A TV ad featuring former Surgeon General C Everett Koop is but the latest example of the depths some will slither to in an effort to smear health reform and scare the crap out of senior citizens.
These people are just disgusting.
In the ad, Koop claims:
“I’m here with two artificial joints, two pacemakers to keep my heart in rhythm, as well as a stent to keep my coronaries open.” He then says that “seniors in this country can get the same care I received, but in some places, like the United Kingdom, we would be considered too old and the cost to the state too high.”
He’s flat out wrong. In fact, 47 patients over 100 years old got pacemakers, Koop’s a mere 93.
According to FactCheck,
“NICE [the British health system’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence] does have a formula used to assess whether or not a new drug or medical device is worth the cost. But it’s not a simple spending cap. And once a treatment is found to be cost-effective, it is available to all patients regardless of age.”
So who’s doing the lying?
The 60 Plus Association, a pharma-funded astroturf (fake grassroots) organization.
Here’s more:
“In 2002, 60 Plus received 91% of its total revenue – $11 million dollars – from one undisclosed donor, which the Washington Post reported lined up perfectly with “an unrestricted educational grant” to 60 Plus from PhRMa, the drugmaker lobby group. Jim Martin, the 60 Plus President, has acknowledged in interviews that it received money from pharmaceuticals, saying “I wish it was more.”
There are some very good, responsible pharmaceutical organizations, then there is PhRMa. They are neither.
Feb
3
Joe, I agree that “would” should be changed to “could”. Koop’s statement would then be absolutely, logically and empirically true. But, calling people who interchange “w” and “c” (for certainty vs. possibility) “disgusting” is a bit harsh, in my opinion.
I would like to know how may over 100 patients in the UK were denied pacemakers. That coupled with the 47 that did get them would give us all a clear, undistorted picture of the results when NICE gets to admittedly determine if a “new drug or medical device is worth the cost.”
Allen
I strongly disagree with your characterization of this as simple transposition of two letters. This is nothing less than a blatant lie. To call it less is to participate in this disinformation campaign paid for by pharma.
As to your second point, how many Americans don’t get care because they can’t afford insurance or their insurer refuses to pay for or authorize treatment? In the first instance, the numbers appear to be between 40,000 and 100,000.
Koop is damn lucky he has government care.
Which somehow is lost in this whole campaign against health reform; the health care plan that consistently achieves the highest member rating is Medicare – a government plan.
TTU, I wouldn’t even go so far as to say that merely knowing “how may over 100 patients in the UK were denied pacemakers . . . coupled with the 47 that did get them,” would give us anything like a clear picture of the factors NICE uses to determine who gets their service paid for, and who has to pay their own way or do without. Factors like comorbidities and underlying health are just the start of it. Actuarial science is a highly complex endeavor, and if it all boiled down to who-gets and who-doesn’t in a given age cohort, there would be a LOT of unemployed math nerds at the various payors, public and private.
Joe,
Anyone is free to advocate their point, as long as they’re not breaking the law. Why do so may get so up in arms about pharma (or anyone else) advocating a point that’s counter to the one(s) they hold personaly? Aren’t you implying that the hearers of such “information” are incapable of making up their own minds and are just going to believe what their TV (or radio, or newspaper/magazine) spoon feeds them and because of this you have to fight this “disinformation?” Look, I’m not defending anything anyone’s saying; I’m defending their right to say it (as long as it’s lawful; no “fire in a crowded theater” allowed). I believe more information is ALWAYS better.
Re: my second point, I was trying to point out that your original, one-sided statement, “… 47 patients over 100 years old got pacemakers.” was incomplete for an analysis. All I wanted to know, and I think it’s valuable (and more truthful) if we also knew how many were denied. What if 10k+ over 100 years old applicants for pacemakers were denied? That would make, for analysis’ sake, the fact that 47 received pacemakers statistically irrelevant. Why did you bring up Americans who don’t get care becuase they can’t “afford” it? I was asking about NICE.
Rick, you are absoutely right; receiving the piece of the puzzle I asked for would not give me a clear picture of the factors NICE used, but, as I said, I was after “… a clear, undistorted picture of the RESULTS …”
Allen –
I’m fine with free speech, in fact I’m an ardent advocate (this blog is one example). Free speech is not the issue here – trying to influence public opinion to kill health reform by scaring senior citizens with lies is.
Of course misinformation is powerful, that’s precisely why it is used so often. Mussolini, Hitler, Joe McCarthy, Mao, Stalin, the death panelists, cigarette manufacturers, Al Qaeda – the list of successful users of misinformation is endless. As is the list of tragedies spawned by this misinformation.
Of course you have to fight misinformation. I and others have talked for months about the failure of health reform to address cost issues – that effort to pass reform conveniently missed that point. Did our efforts in some way contribute to that failure? If so, the contribution was tiny.
I find it troubling that you refer to my statement as ‘one-sided’. No, it wasn’t. Facts are facts, and this fact was a direct refutation of Koop’s claim. He made a categorical statement which was dead wrong.
I raised the issue of Americans not getting access to care because that is precisely what this is about – an effort by pharma and other entities to scare Americans using lies and distortions.
Of course that’s what the ad was about. What else could it have been? Why do you think pharma paid for it?
If you want to participate in the solution, don’t enable those who are lying to the American public. Call them out publicly. We won’t get to a solution unless – and until – we expose lies and distortions, and get the public the information they need to make an informed decision. Whether that’s about death panels, the absence of cost controls, the Nebraska bribe, rationing, Medicare physician payment chicanery, or government control over health care, these are all tools used to twist reality to accomplish a goal; passing, or killing, health reform.
Paduda
Joe, I did not mean to give offense. I must say, though, the speed in which Hitler was brought in was truly astounding. At every opportunity, I qualified my support for free speech with it’s legality.
I was asking for the whole picture when I asked for the # of patients refused pacemakers by NICE because it was not deemed efficient use of limited funds. I’ll do some investigation to see what I can find.
While I cannot argue that your fact, “47 patients over 100 years old got pacemakers …” is truly a fact in the true sense of the word, I still stand by my implied statement that you’re trying to present a one-sided refute to Koop’s logically incorrect statement. An absolute can always be successfully countered by a single occurrence of what’s denied. But let’s not lose sight of the big picture.
Everyone is resorting to emotions and using “examplary” logic in an attempt to prove their point (or disprove someone else’s). Your use of the 47 patient fact logically disproves Koop’s statement, but so what? If you rely on mere examples to prove your point, they can always be refuted by the “47 patients that were denied.”
To solve this, we need to transcend the emotional factor. We need to present arguments on solid, logical footings. Are we prepared to guarantee health care to all citizens as a right, just like free speech, freedom of assembly and universal suffrage? That’s where the discussion needs to be and not at the current level of “the system’s broken, just look at Nadya over here, she’s been laid off and neither she nor her ten kids have access to affordable health care.” Failure to elevate will only continue the “death panel, rationing, payment chicanery, Government control bogeyman”-type discussion. Elevation will cause those types to look silly.
Joe,
Your information regarding PhRMA support of 60Plus is quite dated. PhRMA was very specific last year in stating that it had not supported the group in more than 5 years. Given the fact that PhRMA was supporting health reform, this should be no surprise. This link continues to be bandied about because AARP finds it useful to link 60 Plus to big bad pharma.
Atlex
Allen – this is not about free speech.
It is about lying to scare people.
It is not about whether there were 47, or 50, or 5000 applicants for pacemakers over 100 to the NHS.
It is about a group lying to scare people.
Yuo are right – “We need to present arguments on solid, logical footings… Failure to elevate [the discussion] will only continue the “death panel, rationing, payment chicanery, Government control bogeyman”-type discussion.
This ad is a blatant ‘failure to elevate’. This is exactly my point.
This group does not want to elevate the discussion, their aim is to scare people. Just like Hitler, Mao, Stalin, McCarthy and the rest did.
Paduda