Palin's propaganda lies on Face Book about Health Care Reform.

A lot of folks use Facebook to stay in touch with friends and family. For Sarah Palin, it's a great way to spread lies about health insurance reform.

A few months back, Palin took to Facebook to declare that health reform would create "death panels," and drive private insurers out of business -- and nonpartisan fact-check sites and the independent Congressional Budget Office debunked those lies.

But that hasn't stopped Sarah Palin. She's back with a new Facebook note claiming that reform will raise costs on families and drive up deficits. Unfortunately for her, even the conservative "Tax Foundation" says those claims are false.

So we're calling out Sarah Palin, and taking to Facebook to debunk her lies on the very same pages she's using to spread them.
We've put together a short Facebook note cataloging just some of Sarah Palin's many distortions and the facts that prove her wrong. But we need your help to "share" the note and make sure she doesn't get away with her outrageous lies.

If Sarah Palin wants to spread lies on Facebook, we'll call her out in the very same place. And when thousands of folks share our note and expose her lies, it will be clear that those who lie about reform will be held accountable -- no matter where they spread their misinformation.

The more we push back with the truth, the more Sarah Palin and others like her will have to think twice before they promote lies, and the less they'll be able to derail progress.

Even if you don't have a Facebook account, you can still help us call out Sarah Palin. Visit Call 'em Out: Sarah Palin to watch our video detailing her lies and to call Palin's political organization and say, "stop lying."

Rising health care costs are crushing American families and squeezing small businesses. Reform will reign in costs and cut the deficit in the long run -- that's why it's so important, and why Sarah Palin's lies are so malicious.

We're not letting it stand. We're calling Sarah Palin out:

http://www.democrats.org/CallOutPalin

Thanks for helping us set the record straight about reform,

Jen

Jen O'Malley Dillon
Executive Director
Democratic National Committee



MYTH: HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM WOULD HAVE “DEATH PANELS”… Palin Said If Heath Insurance Reform Passes, Her Parents Or Her Baby With Down Syndrome “Will Have To Stand In Front Of Obama’s Death Panel.” “On Friday, Sarah Palin made this posting on her Facebook page regarding Obama’s health-care plans: ‘The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.’ Palin didn’t cite anything from a bill, but rather a floor speech by Michelle Bachmann, which itself didn't quote from the House bill directly. NBC’s Savannah Guthrie reports that when President Obama was told of Palin’s comment, he said it was ‘unproductive’ for Republican leaders to spread this kind of misinformation, according to a senior administration official.” [MSNBC, 8/10/09]

Palin Defended Her Claim That The Democratic Health Insurance Reform Proposal Would Create “Death Panels.” “Former Alaska GOP Gov. Sarah Palin defended her claim that the Democratic health care proposal would create “death panels” in a statement Wednesday night slamming President Barack Obama. ‘Yesterday President Obama responded to my statement that Democratic health care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system, these ‘unproductive’ members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care,’ Palin wrote in a note on her Facebook page. ‘The provision that President Obama refers to is Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled ‘Advance Care Planning Consultation.’ With all due respect, it’s misleading for the president to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients,’ she continued. ‘Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often ‘if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual ... or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility... or a hospice program.’’ The White House and Democratic lawmakers have blasted Palin in recent days for suggesting that her own son, Trig, would have had to face a bureaucratic panel to get access to health care under the provision in the House health care proposal because he was born with Down syndrome. [Politico, 8/13/09]

TRUTH: NUMEROUS INDEPENDENT FACT-CHECKERS HAVE DEBUNKED PALIN'S "DEATH PANELS" CLAIM

AP FactCheck: The Health Care Bill Does Not Promote Euthanasia. “Nothing in the legislation would carry out such a bleak vision. The provision that has caused the uproar would instead authorize Medicare to pay doctors for counseling patients about end-of-life care, if the patient wishes. Here are some questions and answers on the controversy: Q: Does the health care legislation bill promote ‘mercy killing,’ or euthanasia? A: No. Q: Then what's all the fuss about? A: A provision in the House bill written by Rep. Earl Blumenauer ( D-Ore.) would allow Medicare to pay doctors for voluntary counseling sessions that address end-of-life issues. The conversations between doctor and patient would include living wills, making a close relative or a trusted friend your health care proxy, learning about hospice as an option for the terminally ill, and information about pain medications for people suffering chronic discomfort. The sessions would be covered every five years, more frequently if someone is gravely ill.” [AP, 8/11/09]

NYT: “Death Panels” Claim Is “False.” “The stubborn yet false rumor that President Obama’s health care proposals would create government-sponsored ‘death panels’ to decide which patients were worthy of living seemed to arise from nowhere in recent weeks.” [New York Times, 8/14/09]

FactCheck.org: The Euthanasia Claim Is A “Distortion” Of The Provision That Would Only Require Medicare To Pay For Voluntary Counseling Sessions Helping Seniors Pay For End Of Life Care. “On former Sen. Fred Thompson’s radio show, former lieutenant governor of New York Betsy McCaughey said that the House’s proposed health care bill contained a provision that would institute mandatory counseling sessions telling seniors how ‘to do what’s in society’s best interest … and cut your life short.’ House Minority Leader John Boehner made a slightly more measured statement, warning that the same provision ‘may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia if enacted into law.’ In truth, that section of the bill would require Medicare to pay for voluntary counseling sessions helping seniors to plan for end-of-life medical care, including designating a health care proxy, choosing a hospice and making decisions about life-sustaining treatment. It would not require doctors to counsel that their patients refuse medical intervention. … McCaughey misrepresents the content of page 425 of the bill. That section would require Medicare to pay for some end-of-life planning counseling sessions with a health care practitioner. … At least two Republican leaders have echoed this end-of-life distortion. On July 23, Republican Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the House minority leader, released a statement, along with Republican Policy Committee Chairman Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan, saying that the bill would encourage euthanasia.” [FactCheck.org, 7/29/09]

Politifact: Palin's Statement That Seniors And The Disabled Would Have To Sit In Front Of A "Death Panel" Is "Pants On Fire." "Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska, urged her supporters to oppose Democratic plans for health care reform on her Facebook page. ... We have read all 1,000-plus pages of the Democratic bill and examined versions in various committees. There is no panel in any version of the health care bills in Congress that judges a person's 'level of productivity in society' to determine whether they are 'worthy' of health care. Palin's claim sounds a little like another statement making the rounds, which says that health care reform would mandate counseling for seniors on how to end their lives sooner. We rated this claim Pants on Fire! The truth is that the health bill allows Medicare, for the first time, to pay for doctors' appointments for patients to discuss living wills and other end-of-life issues with their physicians. These types of appointments are completely optional, and AARP supports the measure. ... But that's not what Palin said. She said that the Democratic plan will ration care and "my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care." Palin's statement sounds more like a science fiction movie (Soylent Green, anyone?) than part of an actual bill before Congress. We rate her statement Pants on Fire!" [Politifact]

MYTH: REFORM WILL DRIVE UP THE DEFICIT Palin Attacked Obama’s Promise That Health Care Reform Won’t Add To The Deficit Saying “We Can Afford A New Trillion Dollar Entitlement Program.” In a facebook note titled, Good Intentions Aren't Enough with Health Care Reform, Sarah Palin wrote, “With our country’s debt and deficits growing at an alarming rate, many of us can’t help but wonder how we can afford a new trillion dollar entitlement program. The president has promised that he won’t sign a health care bill if it ‘adds even one dime to our deficit over the next decade.’ [7] But his administration also promised that his nearly trillion dollar stimulus plan would keep the unemployment rate below 8%. [8] Last month, our unemployment rate was 9.8%, the highest it’s been in 26 years. [9] At first the current administration promised that the stimulus would save or create 3 to 4 million jobs. [10] Then they declared that it created 1 million jobs, but the stimulus reports released this week showed that a mere 30,083 jobs have been created, while nearly 3.4 million jobs have been lost since the stimulus was passed. [11] Should we believe the administration’s claims about health care when their promises have proven so unreliable about the stimulus?” [Sarah Palin, Facebook, 10/17/09]

TRUTH: REFORM IS ESTIMATED TO REDUCE THE DEFICIT

Sen. Snowe Convinced That Baucus Bill Reflects, “Our Position And Views That It Should Be Budget Neutral…[Will Bend The Cost Curve] In The First 10 Years.” In an interview with Sen. Olympia Snowe, John Harwood asked: “MR. HARWOOD: Are you satisfied that the cost control, cost containment in the bill is adequate? SEN. SNOWE: I do. And you know, we were adamant in our, you know, our positions and views that it should be budget neutral and, if anything, should bend the cost curve and bend the overall cost of, you know, the escalation, you know, of inflation within health care. And it does begin that trend in the first 10 years.” [CNBC, 9/17/09]

Sen. Grassley: “For Health Care Budgeting Purposes, CBO’s Word Is The Only One That Counts.” Sen. Charles Grassley wrote: “There’s no doubt saving $2 trillion in health care costs would be a move in the right direction. When the White House and the industry put concrete proposals on paper and get a score from the Congressional Budget Office, then we’ll know if the suggestions really achieve that kind of savings, and it’ll be big news. For health care budgeting purposes, CBO’s word is the only one that counts.” [National Journal Online, 5/11/09]

CBO Score Of Revised Chairman’s Mark: $81 Billion Reduction In Federal Deficit, Total Is Cost $829 Billion. “According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting the Chairman’s mark, as amended, would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $81 billion over the 2010-2019 period…net cost itself reflects a gross total of $829 billion.” [CBO Letter To Max Baucus, 10/7/09]

CBO: After First 10 Years, Proposal “Would Probably Continue To Reduce Budget Deficits.” CBO in its letter to Max Baucus wrote, “in view of the projected net savings during the decade following the 10-year budget window, CBO anticipates that the proposal would probably continue to reduce budget deficits relative to those under current law in subsequent decades.” [CBO Letter To Max Baucus, 10/7/09]

The Hill: Spending Cuts Pay For Around $500 Billion Of $1 Trillion House Reform Bill. The Hill reported on the Democrats’ proposed health insurance reform bill: “The price tag of the bill is expected to be around $1 trillion. Democrats have already tentatively assembled a package of spending cuts worth around $500 billion, mostly from Medicare and Medicaid.” [The Hill, 7/10/09]

MYTH: REFORM WILL CROWD OUT PRIVATE INSURERS AND PUSH PEOPLE INTO A PUBLIC OPTION Palin: “The Public Option In The Democratic Health Care Plan Will Crowd Out Private Insurers And That’s What It’s Intended To Do.” In a facebook note titled Troubing Questions Remain About Obama’s Health Care Plan, Sarah Palin wrote, “The president is busy assuring us that we can keep our private insurance plans, but common sense (and basic economics) tells us otherwise. The public option in the Democratic health care plan will crowd out private insurers, and that’s what it’s intended to do. A single payer health care plan has been President Obama’s agenda all along, though he is now claiming otherwise.” [Sarah Palin, Facebook, 8/14/09]

TRUTH: THE PUBLIC OPTION WOULD NOT DRIVE PRIVATE INSURERS OUT OF BUSINESS

CBO Said The Public Option Proposed By Democrats Would Not Drive Private Insurers Out Of Business. "Democrats in the House pounced on a congressional budget analysis to bolster their plan for a government-run health insurance option Monday, as party leaders said they were closer to agreement on healthcare reform. The report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the public option proposed by Democrats would not drive private insurers out of business and most people would still choose to get their medical coverage through employers." [Reuters, 7/28/09]

CBO: Only 6 Million Workers Would Leave Employer-Based Private Health Care To Enter A Public Plan - Substantially Lower Than The Lewin Group's Estimate. "If we assumed that workers at larger firms would be allowed to purchase coverage through the exchanges, our estimate of the number of enrollees involved would undoubtedly be greater than 6 million, but we have not estimated the magnitude. Analysts at the Lewin Group recently estimated that if all employers were given access to the insurance exchanges, more than 100 million people would end up enrolling in the public plan. For several reasons, we anticipate that our estimate of the number of enrollees in the public plan would be substantially smaller than the Lewin Group’s, even if we assumed that all employers would have that option." [CBO, 7/26/09]

Politifact: The Statement That Private Insurance Will Not Be Able To Compete With A Government Option Is Challenged By Nonpartisan Health Care Experts – “Every Time I Hear These Claims I’m Astonished.” The “statement that private insurance ‘will not be able to compete with a government option’ is challenged by nonpartisan health care experts who disagree. McConnell's view is that if the government offers a cheaper, public plan, people will dump their private insurance to get lower health care premiums. Over time, this would erode the private health care system. In theory, it makes sense that people would want the health plan that saves them the most money, and experts do say some private insurance companies might struggle to survive against a government competitor. In practice, however, researchers don't believe public options would destroy the private insurance industry. ‘Every time I hear these claims I'm astonished,’ said Cathy Schoen, senior vice president for the Commonwealth Fund, a foundation that studies health care and advocates more coverage for the uninsured, minorities and people with low incomes.” [PolitiFact, 6/17/09]

MYTH: REFORM WILL RAISE COSTS ON FAMILIES Palin: “The Senate Finance Bill Is Effectively A Middle Class Tax Increase And…Those Making Less Than $200,000 Will Be Hit The Hardest.” In a facebook note titled, Good Intentions Aren't Enough with Health Care Reform, Sarah Palin wrote, “Supposedly the Senate Finance bill will be paid for by cutting Medicare by nearly half a trillion dollars and by taxing the so-called ‘Cadillac’ health care plans enjoyed by many union members. The plan will also impose heavy taxes on insurers, pharmaceutical companies, medical device companies, and clinical labs. [3] The result of all of these taxes is clear. As Douglas Holtz-Eakin noted in the Wall Street Journal, these new taxes ‘will be passed on to consumers by either directly raising insurance premiums, or by fueling higher health-care costs that inevitably lead to higher premiums.’ [4] Unfortunately, it will lead to lower wages too, as employees will have to sacrifice a greater percentage of their paychecks to cover these higher premiums. [5] In other words, if the Democrats succeed in overhauling health care, we’ll all bear the costs. The Senate Finance bill is effectively a middle class tax increase, and as Holtz-Eakin points out, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation those making less than $200,000 will be hit hardest.” [Sarah Palin, Facebook, 10/17/09]

TRUTH: REFORM WILL CUT COSTS, AND AMERICAN FAMILIES CAN’T AFFORD NOT TO HAVE REFORM

Begich Said “Palin Is Not Part Of The Equation” As “The Average Family In Alaska Pays A Hidden Tax Of $1,900 Per Year To Cover Costs Of The Uninsured…We Need To Deal With This.” Senator Begich of Alaska said, ‘Sarah Palin is not part of the equation, so I want you guys to kind of move that off the table,’ …The average family in Alaska pays a hidden tax of $1,900 per year to cover costs of the uninsured, he said. ‘We need to deal with this,’ Begich said. He's not satisfied with certain provisions in the bills, he said, but critics losing on the facts are injecting fear into the debate. ‘The facts are, if we don't get a handle on health care costs, and bend that health care cost curve as well as resolve this issue, the small business community will have huge negative impact over time. A third of our economy will be consumed by health care costs,’ he said.” [Dan Joling, Associated Press, 8/14/09]

Conservative Tax Foundation Was Outraged: House Health Reform Proposal Would Net Middle-Class Families “An Average Benefit Of About $1,900.” The Tax Foundation decried the “income redistribution” facilitated by the House health reform legislation: “[t]he biggest beneficiaries of HR 3200's redistribution would not be low-income families, but middle-class families, especially those making between $65,704 and $112,721, who would see an average benefit of about $1,900. In fact, even in the 60 percent to 70 percent income group, earning up to $141,101, the average family would gain almost $1,000.” [Tax Foundation Press Release, 10/6/09]

MIT Health Economist: Actually, Premiums Under SFC Proposal For A Family Could Be At Least $2,430 Lower, Up To $8,550 Lower Than Without Reform. The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein reported on estimated impact on premiums of the Senate Finance Committee proposal, finding that under current law, premiums would stay at $10,770 under current law, while premiums under the new proposal could be as low as $2,220 and would rise to only $8,340. He further wrote that, “[t]he analysis comes from MIT health economist Jon Gruber. Gruber is, undoubtedly, pro-reform. He's advised the Senate Finance Committee and served as one of the architects of the Massachusetts plan. But he's also one of the most-respected health economists in the country. Gruber runs the numbers for an average family, a 25-year-old and a 60-year-old, looking at different income levels for each, and paying close attention to the role subsidies will play. In each case, he finds the people likely to save money under the Senate Finance Committee's plan. You can download his analysis, which is based on Congressional Budget Office data, here… Gruber certainly has a lot less incentive to twist the facts than the insurance industry does, and his numbers, at least, are free from any glaring deficiencies.” [Washington Post – Ezra Klein, 10/12/09]

In Historic Step, Consumer Reports Magazine Company Unveiled First Television Ad In 72 Year History To Urge Congress To Pass Reform. National Public Radio reported that, “[i]n a historic step this week, the nonprofit Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer Reports magazine, unveiled the first television advertisement in its 72-year history: a spot that encourages Congress to overhaul health care this year. The 30-second advertisement, which features Consumers Union President and Chief Executive Officer James A. Guest, puts the reputation and clout of the iconic consumer empire firmly behind fundamental change to the way Americans are insured and receive their health care… David Burda, editor of Modern Healthcare magazine, says that an organization like Consumers Union has, in this climate, an obligation to weigh in on heath care. ‘Everyone has a stake in the outcome of this,’ Burda says. ‘It's going to touch everybody, and you have to have an opinion. To not have one is an unacceptable spot to be in.’” [NPR, 10/7/09]

Premiums For Employer Plans Have Risen Six To Eight Times Faster Than Wages; One In Five Americans Workers Are Uninsured, Up From One In Seven A Decade Ago, Due To Rapid Rise In Private Health Insurance Premiums. A new study on health insurance found that for American workers, “private health insurance premiums that are rising much faster than their wages.” The study found that “nearly 1 in 5 workers is uninsured, a statistically significant increase from fewer than 1 in 7 during the mid-1990s. The problem is cost. Total premiums for employer plans have risen six to eight times faster than wages, depending on whether individual or family coverage is chose, the study found…About 20.7 million workers were uninsured in the mid-1990s. A decade later, it was 26.9 million, an increase of about 6 million, the study found.” [Associated Press, 3/24/09]

MYTH: HEALTH CARE REFORM WILL MEAN GOVERNMENT RATIONING Palin: “Obama Wants To Eliminate Inefficiency And Waste: He’s Asked Congress To Create An Independent Medicare Advisory Council” Which “Will Ultimately Lead To Rationing” And “Death Panels.” In an article titled Obama And The Bureaucratization Of Health Care, Sarah Palin wrote, “Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He's asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of ‘normal political channels,’ should guide decisions regarding that ‘huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . .’ Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats' proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans.” [Sarah Palin, Wall Street Journal, 9/8/09]

TRUTH: THERE WILL NOT BE RATIONING OF HEALTH CARE

Dr. Sanjay Gupta On Rationing: “It’s Not True…A Look At The Reform Bill In Congress There Is No Mention Of That. No Mention Of Rationing, No Mention Of The Government Making So-Called End-Of-Life Decisions For Seniors.” “GUPTA: Tell me why. MCCOY: I try not to worry. Well, I have read some things that says that as you get older you are liable to wait and wait and wait before you can have surgery. I've heard that they're going to look at the older people and you're going to wait longer than the younger people. GUPTA (voice-over): It's not true, though a lot of people think so. A look at the reform bill in Congress there is no mention of that. No mention of rationing, no mention of the government making so-called end-of-life decisions for seniors.” [CNN Anderson Cooper 360, 11PM, 8/14/09]

Scarborough Called Out Gov. Pawlenty: “With All Due Respect, This Does Not Give Us A System Like The United Kingdom,” And Incredulously Asked Pawlenty, “How Does This Bill Get Us To ‘Death Panels?” You Don’t Believe It Does, Do You?” Gov. Pawlenty made an appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, where he was challenged about claims that health reform would lead to death panels and would “pull the plug on granny:” Gov. Pawlenty said, “there’s concerns that this thing is going to be so expensive they’re not going to be able to afford all that’s promise, and somebody’s going to have to make a decision to cut back, and people are concerned that if the federal government does that—have them rationing care, that’s a real problem. And so those are not irrational concerns.” Then the following exchange occurred: “MR. SCARBOROUGH: [b]ut but, there are no death panels here, though. Counseling is one thing. Having three people lining up and saying 'granny dies, grandpa lives,' that's quite another. You can't get there from here. GOV. PAWLENTY: Well what happens--Joe, what you call it or label it, but I think the facts are these: if you have a system like the United Kingdom where—MR. SCARBOROUGH: But we don't. We don't governor. With all due respect, this does not give us a system like the United Kingdom. I'm talking specifically about this bill. How does this bill get us to ‘death panels?’ You don't believe it does, do you?” [MSNBC Morning Joe, 9/11/09]

REALITY: The Obama Health Care Plan Will Increase Competition

Politifact: The Claim That Health Care Reform Will Lead To Callous Decisions That Would Allow People To Die If They Face A Costly Treatment Is "False." "In the ad, a man weeps over someone lying in a hospital bed while the announcer says, '$22,750. In England, government health officials decided that's how much six months of life is worth. Under their socialized system if a medical treatment costs more, you're out of luck. That's wrong for America.' That footage is interspersed with shots of the Capitol building and the whole thing is set to some very ominous music. You can watch it here. The carefully worded ad doesn't directly say that the government is planning to put a price on our lives, but the implication is clear: The reform plan will lead to callous decisions that would allow people to die if they face a costly treatment. So that's what we're going to check — whether the reform plan would impose those kind of caps on treatment. ... So, back to the Club for Growth ad. Although our experts agree that it gets the NICE statistic correct about the British practice, the ad's main point about cost limits is incorrect. There is no such practice in the comparative effectiveness program, nor is it part of the current health reform proposals pending in Congress. The House and Senate bills under consideration would not require the government to decide how much a person's life is worth. As a result, we give the Club for Growth a False." [PolitiFact, 8/6/09]

Bush Medicare Head Debunked Notion That Reform Leads To Ration: “Just Because There Isn’t Some Government Agency Specifically Telling You Which Treatments You Can Have…That Doesn’t Mean You Aren’t Getting Some Treatments.” The New York Times’ David Leonhardt wrote a piece debunking the argument against health care reform under the specter of “rationing,” and quoted Dr. Mark McClellan, “head of Medicare in the Bush administration,” who said, “[j]ust because there isn’t some government agency specifically telling you which treatments you can have based on cost-effectiveness…that doesn’t mean you aren’t getting some treatments.” [New York Times, 6/17/09]

FactCheck.org: The Claim That Funding Comparative Studies Is A "Critical Step Toward Rationing" Is Wrong; Comparative Effectiveness Research Is Forbidden From Issuing Restrictions Or Even Guidelines On Care. "To be sure, the cost factor prompts critics to say the research will lead to the government, or perhaps insurance companies, denying certain medical procedures based on cost alone. Proponents say such research provides valuable information to the public and physicians on which procedures work best and whether more costly treatments are actually more effective. Patients United Now, a 501(c)3 project of Americans for Prosperity Foundation, says in its back-up that funding comparative studies is 'a critical step toward rationing,' but ARRA specifically forbids the council coordinating such research from issuing any restrictions or even guidelines on care." [FactCheck.org, 8/10/09]

PhRMA Treasurer And Johnson & Johnson Executive: Comparative Effectiveness Research Does Not Limit Treatment Options For Patients. Discussing the $1.1 billion available for comparative effectiveness research through stimulus funds, the Wall Street Journal Health Blog wrote, “comparative effectiveness is different than cost effectiveness, said PhRMA treasurer and J&J; executive David Norton. Cost effectiveness puts a ceiling on price, which can limit the treatment options for patients...Focusing not on cost but on which drugs, medical devices and hospital services are the most effective is the key to comparative effectiveness, according to Norton.” [Wall Street Journal Health Blog, 4/6/09]

REALITY: OVERSPENDING ON CARE CAN ACTUALLY INCREASE MEDICAL COMPLICATIONS

“Widespread Misuse And Overuse Of Tests…Have Little Value To Patients, And Can Poser Serious Risks,” Quality Expert: “In Many Cases, Less Is Better,” And “As Much As $850 Billion Spent On Medical Care Each Year ‘Can Be Eliminated Without Reducing The Quality Of Care.’” The Washington Post reported on how health care overspending causes problems, countering the prevailing mood that any kind of rationing would be bad for Americans: “A dirty word in health-care reform is ‘rationing,’ a term that conjures up the image of faceless government bureaucrats denying lifesaving therapies in the name of cutting costs. But what if the real issue is not the specter of future rationing, but the haphazard, even illogical, way in which care is delivered today? Medical professionals say the fundamental problem in the nation's health-care system is the widespread misuse and overuse of tests, treatments and drugs that drive up prices, have little value to patients, and can pose serious risks. The question, they say, is not whether there will be rationing, but rather what will be rationed, and when and how. ‘More is not necessarily better,’ said Bernard Rosof, chairman of the board of directors of New York's Huntington Hospital and a board member of the independent National Quality Forum. ‘In many cases, less is better.’… Often, people with generous insurance plans can run up large bills and face life-threatening complications from unnecessary care: back surgeries that result in wound infections, when physical therapy might have been a more effective treatment; imaging scans that expose patients to radiation; medication-caused side effects that must be treated. As much as $850 billion spent on medical care each year ‘can be eliminated without reducing the quality of care,’ according to a 2008 report by the New England Healthcare Institute. That is enough money to extend insurance coverage to more than 30 million people, according to the Congressional Budget Office.” [Washington Post, 9/29/09]