Wednesday, August 31, 2011

CCHF ACTION ALERT! PCORI Deadline this Friday 9/2/11

logo

CCHF ACTION ALERT!

August 30, 2011

The Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), established under Obamacare, has asked the American public to comment on the Institute's definition of "patient-centered outcomes research."

DEADLINE -  THIS Friday, September 2.

In short, PCORI's definition is deceptive and leaves the public thinking that PCORI (pronounced "pee-CORE-ee") is going to do great work. However, the definition is not patient-centered. It's government-centered. Despite assertions to the contrary, the controversial "comparative effectiveness research" will be used by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to make insurance coverage decisions for all citizens.

Click HERE to make a statement or two on any one of the five questions or just use the space at Question #5 to make a general statement. Then press "Submit."

Find our public comments on PCORI's five questions below.  See #5 in particular. Feel free to use our comments to come up with an overarching comment or two about the entire endeavor.

PCORI is the new name for one of the so-called "death panels" established in the "economic stimulus" bill, the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. The controversial FCC was repealed in Obamacare and replaced by PCORI....which is required by law to conduct "comparative effectiveness research."

Please comment by midnight on Friday.

I'd appreciate it greatly if you could let me know by email that you did. Thank you in advance!

Twila Brase, RN, PHN
President, CCHF
651-646-8935



CCHF COMMENTS to FIVE QUESTIONS:

1. Does the definition place appropriate emphasis on, and convey the importance of, the “patient-centeredness” of the PCORI mission?           

Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom is writing to express our deep concern over the definition of so-called “patient-centered outcomes research” (PCOR). We are also concerned that the Institute (PCORI) has requested input on pilot projects to determine methodology for conducting the research and placed an August 31, 2011 deadline on those comments, which is before the Institute has even received and fully evaluated the public’s comments on the definition of the research.
CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCH
Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is not "patient-centered." It is government centered. The move to empower government appointees to conduct comparative effectiveness research proved so controversial in the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“economic stimulus”) that the Obama Administration repealed the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research in the Federal health care reform law (Section 6302) and replaced it with the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Notably, the Finance Committee called PCOR ‘an alternative term’ to comparative effectiveness research (CER).”
DECEPTIVE DEFINITION
In the same vein we are concerned that the words within the PCOR definition will mislead the public. Although the definition adopted by PCORI says the research “helps people make informed health care decisions and allows their voice to be heard in assessing the value of health care options,” the federal health care reform statute specific to PCORI makes it clear that 19 government appointees will be focused on making decisions that will, in concert with the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, determine coverage decisions for more than 300 million Americans.
RESEARCH FOR RATIONING
Although the statute states that the comparative effectiveness research (CER) findings are “not be construed as mandates, guidelines, or recommendations for payment, coverage, or treatment.” and that “Nothing...shall be construed as…authorizing the Secretary to deny coverage of items or services under such title SOLELY on the basis of comparative clinical effectiveness research” (my emphasis), the statute also says, 
‘‘SEC. 1182. (a) The Secretary MAY only USE evidence and findings from research conducted under section 1181 to make a determination regarding coverage…IF such use is through an iterative and transparent process which includes public comment and considers the effect on subpopulations.” (my emphasis)
This statutory language along with the word “solely” provides a huge loophole for federal control over medical decisions and enables health care rationing.
THREE MORE CONCERNS
There are other concerns with the assumption in the “MAY only USE” statement: First, who are the lucky few that get deferential treatment because the Secretary deems them part of a “subpopulation”?
Second, what about the medical and preferential distinctions of each individual within the so-called “subpopulations”? In truth, every patient is a “subpopulation” with unique qualities, physiology, DNA, preferences, cultural and religious views, responses to medications, emotional strength, mental aptitude, compliance issues, etc., but the PCORI statute in the federal health care reform law, and these statements are premised on a cookie cutter view of individuals.
Third, most of the public does not know a Federal Register exists nor do they monitor it every day to discover calls for public comment. Few will keep track of every condition or treatment being considered by PCORI or HHS for coverage determinations. There will be many conditions under consideration. The new ICD-10 coding system will increase the number of disease classification codes from 17,000 today to 155,000 two years from now.  
PEOPLE’S VOICE
Thus we do not believe, despite the proposed words within the definition, that PCOR or PCORI will “help people make informed health care decisions and allow their voice to be heard in assessing the value of health care options.” 
The voice of the people is best heard, and most timely heard, in their doctor’s office, with a doctor who is free to treat them as the patient and the doctor see fit, not as the government dictates.
Despite what is written in PCORI’s Rationale statement (“this recognizes that different people value things differently and that value is in the eye of the beholder”) we do not believe 19 political appointees sitting around a table can or should determine “value” for more than 300 million Americans.

2. Is the definiton consistent with the intent of the statute that established PCORI?
The definition of PCOR is not in line with the intent of the PCORI statute. The intent of the statute is to place 19 political appointees in charge of determining the medical research agenda of the nation. The intent is to funnel billions of taxpayer dollars into organizations that agree to conduct government-approved and government-funded research that meets the agenda of the federal government to standardize the practice of medicine and ration health care services.
The definition does not tell the American public the truth about what PCORI will do and how the research will actually be determined and used. As noted in the Federal health care reform law, the plan is to broadly disseminate and incorporate PCORI’s comparative effectiveness research findings into the practice of medicine, using computerized clinical “decision support” tools:
‘‘(b) INCORPORATION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS.—The Office, in consultation with relevant medical and clinical associations, shall assist users of health information technology focused on clinical decision support to promote the timely incorporation of research findings disseminated under subsection (a) into clinical practices and to promote the ease of use of such incorporation.

3. Is the definition broad enough to include the range of research that PCORI should fund?
The federal government should not be establishing a national health care research agenda, by committee or other means, or using taxpayer dollars to do it. PCORI is being funded by a diversion of Medicare dollars, leaving less for patient care, and a head-tax on insurance companies. This head-tax will increase the cost of health insurance policies, leaving individuals with fewer dollars to pay for the care that is denied under PCORI’s pronouncements of “value” and “cost effectiveness.”
It is further notable how research often fails to address the impact on individuals in the general population. For various reasons (age, compliance, co-morbidities, etc.) research studies often exclude many individual that will arrive someday at a doctor’s office with the condition that is being studied. Researchers have no idea if the finding of the research would impact the excluded in the same way it impacts those included in the study. This means that research findings must be taken with a grain of salt.
We are further concerned with the statute’s intent to target people with chronic conditions in an effort to address so-called “gaps in evidence in terms of clinical outcomes, practice variations and health disparities.” It is clear that HHS plans to access comprehensive data on individuals in this research, potentially using patient data to needlessly target providers and to tie the hands of doctors who practice individualized care.
The federal health care reform statute states the extraordinary intrusion into the patient-doctor relationship under PCORI:
The Secretary shall, with appropriate safeguards for privacy, make available to the Institute such data collected by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services under the programs under titles XVIII, XIX, and XXI, as well as provide access to the data net- works developed under section 937(f) of the Public Health Service Act, as the Institute and its contractors may require to carry out this section. The Institute may also request and obtain data from Federal, State, or private entities, including data from clinical databases and registries.”

4. Does the definition adequately convey the rationale outlined in the rationale document?
The definition appears to convey much of the Rationale statement, but it does not convey the REQUIREMENTS of the federal health care reform law. At the end of the day, the law rules.
PCORI leadership and members can say that they intend to give patients a voice, uphold individual differences, and meet the individualized needs of patient, but PCORI is a government committee of 19 government appointees.
The language of the law, not the committee’s Rationale statement, is what has the force of law. Yet nothing in the Rationale or the PCOR definition conveys that fact to the public. Nothing gives them a true picture of how their medical records will be used and how the research findings are likely to used to negatively impact their access to medical care.

5. Please use the following space to provide any additional comments you have about the definition.
The Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute’s definition of “patient-centered outcomes research” is deceptive.
The definition does not accurately inform the public about the centralized decision-making agenda of the law, the power of the Institute to determine a national research agenda, the power of the Secretary to use the CER research findings to ELIMINATE the patient’s voice (and the doctor’s voice), and the fact that the federal health care reform statute, not the PCORI definition or rationale, is the final word on how PCORI will be used.
This is one reason the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute has been given the pejorative name “death panel.” People are rightly concerned about rationing of health care services by a 9 to 5 government committee of people who do not know the patient’s name and have no professional obligation to meet the need of the patient in the exam room who will be impacted by the research agenda and the government-funded research findings.
We believe the Secretary of HHS will use the supposedly objective backdrop of PCORI’s judgments and the supposedly objective findings of government-funded research to determine for all Americans the “value” of various health care options, especially for people with chronic conditions. These decisions are expected to lead to coverage determinations that eliminate access to services valued by many individuals, but deemed by HHS to be “of insignificant value” or “not cost effective.”
People with their doctors will make a million different “value” decisions every day that government officials would not make, cannot understand, and likely disagree with. That’s the American way and that is each American’s right as a free citizen.
“Value” cannot be determined by government or a government-appointed committee. Bias, groupthink, artificial deadlines, pressures of the federal budget, committee member value systems, and individual preferences of committee members will shape the committee’s research priorities and value decisions.
In the world of AUTOMOBILES, this would be like giving government officials the right to fund and conduct research to determine which vehicles have the most value (General Motors, for instance) and to then use that research to limit American’s right to access cars and trucks deemed “of insignificant value” (Ford, perhaps). But in the case of health care, individual lives are at stake due to the power of imposed government value judgments.
Thus, PCORI, despite its stated definition of research and it’s stated understanding of the the unique values of individuals, is an expensive, taxpayer-funded danger to patient-centered care, medical innovation, and individual freedom.
The definition of PCOR should warn the public.

-- 
Twila Brase, RN, PHN
President
Citizens' Council for Health Freedom (CCHF)
1954 University Ave. W., Ste. 8
Saint Paul, MN 55104
651-646-8935
www.cchfreedom.org

IN CLOSING

Thank you, my fellow citizens, for taking your valuable time to read and reflect upon what is written here.

Please join with me in mutually pledging to each other and our fellow citizens our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to our mutual endeavors of restoring liberty and economic opportunity to WE THE PEOPLE  as our Founding Fathers envisioned and intended. [last sentence, US 
Declaration of Independence( http://bit.ly/ruPE7z )]

This article is written with the same intentions as Thomas Paine http://ushistory.org/paine. I seek no leadership role. I seek only to help the American People find their own way using their own “Common Sense” http://amzn.to/kbRuar

Finally, Well Regulated American Militia's posted notice of a FTX Meeting September 16, 2011 to September 18, 2011. Click here for details.   http://t.co/ESZHNFP

Keep Fighting the Good Fight!

Those were my thoughts.

In Liberty,

Don Mashak

The Cynical Patriot
http://twitter.com/dmashak


WE THE PEOPLE TAR
http://WETHEPEOPLETAR.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/WETHEPEOPLETAR

Lawless America
http://LawlessAmerica.com

Get A Grip America
http://getagripamerica.us


Justice in Minnesota
http://JusticeinMN.com

Bring Home the Politicians
http://BringHomethePoliticians.com
 
Get out of our House
http://GOOOH.com


Critical Thinking Notice - This author advises you as no politician would dare. Exercise Critical Thinking 
( http://exm.nr/ny4q7y ) in determining the truthfulness of anything you read or hear.  Do not  passively accept nor believe anything anyone tells you, including this author... unless and until you verify it yourself with sources you trust  and could actively defend your perspective to anyone who might debate you to the contrary of your perspective.
  

Monday, August 22, 2011

Legal Evil? In their own words - Part 2 of 3 - A Republic if you Can hold it

.
This is a teaser for an article i wrote on examiner.com:

"The Country's Founders warned WE THE PEOPLE of the gradual erosion of our liberties and the incremental rise of tyranny that they anticipated.

AT THE CLOSE OF THE USA CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION,a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what type of government the Constitution was bringing into existence. Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep ithttp://bit.ly/rbY8R8

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788 http://bit.ly/odtqOR

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny" Thomas Jefferson  http://bit.ly/mYISay

"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate" Thomas Jefferson http://bit.ly/mYISay

The enslavement and tyranny the Country's Founders warned us about is upon us.

This was not the original intended Part 2 of this series, but recent legal events drive home the dire nature of the tyranny that has befallen our country.

In the past 60 days, two rulings by the USA Judicial System have been demonstrative of the just outrageous level of tyranny and corruption in the USA. They are in violation of the Constitution, Natural Law and the fundamental principles of the Rule of Law.

Essentially the US Courts smugly insist they are not peeing on the heads of WE THE PEOPLE (http://bit.ly/np9lGS). Instead, they insist that it is just raining. In political speak, with the government in firm control of our major media, "There is no evidence so you can Deny, Deny, Deny" (http://bit.ly/pdBq5D)

In the first case, the Courts ruled that the "Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct" (http://bit.ly/qtOMFj) are not an implied covenant of a contract between a client and their lawyer.
in the second case, the US Courts have ruled that a citizen who has brought on for hearing a credible case of Judicial Corruption is forever banned from filing a lawsuit in America. The order was signed by one of the Judges so accused.

Vertaal na Afrikaans |Translate në shqip | ترجمةإلىالعربية | Թարգմանելհայերեն| Azərbaycan Tərcümə | Euskal Translate| Перавесці на беларускай| বাংলাঅনুবাদ | Превод на български| Traduir al català | 转换为中文(简体)|翻譯到中國(傳統) | Prevedi na hrvatskom | Translate to Czech | Oversæt til dansk | Te vertalen naar het Nederlands | Tõlgi eesti | Isalin sa Filipino sa| Käännä Suomen | Traduire en français | Traducir a Galego | თარგმნეთსაქართველოს| Übersetzen auf Deutsch | Μετάφραση στα ελληνικά| ગુજરાતીઅનુવાદ | Tradui kreyòl ayisyen | תרגוםעברית | सेहिन्दीअनुवाद| Fordítás magyar | Þýða til Íslenska | Terjemahkan ke bahasa Indonesia| Aistrigh go Gaeilge| Traduci in italiano | 日本語に翻訳| ಕನ್ನಡಗೆಭಾಷಾಂತರಿಸಿ | 한국어번역| Translate to Latine | Tulkot uz latviešu | Latvian Tulkot uz latviešu| Versti į lietuvių| Преведете на македонски| Terjemah ke Bahasa Malaysia| Ittraduċi għall-Malti| Oversette til norsk |ترجمهبهفارسی| Przekłada się na polskim | Traduzir para Português | Traduceţi în română |Перевести на русскую|Преведи на Српском | Preložiť na slovenský |Prevedi v slovenski | Traducir al español | Tafsiri kwa Kiswahili | Översätt till svenska | தமிழ்மொழிபெயர்க்கவும்| తెలుగులోఅనువదించడానికి | แปลเป็นไทย| Çevir Türkçe>| Перекласти українською| اردومیںترجمہکریں  | Dịch cho người Việt Nam| Cyfieithu i'r Gymraeg | איבערזעצןצוייִדיש |

PAUL VOLLKOMMER

The first case involves Paul Vollkommer of Minnesota who the author has written about previously. "The Patriot Files - #1 Paul Vollkommer". (bit.ly/nHbVpF)

Mr. Volkkommer was one of the Founders of the Baldwin Township Fire Department. Later, Mr. Vollkommer served on the Township Board.  Mr. Vollkommer discovered various accounting discrepancies and illegal spending by the Township. By Minnesota Law he was required to report it to the State Auditor.  Other Town Board members told him to ignore the unlawful spending and accounting irregularities. (Go along to get along http://bit.ly/piL8nq)

Mr. Vollkommer was more loyal to the Taxpayers than he was to the "Good Ole' Boys" Mr. Vollkommer insisted on reporting the violations. The Minnesota State Auditor agreed with 90% of Mr. Vollkommer's concerns and ordered the Township to correct its practices, etc......"

Continue reading on Examiner.com Legal Evil? In their own words - Part 2 of 3 - A Republic if you Can hold it - Minneapolis Independent | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/independent-in-minneapolis/legal-evil-their-own-words-part-2-of-3#ixzz1UPzGbsQ4


TellMyPolitician

Bookmark and Share

IN CLOSING

Thank you, my fellow citizens, for taking your valuable time to read and reflect upon what I have written.
Please join with me in mutually pledging to each other and our fellow citizens our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to our mutual endeavors of restoring liberty and economic opportunity to WE THE PEOPLE as our Founding Fathers envisioned and intended. [last sentence, US Declaration of Independence( http://bit.ly/ruPE7z )]

This article is written with the same intentions as Thomas Paine http://ushistory.org/paine. I seek no leadership role. I seek only to help the American People find their own way using their own “Common Sense” http://amzn.to/kbRuar

Keep Fighting the Good Fight!

Those were my thoughts.

In Liberty,

Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
http://twitter.com/dmashak

WE THE PEOPLE TAR
http://WETHEPEOPLETAR.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/WETHEPEOPLETAR

Lawless America
http://LawlessAmerica.com

Get A Grip America
http://getagripamerica.us

Critical Thinking Notice - This author advises you as no politician would dare. Exercise Critical Thinking ( http://exm.nr/ny4q7y ) in determining the truthfulness of anything you read or hear.  Do not passively accept nor believe anything anyone tells you, including this author... unless and until you verify it yourself with sources you trust and could actively defend your perspective to any would who might debate you to the contrary of your perspective.

Minnesota Injustice: True Court Horror Cases - With Names

Sunday, August 7, 2011

Trainers & trained seals: US politicians' & voters' financial reality disconnect

.
These is a teaser for a article I wrote on Examiner.com:

"Anger overwhelmed this author upon seeing these two headlines next to each other on the front page above the fold:
1) S&P downgrades U.S. debt rating  ( http://bit.ly/nCNPBT

2) (Gov.) Dayton boosts Vikings stadium ( http://bit.ly/pt54jL
This article began as a hyper-critical evaluation of elected officials.  Upon reflection, it seems voters bear as much responsibility as do the Politicians.

Let's talk about the Vikings Stadium first.  Saying that the author is not a proponent of using public money to finance any stadium so billionaire Sports team owners can make a profit paying millionaire sports players to play kids' games is an  vast understatement.

Vertaal na Afrikaans |Translate në shqip | ترجمةإلىالعربية | Թարգմանելհայերեն| Azərbaycan Tərcümə | Euskal Translate| Перавесці на беларускай| বাংলাঅনুবাদ | Превод на български| Traduir al català | 转换为中文(简体)|翻譯到中國(傳統) | Prevedi na hrvatskom | Translate to Czech | Oversæt til dansk | Te vertalen naar het Nederlands | Tõlgi eesti | Isalin sa Filipino sa| Käännä Suomen | Traduire en français | Traducir a Galego | თარგმნეთსაქართველოს| Übersetzen auf Deutsch | Μετάφραση στα ελληνικά| ગુજરાતીઅનુવાદ | Tradui kreyòl ayisyen | תרגוםעברית | सेहिन्दीअनुवाद| Fordítás magyar | Þýða til Íslenska | Terjemahkan ke bahasa Indonesia| Aistrigh go Gaeilge| Traduci in italiano | 日本語に翻訳| ಕನ್ನಡಗೆಭಾಷಾಂತರಿಸಿ | 한국어번역| Translate to Latine | Tulkot uz latviešu | Versti į lietuvių| Преведете на македонски| Terjemah ke Bahasa Malaysia| Ittraduċi għall-Malti| Oversette til norsk |ترجمهبهفارسی| Przekłada się na polskim | Traduzir para Português | Traduceţi în română |Перевести на русскую|Преведи на Српском | Preložiť na slovenský | Prevedi v slovenski | Traducir al español | Tafsiri kwa Kiswahili | Översätt till svenska |  தமிழ்மொழிபெயர்க்கவும்| తెలుగులోఅనువదించడానికి | แปลเป็นไทย| Çevir Türkçe>|   Перекласти українською| اردومیںترجمہکریں  | Dịch cho người Việt Nam| Cyfieithu i'r Gymraeg | איבערזעצןצוייִדיש |

Simply our policy should be as follows: We do not negotiate with Terrorists, Hijackers, Kidnappers nor billionaire sports team owners who extort taxpayers for publicly financed stadiums.
As for why should everyone oppose publicly financing professional sports arenas:
First, if sports stadiums are economically viable, they are economically viable as private financing concerns.

Second, professional sports are not on the base rungs of Maslov's hierarchy of Needs ( http://bit.ly/q4pIaA ) for the overwhelming majority of Americans. Put another way, if we prioritize the budget items for the Government's Budget, a new football stadium does not make the top 999. (By the way, for the would-be detractors, in the interest of full disclosure the author is an avid football fan and played High School Football)

Thirdly, Public Financing of Stadiums represents a "Transfer of Wealth" from the average taxpayer to a small group of usually wealthy individuals. Put another way, it is unearned income otherwise known as welfare, in this case corporate welfare.  Put yet another way, it is the theft of property from producers of value just to give the rewards of their hard labor to someone that has not earned it.

Fourth, if we negotiate with one sports stadium extortionist, soon all states and municipalities must agree to competing extortion demands and the only ones who benefit are the sports teams owners and the politicians they give kickbacks to.

Fifth, given all the budget cuts that must be made, it is foolish even consider another expenditure.
Which brings us to the angering aspect of these two headlines appearing next to each other on the front page, above the Fold, in the local newspaper.
WHAT ARE THESE POLITICIANS THINKING ADVANCING YET ONE MORE DEBT OBLIGATION UPON THE GOVERNMENT WHEN OUR CREDIT RATING AS A NATION HAS JUST BEEN DOWNGRADED?
WHAT ARE THESE MINNESOTA POLITICIANS THINKING WHEN THEY JUST BALANCED THE STATE BUDGET BY BORROWING MORE INSTEAD OF CUTTING EXPENSES OR INCREASING REVENUE?
Are these politicians just disconnected from financial reality?

Is it not clear to every citizen that our elected officials do not have the best interests of WE THE PEOPLE (http://bit.ly/np9lGS) in mind when they make these decisions? Is not this very type of thought process in advocating the Public Funding of a New Football Stadium symptomatic of what has led to the downgrading of the US Credit Rating?

And now we arrive at the matter of Standard and Poor's downgrading the Credit Rating of the USA..."

Continue reading on Examiner.com Trainers & trained seals: US politicians' & voters' financial reality disconnect 

TellMyPolitician

Bookmark and Share


Thank you, my fellow citizens, for taking your valuable time to read and reflect upon what I have written.

Please join with me in mutually pledging to each other and our fellow citizens our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to our mutual endeavors of restoring liberty and economic opportunity to WE THE PEOPLE as our Founding Fathers envisioned and intended. [last sentence, US Declaration of Independence( http://bit.ly/ruPE7z )]

This article is written with the same intentions as Thomas Paine http://ushistory.org/paine. I seek no leadership role. I seek only to help the American People find their own way using their own “Common Sense” http://amzn.to/kbRuar

Those were my thoughts.

In Liberty,

Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
http://twitter.com/dmashak

WE THE PEOPLE TAR
http://WETHEPEOPLETAR.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/WETHEPEOPLETAR

Lawless America
http://LawlessAmerica.com

Get A Grip America
http://getagripamerica.us

Critical Thinking Notice - This author advises you as no politician would dare. Exercise Critical Thinking ( http://exm.nr/ny4q7y ) in determining the truthfulness of anything you read or hear.  Do not passively accept nor believe anything anyone tells you, including this author... unless and until you verify it yourself with sources you trust and could actively defend your perspective to any would who might debate you to the contrary of your perspective.

Minnesota Injustice: True Court Horror Cases - With Names