ObamaCare has the tendency to be debated in a vacuum. The pending Avastin decision is the first instance where bureaucrats have begun to put a price tag on life. If they aren’t stopped now, it will be the first of many.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.