Special Report misrepresented Obey to advance health IT falsehood
SUMMARY: Fox News' James Rosen took a quote he attributed to Rep. David Obey out of context to advance the falsehood that provisions in the bill would permit the federal government to control health care. In fact, the bill contains no such provisions.
During the February 11 edition of Fox News' Special Report, correspondent James Rosen took comments he attributed to Rep. David Obey (D-WI) out of context to falsely suggest Obey claimed the economic recovery bill would bar doctors from prescribing what the federal government deemed to be less effective or too expensive medical treatments. Rosen aired a clip of Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) claiming of provisions in the legislation, "That is absolute code is, 'We'll decide what -- how you will be treated, and we'll decide what drugs -- and especially in terms of new medical innovations, if they're too expensive, we will not allow those to be used.' " Rosen then reported, "Indeed, when the House Appropriations Committee reported its version of the bill to the House floor, Chairman David Obey noted that some medical treatments 'that are found to be less effective and in some cases, more expensive, will no longer be prescribed.' Democrats have sought to allay fears about the federal government making cost-based decisions."
Rosen's suggestion that the comments he attributed to Obey -- which come from a House Discussion Draft of the bill Obey submitted -- support Coburn's claim that the bill would allow the government to "decide how you will be treated" is false. In fact, as Media Matters for America has documented, the discussion draft language actually states: "By knowing what works best and presenting this information more broadly to patients and healthcare professionals, those items, procedures, and interventions that are most effective to prevent, control, and treat health conditions will be utilized, while those that are found to be less effective and in some cases, more expensive, will no longer be prescribed." Similarly, the corresponding section of the bill as passed by the House does not provide that the government can intervene in doctors' treatment decisions. Media Matters has noted that a February 9 Wall Street Journal article similarly mischaracterized the same quote from the House Discussion Draft.
In addition, Rosen claimed that "[b]uried in the 736-page Senate version of the stimulus bill is a provision that creates a federal council to evaluate the effectiveness of taxpayer-funded clinical medical research. 'The council,' states the legislation, 'shall assure that research conducted or supported by relevant federal departments and agencies will be undertaken with the goal of reducing duplicative efforts and encouraging coordinated and complementary use of resources.' " In fact, the bill does not contain such a provision.
The relevant section of the legislation as passed by the Senate (as well as in the 736-page version introduced in the Senate) states that the council shall "advise the President and Congress on ... opportunities to assure optimum coordination of comparative clinical effectiveness and related health services research conducted or supported by relevant Federal departments and agencies, with the goal of reducing duplicative efforts and encouraging coordinated and complementary use of resources." The bill does not delegate to the council authority to direct how research conducted by federal agencies is undertaken.
Rosen later falsely suggested that a section of the bill stating that "[t]he national coordinator for health information technology shall undertake the development of a nationwide health information technology infrastructure that provides appropriate information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care" contradicts the argument by Democrats that the bill "will only empower, not interfere with, local doctors."
Rosen reported:
ROSEN: The bill also allocates $5 billion for the Office of National Coordinator of Health Information Technology. This individual will accelerate the digitization of medical records, an effort Democrats likewise argue will only empower, not interfere with, local doctors.
SEN. JON TESTER (D-MT): I tell you, I don't want the government making my health-care decisions. I don't think anybody around the country wants it this way. I think what we want is a 21st-century health-care system, similar to what the VA has.
ROSEN: But conservatives point to the specific language in the bill, which states, "The national coordinator for health information technology shall undertake the development of a nationwide health information technology infrastructure that provides appropriate information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care."
McCAUGHEY: "At the time and place of care." So, in fact, this is going to be a two-way system. Your medical treatments will be stored in the database, but the government will also be communicating with your doctor at the time and place of care.
In fact, as Media Matters has documented, the provision of the bill Rosen quoted does not "interfere with" doctors. Rather, that provision -- which former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey has misrepresented in the past -- addresses establishing an electronic records system such that doctors would have complete, accurate information about their patients "to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care." Indeed, CNN senior medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen reported during the February 11 edition of CNN Newsroom, "I had a PDF of the bill up on my computer. I said, 'Show me where in the bill it says that this bill is going to have the government telling your doctor what to do.' And McCaughey directed me to language -- it didn't actually say that." Cohen added, "Now when we asked the folks who wrote this bill, 'Hey, is this bill going to allow the government to tell doctors what to do?" they used words like, 'preposterous' and 'completely and wildly untrue.' "
From the February 11 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
BAIER: There are renewed fears of Big Brother-ism making the rounds on talk radio, the Internet, and among some lawmakers in Congress. It has to do with a portion of the stimulus package dealing with health-care issues, but some suspect a much more sinister purpose. Correspondent James Rosen looks at the rumors and the reality.
[begin video clip]
ROSEN: Buried in the 736-page Senate version of the stimulus bill is a provision that creates a federal council to evaluate the effectiveness of taxpayer-funded clinical medical research. "The council," states the legislation, "shall assure that research conducted or supported by relevant federal departments and agencies will be undertaken with the goal of reducing duplicative efforts and encouraging coordinated and complementary use of resources."
COBURN: That is absolute code is, "We'll decide what -- how you will be treated, and we'll decide what drugs -- and especially in terms of new medical innovations, if they're too expensive, we will not allow those to be used."
ROSEN: Indeed, when the House Appropriations Committee reported its version of the bill to the House floor, Chairman David Obey noted that some medical treatments that are found to be less effective -- and, in some cases, more expensive -- will no longer be prescribed. Democrats have sought to allay fears about the federal government making cost-based decisions.
SEN. BEN CARDIN (D-MD): There's nothing in this the bill that will interfere with the patients -- the doctors making the decisions as to what type of treatment patients need.
ROSEN: The bill also allocates $5 billion for the Office of National Coordinator of Health Information Technology. This individual will accelerate the digitization of medical records, an effort Democrats likewise argue will only empower, not interfere with, local doctors.
TESTER: I tell you, I don't want the government making my health-care decisions. I don't think anybody around the country wants it this way. I think what we want is a 21st-century health-care system, similar to what the VA has.
ROSEN: But conservatives point to the specific language in the bill, which states, "The national coordinator for health information technology shall undertake the development of a nationwide health information technology infrastructure that provides appropriate information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care."
McCAUGHEY: "At the time and place of care." So, in fact, this is going to be a two-way system. Your medical treatments will be stored in the database, but the government will also be communicating with your doctor at the time and place of care.
[end video clip]
ROSEN: So why are these provisions even in an economic stimulus bill? Perhaps Democrats were following the playbook of Tom Daschle, who withdrew as President Obama's nominee to run the Department of Health and Human Services and who wrote in a book about health care last year -- and I quote -- "The next president should act immediately to capitalize on the goodwill that greets any incoming administration." He added, "If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it." Bret.
BAIER: James, thank you.
I think it's time for all currently uninsured Real Americans® to raise their voices in unison, and shout "We demand to be given the more expensive, less effective drugs !!!"
I can't believe the conservatives are trying to say that liberals want to reduce people's access to health care based on cost. It has been the conservatives who keep saying we can't afford to treat the poor. It has been the conservatives in the pocked of the health care companies. I thought I had seen everything.
I think Obama should work with this and get the conservatives to agree that cost should not be allowed to be a factor in medical decisions. Write up the bill and see if they get all those conservatives to sing the same tune.
I think there are a couple of things here that concern some conservatives;
1) This is not stimulus spending, It sets up a new government agency that will last far beyond the life of the stimulus and will be an on-going budget item from this point on.
2) The new government agency will certainly have rule making authority, so we don't know at this time what may come out of this agency in the future. I remember the words of one of the authors of the Endangered Species Act in Congress saying (words to the effect), "This (the results of the Act after several years) was not our intent."
The devil may well be in the details in the next couple of years.
Are you referring to the Office of National Coordinator of Health Information Technology? Because Bush created that in 2004.
The economic recovery act provides funds to carry out the office's mission of developing a national health IT system. There are people who have looked at this who say this spending is stimulative, in addition to having long term benefits.
If it develops the system and disappears, Ok. But the Devil still may be in the details in the future. (and that is coming from Conservatives that I work with daily, not necessarily my own opinion, just paralleling it with some programs that came about in the past).
I really think your co-workers are worrying for no reason. As far as I've seen, this program is just about computerizing medical records and providing doctors with up-to-date information electronically. That will be helpful no matter what we decide to do about the health care crisis.
Unless they're worried that a government program can be shown to reduce health care costs.
These people are either stupid or dishonest.... maybe both. The phrase they are apparently getting this from is:
"that provides appropriate information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care."
It's obvious to any 5th grader that this sentence is referring to the information as the guide, but the Troglodytes are extrapolating it to mean that the Government would be guiding the doctors' decisions.
Idiots and liars.
"By knowing what works best and presenting this information more broadly to patients and healthcare professionals, those items, procedures, and interventions that are most effective to prevent, control, and treat health conditions will be utilized, while those that are found to be less effective and in some cases, more expensive, will no longer be prescribed."
Now, depending on what drug or doctors lobbist groups that provide the most money to the coffers of the elected officials will be the best course of treatment. One time in history cemo was considered to expensive and a risk, not is is common treatment for cancer. Why would a drug company now go our and do the research and spend money on new technology if the government will not let it be prescribed if deemed to risky.
Where, in the sentence you posted, does it say anything about the government making any such decision?
Oh, sorry, so you really beleive that when the government gives all this money to the medical industry they are not going to have a say? Just like they are giving money to the auto industry and telling them what kind of cars to make, just like they are putting money into the smart gird technoloy. You really beleive they are not going to start poking into how much energy is used. The sentence I posted says what it says, "while those that are found to be less effective and in some cases, more expensive, will no longer be prescribed." Who do you think is making these decsions? Your Doctor? Think not! Some Governement Official will be,
Who do you think is making these decsions? Your Doctor? Think not! Some Governement (sic) Official will be, (sic)
Far better a government official than an insurance-company official; the government official does not have a direct vested interest in denying you as much coverage as they can get away with, as does the insurance-company official...
Wait till the coffers start filling up with cash, who is putting in, who is not.
I think this shows the main difference between liberals and conservatives. When I read the sentence I see this is giving the most information to a doctor so she can prescribe the best decision. When conservatives read it they think about how they would control the doctor to make him do their bidding.
The key to the statement is prescribed. Doctors make prescriptions not the government. This is about giving doctors information not making decisons for them.
I guess this is the difference between a liberal and conservative. Liberals beleive the government has their best interest at heart, conservatives know the government could careless about you, and only try to get re-elected. H-man, my point was simple and you missed it. I would perfer that my doctor works with me to find the best cure, not a insurance company, not the government but the doctor. If we went back to a system were we pay all the bills, not relay on insurance or any other 3rd party company to assist us, we would get this type of care. This new bill is going to allow the government to step in, and tell you what you can and can not receive for medical assistance if you are receiving any type of funds from the government.
Liberals beleive the government has their best interest at heart, conservatives know the government could careless about you
Wow - finally a statement of fact. Followed by all lies, of course.
Does it say somewhere in the bill that the doctor would not make the decision, or is that your paranoid mind making a huge assumption?
Why would any doctor need the government to tell him not to prescribe a treatment that is more expensive and less effective? Are you implying that doctors are stupid or corrupt?
Nerzog, each day I learn how neive you really in this world. When you ask the government for any funds to help you with your medical assistance, yes they are going to think they know more then the docs.
of course that is what the govt has in mind, and it is what the dems have wanted. I am still waiting to see however, how this stimulates the economy.
if the government will not let it be prescribed if deemed to risky.
It doesn't say anything like this, anywhere in the bill or the quote! I'm getting hay fever from your strawman.
I thought my headache was from the spelling and grammar horrors.
Col, I look to you to edit my post, since I have to work twice as hard to pay for Obama's bills, I have less time to post. Just happen to take a break from time to time to read all the liberal post for my comic relief.
I have no idea why you're paying Obama's bills for him, but can't you get the manager to watch the curly fries while you proofread?
I work with Julio, McDonalds. Looking for more Benefits Man!
I know you will not read my other post, so here.
The sentence; "while those that are found to be less effective and in some cases, more expensive, will no longer be prescribed." Who do you think is making these decsions? Your Doctor? Think not! Some Governement Official will be,
Some Governement (sic) Official (sic) will be,(sic)
Who at least is free from the onus of having his livelihood directly affected by how much coverage he allows or denies, as do officials of insurance companies...
Here, I'll repeat it just for you:
Why would any doctor need the government to tell him not to prescribe a treatment that is more expensive and less effective? Are you implying that doctors are stupid or corrupt?
I think the implication is that a doctor is in a much better position to know what is effective.
That is correct. Who is arguing that he's not? To make that decision, any doctor needs to have access to the information, correct? Presumably, this data base would help him access that information.
Why is that so difficult to understand?
On reading your question again, an individual doctor actually may not know which treatment is better at a given time. Instead of going home and reading about it in the AMA Journal, he may be able to access the latest information from the patient's room, or the nurse's station.
This has nothing to do with the Government telling the doctor what to do.
Then why do insurance companies have their bureaucrats making health care decisions and not doctors?
Paranoid conspiracy theory, or just fear of the gov't. Doctors will continue to do what they think is best. Besides - st least there would be some effectiveness data backing it up. Who do you think makes the call now? Your doctor? No sir - that would be YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY. A for profit company that I trust a helluva lot less than the government (excluding republicans) to have my best interest at heart. Do you think the ins co cares what's effective? Do think they balance effacacy with cost? No sir - ALL they care about is cost. And you have to fight tooth and nail with them to get them to pay for what the doctor says you need.
Apparently you've never been in the hospital. Our system is broken. What you're fearing would be an improvment. And it's not even what's being proposed.
Nice, the problem with you and many liberals is you really think the government is not going to get involved once they are handing out funds. Do some research about the nightmares families are having with the current CHIP program. They are not getting the medical treatments their doctors are suggesting. They are getting what the government thinks is best for their kids because it is cheaper. This is going to continue with the new IT systems they put in place. Once you "Eddie" receives any type of assistance from the government, this will now be placed in your IT records for review. So when they go to prescribe some type of medication that is considered to expensive the government will then tell the doctor that they can not prescribe that medication, but will tell the doctor what the cheaper route would be for Eddie. So, no it is not in the bill, but just look at the past to see the future. Eddie, do some homework in the CHIP program, tell me that the government is not getting involved.
It must be tough to be so scared all the time - especially about the big, bad libruls who are out to get you.
I'm not saying it's perfect. But what's the current alternative to that very program? These kids go w/o insurance. I'll be the first to agree that more deference has to be given to doctors. But insurance co's do no better a job at that. And if you can't even afford the insurance, then what the doctor wants is ireelevant, since you'll never see one. The way to fix things with a program is TO FIX THINGS WITH THE PROGRAM. Not to scrap the whole program and have a big free for all. But Democrats want to make it better (and often screw it up, granted) conservative want to make it cheaper or just scrap it altogether (so really they don;t want to fix it, they want to destroy it.) Letting them do this because you fear the gov't is not progress. They don't offer any solutions - they just thorw up there hands and "it doesn't look like it'll work, so let's just not spend any money on it." (Thus gurenteeing the problem willl never be fixed... thus prepetuating the argument they keep using.)
I guess since they are not going to post the bill, how are we to really know? SURPRISE! Dems Break Promise to post bill on the internet, instead stimulus bill to Floor Friday.
Here you go mark. Knock yourself out.
Stimulus Bill links
(Thanks, Col.)
I listen to these people all the time(to hear their side) and for the love of me, I think they are in complete denial! I read a sentence that said, "The updating of our health records by computer would be there as a help for the doctor to make an informed decision about his or her patients! The conservatives interpreted it to mean that a different department would tell doctors how to treat their patients....I know Rush has no degree, I know Sean has no degree, yet they insist that this is what it means! What dumb "blow-hards"!