It doesn’t take a soothsayer to know that if ObamaCare and the push toward government-run health care continue, America will begin to ration drugs and treatment for the sick and the elderly.
In fact, it may be too late. Rationing is creeping into the system already.
The Wall Street Journal highlights the latest efforts to “end the cost curve,” this time in Washington State where bureaucrats could decide whether it is “too expensive” to treat kids with diabetes. The Journal in a critical editorial notes:
In 2006, Washington created a board to scrutinize the cost-effectiveness of various surgeries and treatments, known as the Health Technology Assessment program. At a hearing today, the panel will debate glucose monitoring for diabetic children under 18. In other words, the board is targeting the fundamental standard of diabetes care that has been the established medical consensus for at least three decades.
This state issue deserves far more scrutiny, if only because ObamaCare and the stimulus devoted billions of dollars to comparative effectiveness research. As President Obama has so often put it, the idea is to pit Treatment X against Treatment Y and find out “what works and what doesn’t.” In theory, it sounds great. But the Health Technology Assessment is an example of how comparative effectiveness will work in the real world, as the political system tries to find ways to restrict or limit treatment to control entitlement spending.
Of course, Washington State’s effort to reduce the cost of health care is the tip of the rationing iceberg.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is trying to restrict the drug Avastin to breast cancer patients who can afford to pay the $80,000 a year treatment themselves. Women who depend on insurance to cover the cost of the drug will be on their own should the FDA move forward with their initial recommendation.
Provenge is a prostate cancer drug that has been found to be an effective treatment but the Centers for Medicare Medicaid Services (CMS), headed by rationing supporter Donald Berwick has conducted a review of the drug because of its price tag. “CMS will never admit that cost is a part of the reason they opened up the national coverage decision, but I think it definitely is,” said David Blaszczak, a Potomac Research Group analyst who previously worked for the agency. “If this product was only $200 we wouldn’t be going through this process.” (http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/health/medical/cancer/2010-11-18-provenge-medicare_N.htm)
Lucentis is another example where the bottom line cost is trumping patient concerns. The drug has been FDA approved for patients with Wet Age Macular Degeneration (AMD) eye disease. It was tried, tested and proven safe for patients but the National Institute for Health is undertaking its own study to see if Avastin – which was never approved for AMD – can be substituted in its place. Patient safety be damned when price is the issue.
Even though ObamaCare was enacted just one year ago, we are starting to see rationing creep into our health care system. Things will only get worse should the law not be repealed.