About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Matthews purports to correct Romano on end-of-life consultation, but gets it wrong

July 29, 2009 8:56 pm ET — 5 Comments

During a Hardball discussion about a provision in the House health care reform bill that provides coverage for end-of-life counseling as a service through Medicare, host Chris Matthews purported to correct Washington Post reporter Lois Romano's explanation of the provision, claiming: "We already have that in Medicare." In fact, Romano was correct; the bill would require Medicare to cover the cost of such counseling for the first time.

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Matthews on provision: "It's not about Medicare, Lois. We already have that in Medicare."

From the July 29 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: Well, that's how hot it's getting. Lois Romano, Jonathan Martin -- Lois, your thoughts about this debate. It's a provision in the energy bill -- energy and commerce version of the health care bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee. It was put in, this provision, by Earl Blunauer from Oregon -- Blumenauer.

MARTIN: Blumenauer, yeah.

MATTHEWS: Blumenauer. It's -- there it stands. It's a provision which allows you to get counseling every five years or so. I wonder what the hell this provision's doing in a bill that's aimed at people who are younger. It's not about Medicare recipients, people over 65. Why we'd want to be visited every five years by somebody to talk about how you want to die? I think it's crazy this is in there, but your thoughts.

ROMANO: But, it's not in there. I mean, basically --

MATTHEWS: It is in there.

ROMANO: No, but it's --

MATTHEWS: It's in the bill; it's in the Dingell bill.

ROMANO: It's a benefit. First of all -- first of all -- Chris, first of all, it's an extension of a 1999 bill that was enacted during the Bush administration, and it's a self-determination -- a patients' rights bill. And all it really says is that Medicare will pay if somebody wants to go in and have a consultation. It doesn't say you have to have a consultation. It doesn't --

MATTHEWS: It's not about Medicare, Lois. We already have that in Medicare. This is about people under 65 -- younger people. This is not about Medicare. We've got it in [unintelligible] you're saying that. This is about a health care bill to help people in their middle years and their younger years. Why would you have this conversation with them?

ROMANO: I think it's just basically to give patients some rights. They want to go in and have a conversation. It's about a living will, as [President] Obama said. It's about making choices about being prepared, you know, whether -- and I think most people would opt to use it if they were ill. I don't think you and I, healthy, would go in and say, "Oh, listen. Can we talk about how I'm going to die in 20 years if something happens." I think it's -- you're talking about a person -- say they're under 65, say they're 45, and they're dying, and they just want to go and have a consultation.

The provision would require Medicare to cover the cost of counseling for the first time. According to PolitiFact.com:

Sec. 1233 of the bill, labeled "Advance Care Planning Consultation" details how the bill would, for the first time, require Medicare to cover the cost of end-of-life counseling sessions.

According to the bill, "such consultation shall include the following: An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to; an explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses; an explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy." [PolitiFact.com, 7/16/09]

AARP moderator stated that the provision would allow Medicare to "cover consultation." During a July 28 AARP health care forum, moderator Michael Cuthbert said: "As I read the bill, it's saying that Medicare will, for the first time, cover consultation about end-of-life care." Cuthbert's statement was a response to a questioner who said: "I have been told there is a clause in there that everyone that's Medicare age will be visited and told to decide how they wish to die."

Obama made clear the intent is to "simply make sure that you've got more information, and that Medicare will pay for it." In his follow-up to Cuthbert, Obama stated, "But understand what the intent is. The intent here is to simply make sure that you've got more information, and that Medicare will pay for it." Obama later added: "So if Medicare is saying you have the option of consulting with somebody about hospice care, and we will reimburse it, that's putting more power, more choice in the hands of the American people, and it strikes me that that's a sensible thing to do."

Rep. Blumenauer: "The provision merely provides coverage under Medicare." Blumenauer, who Matthews noted co-authored the provision, released a fact sheet on advance planning consultations in the House health care bill that states: "Myth: Patients will be forced to have this consultation once every five years. Fact: Advance planning consultations are not mandatory; this benefit is completely voluntary. The provision merely provides coverage under Medicare to have a conversation once every five years if -- and only if -- a patient wants to make his or her wishes known to a doctor. If desired, patients may have consultations more frequently if they are chronically ill or if their health status changes."

Matthews says provision is "social policy dynamite," but eldercare groups support the counseling provision

From the July 29 edition of Hardball:

ROMANO: I think it's just basically to give patients some rights. They want to go in and have a conversation. It's about a living will, as Obama said. It's about making choices about being prepared, you know, whether -- and I think most people would opt to use it if they were ill. I don't think you and I, healthy, would go in and say, "Oh, listen. Can we talk about how I'm going to die in 20 years if something happens." I think it's -- you're talking about a person -- say they're under 65, say they're 45, and they're dying, and they just want to go and have a consultation.

MATTHEWS: That's -- no. This is on a regular recurring basis. It seem like something --

ROMANO: But it's not mandated, Chris. It's not mandated.

MATTHEWS: It's not mandated, but what's it doing in there? I just have a sense this was put in by a lobbyist who wanted this in for hospice care -- somebody pushed this in there. It's the kind of social policy dynamite that sounds like Denmark or Scandinavia, and it's that kind of mind-set that drives a lot of moderates and conservatives crazy. Your thoughts, Jonathan.

[...]

MATTHEWS: We'll come back on this. I think it's like the abortion issue that's been jammed into this thing. There shouldn't -- we have a Hyde Amendment, Lois, that says the government will not pay for abortion. People are talking about putting that into the bill here. Pro-choice people that want the government to pay for abortions. There's a lot of social policy being jammed at us, on what is essentially a financing issue.

Numerous eldercare groups support the provision. According to the fact sheet distributed by Blumenauer's office, the provision is "Endorsed By: AARP, American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, American Hospice Foundation, Consumers Union, Gundersen Lutheran Health System, Medicare Rights Center, National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, Providence Health System."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by IncompleteProcess (July 29, 2009 9:33 pm ET)
         
      Chris Matthews was way off base on this one.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jcalton (July 30, 2009 4:54 pm ET)
           
        Matthews has slowly gone downhill. He used to be all right. Are there any journalists left? Once Tim Russert died, was that the end? David Gregory used to be the one guy that cared in the White House Press Corps, now he just takes his marching orders from the conservative media like everybody else.
        Maybe Helen Thomas. Okay, that's one.

        By the way, every time I go to the VA hospital, they ask me if I'm interested in a living will.
        Not "end of life" issues, but it's similar. Do I want the plug pulled?

        Nobody's ever counseled me to do it, they just send me a pamphlet and maybe there's a number to call with questions or something, but the pamphlet is really self-explanatory and straightforward.
        "If you want this to happen, then do this."
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Rev. Dale Susan Edmonds (July 31, 2009 4:23 pm ET)
           
        I've been certified as an Advance Care Planning Facilitator and Instructor. The amount of confusion and misinformation about all this just goes to show why it's essential.

        The Patient Self Determination Act is already law. HIPPA comes from this. It's all a result of experiences with Nancy Cruzan and Karen Ann Quinlan.

        Doctors MUST obtain a patient's consent before any medical treatment. We all retain that right to self-determination, even if we are incapacitated and unable to speak for ourselves. The way to make our choices and decisions known is through Advance Care Planning -- and Advance Directives
        1. appointing a Health Care Power of Attorney,
        2. a Living Will
        3. Conversations with our families,
        4. Conversations with our Doctors.


        It's #4 that's being addressed in the new bill. Doctors are not currently reimbursed for having conversations about Advance Directives, so there is a disincentive for all of us to be able to get full information about treatment options, and our choices for care at the end-of-life. To make fully informed decisions our doctors have to be an integral part of the conversation. WE get to decide what we want or don't want to happen...

        Despite what happens with this bill, all of us need to understand Advance Care Planning and begin conversations with our families -- a crisis can happen at any age. Remember Terri Schiavo?

        These conversations should be happening now ... in our families, in our congregations... with our aging parents.

        To learn more of what this is all about check out
        www.talk-early-talk-often.com/advance-directives.html.


        Report Abuse
    • Author by astrodog2001 (July 31, 2009 8:32 am ET)
         
      I'll have to see whether the 7/30 show comments are on the site, but was appalled by the way Matthews fawned over a radio talk show host (Lars Larson), but was continually interrupting Rep Earl Blumenauer, when he was discussing the provision Blumenauer and a gop Rep who is a doctor, that would allow for medicare to pay for an office visit with the patients own doctor to discuss living wills, hospice options, home care, or other possibilities, for end of life care.

      Maybe with his tall, thin build and bow tie, Blumenauer is giving of some "nerd vibe" and that's why Matthews wouldn't discuss.

      I'm also seeing that Matthews or his producers just want to cover, amplify, and rehash all of these tabloid-ish news items.
      He's been on the birther topic, talking about the Harvard Prof and Officer situation, now ferreting out "controversial" items in the healthcare debate. CM is a bomb thrower with malice
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Barbian (August 01, 2009 6:46 pm ET)
           
        I longer watch CM with any regularity and never at 7P. He rants over guests without listening to9 what they nhave to say just so he can "look confrontational and sharp", except he appears to be rude and disrespectful of those guest who really have something to contribute to our general knowledge. He claims to be in support of universal health for US citizens yet he continues to undermine the possible success of the program with constant straw man arguments that really don't have any basis in reality
        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.