WSJ fails to disclose conflict of interest in health care op-ed
The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by radiologist Mark E. Klein criticizing President Obama over the Medicare board's decision not to cover virtual colonoscopies. But Klein performs virtual colonoscopies at his Washington, D.C.-area practice, and the Journal did not disclose his interest in whether Medicaid covers them.
Journal publishes op-ed criticizing Obama over coverage for virtual colonoscopies
From Klein's March 2 Wall Street Journal op-ed:
On Sunday President Barack Obama underwent a complete medical examination, which included a screening for pre-cancerous polyps in his colon. If detected, such polyps would be removed before they became dangerous. The screening the president and his doctors chose was a virtual colonoscopy -- a relatively new, high-tech exam that uses a CT scan to visualize the entire colon.
Last May, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) decided virtual colonoscopies would not be covered by Medicare.
[...]
In 2008, the United States Preventive Services Task Force, an independent panel of experts appointed by the Department of Health and Human Services, issued a report that found that there was not enough evidence to determine whether Medicare should cover virtual colonoscopies. Medicare based its decision not to cover the virtual exam on the task force's findings.
Why did the task force refuse to endorse a procedure enthusiastically recommended by numerous physician organizations, the American Cancer Society, and the national Blue Cross Blue Shield Technology Evaluation Center, a group not anxious to add to the cost of health care? The task force accepted that virtual colonoscopy could accurately diagnose colon polyps. However, according to their report, the experts on the panel feared that the CT-based technique could identify possible abnormalities outside of the colon that might lead to further testing and additional costs. They worried about a theoretical and unsubstantiated risk.
[...]
Of course, the problem is that Americans over the age of 65 do not currently enjoy the same option. They cannot have a virtual colonoscopy unless they are willing to pay out of their own pockets for it. You can imagine their surprise to learn that the president had personally chosen a procedure that his own administration had decided did not warrant Medicare coverage.
This is one reason why Americans fear a government-backed health plan. They have been told that such a plan would not affect the availability of high-tech diagnostic tests and treatment, but their eyes tell them otherwise.
Journal did not disclose Klein's ties to virtual colonoscopy procedures
Klein performs virtual colonoscopies at his practice. The Journal identified Klein only as "a practicing radiologist at Washington Radiology Associates," and "on the clinical faculty of the George Washington University Medical Center." But Klein's biography at Washington Radiology Associates, P.C. says he "has gained recognition in the Washington metropolitan area for his work in the use of virtual colonoscopy for the early detection of colon cancer." The Washington Radiology website also promotes its virtual colonoscopy procedures.
They wouldn't. A valid concern.
But the lack of disclosure of the potential conflict of interest is an example of conservative misinformation. Failing to note potential conflict of interest doesn't let the reader come to a conclusion that the person's potential conflict of interest might have figured into the creation of his opinion piece!
The omission of that information furthers the conservative agenda of attacking Obama.
Some people reading this story would be more likely to doubt the opinion expressed by this guy if they knew of his potential conflict of interest, and therefore less likely to find Obama 'guilty' here. The omission of that data, therefore, favors the conservative agenda of making Obama look 'guilty'!
This isn't rocket science.
And currently for-profit insurance company workers who are interested in preserving the profit of their employers are the ones who limit coverage for some procedures! A gov't employee not interested in preserving the profit of an insurance company are much more trustworthy WRT choosing to cover procedures! It's not a valid concern to be more worried about a gov't employee's choices versus a for-profit insurance company!
So who pays then? If the government employee is not interested in spending money, who is going to pay if there isn't enough money? Answer, we are. More taxes.
And if they are interested in preserving profits as you say, then there is a good chance the procedure will not be covered, which is exactly what I said.
Either way it's still a valid concern when government, funded by US taxpayers, is making these decisions.
You were saying it'd be worse having the gov't do it.
You got caught making a specious argument.
But since you're a paid troll, you'll never admit it. But at least others won't be influenced by your argument. It's not a valid concern, and it's simply a derailing point that has nothing to do with the fact that the WSJ failed to acknowledge the potential conflict of interest.
I will wait for someone who can back up their arguments to discuss this with. Because you can't.
As I expressed in two posts above, you were wrong. I had a very intelligent response that totally refuted what you said.
And AFTER I debunked what you said, I then exposed you as a paid troll trying to derail the thread.
What pattern that HAS been exposed countless times is YOU making a personal attack when YOU can't debate the facts. It's the typical behavior of those on the right, but also of anyone who has lost the battle using facts - to make a personal attack.
Please don't feed this troll anymore.
In other words, he obliterated your non-argument and you don't want to be embarrassed any further. I am sorry, I normally don't involve myself in these type squabbles but you really crossed the line of simple respectful etiquette here today.
You need to rethink your "strategy" where discussing issues and topics with those who disagree with you are concerned DellDolly. This type of personal attack doesn't bode well for your arguments and just makes you look mean, nasty and petty. I apologize for my bluntness but you had it coming.
I have said my piece.
Yeah, you've said your piece. You've hitched your wagon to the RightON horse - good luck disengaging yourself from that foolishness.
And when I need advice, someone who looks up to RightON won't be a person I go to for advice!
The unwarranted personal attack came from RightON, and then from you. I addressed the fallacies of the argument that RightON made, and then I addressed the derailment he was attempting as part of his well-identified pattern of doing that.
And yes, you HAVE involved yourself in this stuff before, standing up for RightON those other times too! So, your claim that you don't "normally" get involved in this stuff is a lie. I outed you back last fall.
Where?
Liar.
Whenever you have no intelligent response, you haul out paid troll. This is no different.
I will wait for someone who can back up their arguments to discuss this with. Because you can't.
As I have already documented, I had a very intelligent response that directly addressed what you had posted. YOU are the one who couldn't back up his argument. You are the one who had your flawed argument pointed out for all to see.
So, no, again, YOU'RE the liar here.
And, again, everyone sees how your personal animus controls you so much that you can't stop from making yet another baseless personal attack.
Liar. You need help my dear.
The concept of having the government in control being better than having a for profit corporation in control even though the government system would not be perfect is much too complicated of a thought for a black and white mind.
And rightON, while you may think you addressed her point, you didn't. You pointed out the "not perfect" part of the equation, but you ignored the issue of who is more likely to play fair.
YOU'RE the liar.
I copied and PASTED the personal attack you made.
You're right, people CAN see the whole thread. You lose in that review.
You are amazing. You always accuse Right ON of personal animus yet you are incapable of having an intelligent, insult-free discussion with him, or pretty much anyone here for that matter. You ought to be ashamed. Where in his response to you was he disrespectful or even hinted at any contentious argument? Yet you couldn't refrain from an absolutely unwarranted personal attack.
Right ON is correct, you have little else but your out of control anger, resentment, name-calling and disrespect for any opposing point of view. Why he even engages you is beyond me.
I just thought you should know.
I made NO unwarranted personal attack. None whatsoever.
YOU ought to be ashamed to support someone like him.
RightON is almost never correct, and he is the one who exhibits horrific personal animus that controls too much of what he posts here.
He's a fearmonger who believes in theories that he has no evidence of!
As Cicero so eloquently asked, "Qui bono?"(Who benefits)
The private, for profit organisation profits by accepting premia and denying service. The not for profit or public organisation has no interest in generating returns to shareholders - its interest is in providing an effective service. QED
The rest of the OECD can't all be wrong!
I recently met with the CFO for one virtual scanning firm and he was complaining that many private insurers don't reimburse for virtual colonoscopies, either Check with your insurance.
But the failure to approve these diagnostic tests is secondary to the point that MMFA was making - that the WSJ has an obligation to identify any potential conflict of interest that someone writing an Op-Ed might have, and they didn't do that!
And RightON didn't mention that at all, notice. He wasn't trying to discuss the topic - he was trying to derail the topic because he knew there was NO way to defend the WSJ in this case.
It's not an accident that he hit 'reply' to the first post on the thread - he wanted his derailing post to be up near the top.