Better Health: Smart Health Commentary Better Health (TM): smart health commentary

Article Comments (2)

Congressman Paul Ryan’s Speech To Medical Bloggers At The National Press Club

Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI)

Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI)

*** Congressman Paul Ryan addressed the crowd at Better Health’s “Healthcare Reform: Putting Patients First” event. This is a transcript of his speech: ***

This event is a landmark in how we get discussion and debate going in the 21st century.  We are communicating with the grass roots, with medical bloggers here in this room and across the country.

Let me tell you this: I don’t want government interfering in the relationship between doctors and patients…and I don’t want insurance companies interfering either!  I want a vibrant health care market that lets patients choose the health care options that are right for them and their loved ones.  I want a free market democracy that puts patients first.  We can have this, and I’ll say something more about that in a minute.

Right now Congress is rushing through a health care overhaul that goes in the opposite direction.  It’s important to analyze the relative financial costs and benefits of these proposals, but our greater challenge is not the dollars and cents.  It goes to the issue of continuing the tradition of excellent health care that medical practitioners now provide.  It’s about the equal dignity of each human person…and the future of America as a free society.  The American character, and the principles of freedom & democracy which protect & preserve it, may be lost beyond recovery if Congress chooses the wrong path on health care reform—the path down which I believe the Obama Administration seems determined to lead our country.

Public health has always been a government priority.  Our Constitution’s Framers saw every individual as having a “right of personal security” which includes being protected against acts that may harm personal health.  This right is part of the natural right to life, and it is government’s very purpose to secure our natural rights to live, to be free, and to pursue happiness.

Now here is where believers in big government make their big mistake.  The right of each person to protection of health does not imply that government must provide health care.  The right to have food in order to live doesn’t require government to own the farms and raise the crops.  Government’s obligation is normally met by establishing the conditions for free markets to thrive.  Societies with economic freedom almost always have a growing abundance of goods and services at affordable costs for the largest number.  When free markets seem to be failing to meet this test – and I’d argue today’s health care delivery is an example – government should not supply the need itself.  It should correct its own interventions and liberate choice and competition.

We know from survey after survey that a vast majority of Americans are personally satisfied with the quality of their own health care.  The problem is really with health care delivery, which is growing too costly and leaving many people without coverage.  The proponents of government-run health care claim there are only two alternatives: either enact their plan or do nothing.  This is false. Government bureaucracy is not the answer to insurance company bureaucracy.

An authentic solution to the problem of affordability should be guided by the principles of moral and political freedom… respect doctor and patient privacy…restrain spending…and channel the energy of our free market system, not dry it up.   There is no lack of sensible alternative solutions proposed by Republicans to put patients first. Senators Coburn and Burr, and Congressman Nunes and I have offered one, called “The Patients’ Choice Act.”  It’s an example of how to eliminate government-driven market distortions that exclude many from affordable health care delivery.  More uninsured Americans can be covered by spending current dollars more wisely and efficiently than by throwing trillions more at the problem.  Our health care delivery alternatives are based on timeless American moral and political truths.

In essence, we believe that the dollars and decisions should flow through the individual patient, not from the government.  I want to see a market where providers truly compete against each other for our business as consumers and patients – not a bureaucratized system where health care providers vie for government favor as patients wait in line.

When federal bureaucracy replaces consumer choice and competition, services are distorted and costs escalate.  Consider Medicare and Medicaid.   Real cost control has become a national nightmare.  Fraud has proliferated despite every effort to stop it.  Program costs are always underestimated.   In 1966, the cost of Medicare to the taxpayers was about $3 billion.  Congress estimated that by 1990, Medicare would cost taxpayers only about 12 billion in real dollars.  The actual cost?  Nearly nine times as high — $107 billion.  By 2006, Medicare reached $401 billion, while Medicaid added another $309 billion for a total of $710 billion.  The failure to control Medicare’s costs shows us why we should look to free markets and decentralization for the answers.

The health care programs being pushed by the Democrats are outrageously expensive and fiscally irresponsible.  Like Medicare and Medicaid, they will fail to control health care costs.  They will exacerbate our growing debt.  They will require crushing taxes.  Their approach would spend trillions more dollars, mandate that all but the smallest of businesses provide health insurance, require every American to pay for health insurance or punish them for not buying it, impose a massive new tax burden on employers & heath care practitioners, and make our entitlement crisis worse by adding yet another open-ended entitlement.

The so-called “public option” is presented as a way of “keeping private insurance honest”.  Well, if this is their idea of “honesty,” we’re in really big trouble. The “public option” isn’t honest.  It is designed to make private insurers go away.

Government has four huge powers that force free market competitors out of business.  First, the government does not pay taxes and the private competitors do.  Second, it forces competitors to establish high capital reserves while the government has none.  Third, the government does not have to account for employee wage and benefit costs – private competitors do.  Fourth, the government gets to dictate the prices it pays, which are much lower than its competitors.

It isn’t “honest competition” when government serves as both referee and player in the same game.  Before the game begins, you know who will win.  Unfortunately, it’s the people who lose.  According to one independent study from a reputable actuarial firm, two out of three Americans will lose the health coverage they now have in three years if the House bill becomes law.

Government-monopolized health service contradicts everything America stands for.  It conflicts with our people’s character…it conflicts with moral principles…it conflicts with market freedom…it conflicts with democracy…and it conflicts with American health care excellence that still draws patients from socialist utopias for medical treatments in this country.

Bureaucratized health care is not compassionate health care.  Let me say that again: bureaucratized health care is uncompassionate, impersonal, and inflexible.  When government agents make decisions about how to treat the sick, they don’t decide according to need…they decide according to a budget-driven calculus.  Bureaucratic indifference replaces compassionate caregiving by loved ones under free markets offering a range of health services.  We need to restore personal, patient-centered health care, the very opposite of the plan now moving through Congress.

The question really before us is about power.  Where does the power go?  In other words, where do the money and decisions come from?  Right now, the nucleus of power in health care lies with third parties – insurers, employers, administrators.  Patients and doctors are at the fringe.  Should this power be shifted to the government OR to patients and doctors?

It’s a truly critical question.  The answer will determine how competition in health care works.  Will doctors, hospitals, and patients contend for government favors? A better reimbursement? Coverage of a new cancer treatment? Approval of a new process? The currency in this power structure is political connections, interest group politics, and bureaucratic dictates.  OR will providers compete with each other based on price, quality, and outcome for the patient’s business? The currency in this power structure is value, results, and achievement.  These principles work in every other market when used – why not health care?

In this debate, direction is destiny. And the destination of the bill now before Congress is government-run health care.

The logic of this bill will require government rationing of health care resources.  Last February, the Economic Stimulus package set up a new agency to do this, the Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research, or CCER, modeled on Britain’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence—they call it “NICE”.  CCER’s stated purpose is to identify medical practices that produce outcomes that work as opposed to those that don’t work.  As long as there is a competitive private health care market, better information on price and quality could help bring much needed transparency to healthcare in America.  But under the government-run plan, providers will not be paid for health care which CCER disapproves of.  Once competing plans have been driven out, CCER’s approval or disapproval will dictate the care providers may offer, automatically denying treatments for certain categories of patients.

England’s NICE is now a rationing bureaucracy.  Under NICE rationing, the government has capped the amount that may be spent on treatments to extend someone’s life by six months.  The amount is $22,000, an arbitrary number arrived at not by medical professionals but by government accountants.

The idea that the government should make decisions about how long people should live is deeply offensive to everything America stands for.  It is wrong to conclude that because health care resources are limited, therefore the federal government must ration care.  This is what free markets are for: finite goods and services, including health care, are rationed by each person judging their unique needs as they allocate their own resources among competing producers.  But should government do this with its “one-size-fits-all” template?  I believe government rationing is morally and politically abhorrent.  It denies basic personal rights. The sick, special needs patients, and seniors – those most at risk when the government involves itself in these tough decisions – deserve better.  Like it or not, once government-run health care is a fait accompli, government rationing becomes the logical endpoint.

Now I want to speak from the heart to every provider of health-related services, including doctors and nurses, assistants, educators, hospitals and clinics.  Many of you have traveled great lengths to join us today.  You will be profoundly affected by the outcome of this debate.  EITHER US health care will travel down a path directed by Washington, where you take your orders and instructions from the federal government – a path like that of our friends to the North and many in Europe – OR health care will be reformed to empower practitioners to pursue health care excellence.  Countries that have chosen nationalized health services have wiped out individual competition and stunted innovation, by eliminating the incentives to outperform.  By law or in effect, medical professionals become government wage earners without adequate reward for exceeding average standards.

Government-driven health care threatens providers in at least three ways:

First: Every aspect of government-monopolized medicine inevitably will be reduced to “cookie cutter” standards.  As providers, you know patients’ conditions are not exactly the same.  Treatments must be tailored to unique needs.  Health care excellence like this is only possible under a vibrant free market.

Second: The cost and price structure of nationalized medical services are distorted by price controls dictated by political demands for low rates of reimbursement.  The principal result is to shrink supplies of price controlled human and material resources – fewer doctors, medicines, & hospitals.  Then government must manage the decline.  The shortages must be spread around by deciding who shall receive and who shall be denied life-saving support.  Patients with greater needs and groups deemed less worthy of treatment are the first victims.

Third: Government-run health services build barriers to talented young men and women considering a career in medicine.  Today there is a growing need for more talented medical practitioners to care for aging boomers.  America needs young people with ability and skill to take on the long years of education and incur substantial student loans to serve our growing need for health care.  The best and brightest won’t do this just to become de facto government employees whose practice and reimbursement are dictated by Congress.

If government-run health care becomes law, it will prove lethal to America’s health care providers. We will be on the path to socialized medicine.  The Congressional majority ridicules the claim that this is their objective, but the government-run plan which they propose as “an important tool to discipline insurance companies,” in the President’s own words, must lead step-by-step down that road.  Mocking a fact does not make it untrue.

Some of the biggest health care organizations are trying to cut a “deal” with the Administration and Congressional leaders.  With all due respect, they should know better.  This is a fool’s errand.  All they can salvage is a temporary stay of execution…because a government takeover of health care in the United States will either squeeze out or take over all private sector providers, large and small.

What is at stake in this battle goes far beyond health care.  This debate encapsulates the defining issue of our generation: do we reform and strengthen American free market democracy, or abandon it for European-style social welfare?

If the majority party wanted more competition, why propose government insurance instead of enabling more non-profit insurance?

If they had no intention of transforming the system into Medicare for all, why do they tie all payments to Medicare?

If they were so worried about our skyrocketing national debt and the burden on the next generation, why do they want to create an entirely new entitlement that would deal a staggering blow to our economy – an entitlement that rivals the size and liabilities of Medicare and Medicaid?  Just yesterday the Director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office told the Senate that their health care plan would worsen the overall fiscal outlook, and his review so far of the House proposal draws the same conclusion.  It makes the fiscal situation even worse.

The fact is, this is ultimately not about health care but about promoting an ideological objective.  This nation, founded on the self-evident truth that unalienable rights were granted to all not by government but by “nature and nature’s God,” is to be remade into a “benevolent” social welfare state.  Federal health care is but the first step.  Until now, people in other countries that have chosen that path might at least come to the United States.  But where will Americans go when the US also has government-run health care?  There will be no place of freedom left to us.

Every day America’s health care professionals meet the critical medical needs of our people with selfless dedication and passion.  They would jump in front of a bus to save their patients.  They deserve not just thanks but our recognition that their excellent care cannot continue under a government monopoly.

This is not the time to stand to one side.  Providers themselves must engage in the struggle for the future of their high profession and commitment to the wellness of our people.

August is the time for action.  This is the time when Americans either engage this debate and tell Congress they reject government-run health care…or sit silently by while Congress forces it on them.  The President and Congressional leaders are saying this has to be done immediately – it has to be done right now – and leave the details to them – they know best.  Well, whether your pet peeve is Iraq or bailouts or the so-called stimulus, we’ve all heard that line before.  You know what they say: fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice – or in the current political environment – 3 or 4 times – shame on me.  Will we heed this lesson?

I am initiating this call to every person and group involved in health care: you must act now!  Doctors, your patients trust you, they will listen to your “prescription.”  Ask them.  They’ll jam the Congressional switchboards.  They have done it before and need to do this from now through August.  They will defeat this threat to everything America has stood for.

Let’s get government health care off the table.  Then we can address real reforms to bring patient-based health care back to America.

Thank you very much.


You may also like these posts

Read comments »


2 Responses to “Congressman Paul Ryan’s Speech To Medical Bloggers At The National Press Club”

  1. LisaEmrich says:

    Thank you so much for hosting Dr. Val. I enjoyed being in attendance. Also, thank you for providing the transcript of Congressman Ryan's remarks. My notes do not include quite all of this information. ;-)

  2. LisaEmrich says:

    Thank you so much for hosting Dr. Val. I enjoyed being in attendance. Also, thank you for providing the transcript of Congressman Ryan's remarks. My notes do not include quite all of this information. ;-)

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Roundup: Reactions to Putting Patients First « See First Blog

Return to article »

Latest Interviews

How To Be A Successful Patient: Young Doctors Offer Some Advice

I am proud to be a part of the American Resident Project an initiative that promotes the writing of medical students residents and new physicians as they explore ideas for transforming American health care delivery. I recently had the opportunity to interview three of the writing fellows about how to…

Read more »

How To Make Inpatient Medical Practice Fun Again: Try Locum Tenens Work

It s no secret that most physicians are unhappy with the way things are going in healthcare. Surveys report high levels of job dissatisfaction burn out and even suicide. In fact some believe that up to a third of the US physician work force is planning to leave the profession…

Read more »

See all interviews »

Latest Cartoon

Richmond, VA – In an effort to simplify inpatient medical billing, one area hospitalist group has determined that “altered mental status” (ICD-9 780.97) is the most efficient code for use in any patient work up.

“When you enter a hospital, you’re bound to have some kind of mental status change,” said Dr. Fishbinder, co-partner of Area Hospitalists, PLLC. “Whether it’s confusion about where your room is located in relationship to the visitor’s parking structure, frustration with being woken up every hour or two to check your vital signs, or just plain old fatigue from being sick, you are not thinking as clearly as before you were admitted. And that’s all the justification we need to order anything from drug and toxin screens, to blood cultures, brain MRIs, tagged red blood cell nuclear scans, or cardiac Holter monitoring. There really is no limit to what we can pursue with our tests.”

Common causes of mental status changes in the elderly include medicine-induced cognitive side effects, disorientation due to disruption in daily routines, age-related memory impairment, and urinary tract infections.

“The urinalysis is not a very exciting medical test,” stated Dr. Fishbinder. “It doesn’t matter that it’s cheap, fast, and most likely to provide an explanation for strange behavior in hospitalized patients. It’s really not as elegant as the testing involved in a chronic anemia or metabolic encephalopathy work up. I keep it in my back pocket in case all other tests are negative, including brain MRIs and PET scans.”

Nursing staff at Richmond Medical Hospital report that efforts to inform hospitalists about foul smelling urine have generally fallen on deaf ears. “I have tried to tell the hospitalists about cloudy or bloody urine that I see in patients who are undergoing extensive work ups for mental status changes,” reports nurse Sandy Anderson. “But they insist that ‘all urine smells bad’ and it’s really more of a red herring.”

Another nurse reports that delay in diagnosing urinary tract infections (while patients are scheduled for brain MRIs, nuclear scans, and biopsies) can lead to worsening symptoms which accelerate and expand testing. “Some of my patients are transferred to the ICU during the altered mental status work up,” states nurse Anita Misra. “The doctors seem to be very excited about the additional technology available to them in the intensive care setting. Between the central line placement, arterial blood gasses, and vast array of IV fluid and medication options, urosepsis is really an excellent entré into a whole new level of care.”

“As far as medicine-induced mental status changes are concerned,” added Dr. Fishbinder, “We’ve never seen a single case in the past 10 years. Today’s patients are incredibly resilient and can tolerate mixes of opioids, anti-depressants, anti-histamines, and benzodiazepines without any difficulty. We know this because most patients have been prescribed these cocktails and have been taking them for years.”

Patient family members have expressed gratitude for Dr. Fishbinder’s diagnostic process, and report that they are very pleased that he is doing everything in his power to “get to the bottom” of why their loved one isn’t as sharp as they used to be.

“I thought my mom was acting strange ever since she started taking stronger pain medicine for her arthritis,” says Nelly Hurtong, the daughter of one of Dr. Fishbinder’s inpatients. “But now I see that there are deeper reasons for her ‘altered mental status’ thanks to the brain MRI that showed some mild generalized atrophy.”

Hospital administrators praise Dr. Fishbinder as one of their top physicians. “He will do whatever it takes to figure out the true cause of patients’ cognitive impairments.” Says CEO, Daniel Griffiths. “And not only is that good medicine, it is great for our Press Ganey scores and our bottom line.”

As for the nursing staff, Griffiths offered a less glowing review. “It’s unfortunate that our nurses seem preoccupied with urine testing and medication reconciliation. I think it might be time for us to mandate further training to help them appreciate more of the medical nuances inherent in quality patient care.”

Dr. Fishbinder is in the process of creating a half-day seminar on ‘altered mental status in the inpatient setting,’ offering CME credits to physicians who enroll. Richmond Medical Hospital intends to sponsor Dr. Fishbinder’s course, and franchise it to other hospitals in the state, and ultimately nationally.

***

Click here for a musical take on over-testing.

See all cartoons »

Latest Book Reviews

The Spirit Of The Place: Samuel Shem’s New Book May Depress You

When I was in medical school I read Samuel Shem s House Of God as a right of passage. At the time I found it to be a cynical yet eerily accurate portrayal of the underbelly of academic medicine. I gained comfort from its gallows humor and it made me…

Read more »

Eat To Save Your Life: Another Half-True Diet Book

I am hesitant to review diet books because they are so often a tangled mess of fact and fiction. Teasing out their truth from falsehood is about as exhausting as delousing a long-haired elementary school student. However after being approached by the authors’ PR agency with the promise of a…

Read more »

Unaccountable: A Book About The Underbelly Of Hospital Care

I met Dr. Marty Makary over lunch at Founding Farmers restaurant in DC about three years ago. We had an animated conversation about hospital safety the potential contribution of checklists to reducing medical errors and his upcoming book about the need for more transparency in the healthcare system. Marty was…

Read more »

See all book reviews »