The Pro-Diabetes Board Washington state targets modern medicine.

The Wall Street Journal ^ | Friday, March 18, 2011 | WSJ editorial board

[Eva]

The future tragedies of government health care will include today's many warnings about how it operates in practice. The subsidize-mandate-over regulate insurance model is imploding in Massachusetts. Then there's Washington state, where a government board may decide that modern medicine is too expensive for kids with diabetes.

Seriously. In 2006, Washington created a board to scrutinize the cost-effectiveness of various surgeries and treatments, known as the Health Technology Assessment program. At a hearing today, the panel will debate glucose monitoring for diabetic children under 18. In other words, the board is targeting the fundamental standard of diabetes care that has been the established medical consensus for at least three decades.

This state issue deserves far more scrutiny, if only because ObamaCare and the stimulus devoted billions of dollars to comparative effectiveness research. As President Obama has so often put it, the idea is to pit Treatment X against Treatment Y and find out "what works and what doesn't." In theory, it sounds great. But the Health Technology Assessment is an example of how comparative effectiveness will work in the real world, as the political system tries to find ways to restrict or limit treatment to control entitlement spending.

[Eva]

Except, apparently, to a government board looking to scrimp. Washington's Health Technology Assessment makes decisions for state-subsidized health care, including Medicaid beneficiaries, public employees and prisoners—about 750,000 people.

The only irony contained in this issue appears to be the fact that the limits of care will apply to "government workers", the very people who have been the biggest supporters of Obamacare.

[WHBates]

"In theory, it sounds great. But the Health Technology Assessment is an example of how comparative effectiveness will work in the real world, as the political system tries to find ways to restrict or limit treatment to control entitlement spending.

Hummm, I guess you could call it a............Oh yea, a death panel.

[Eva]

Bump, this is a forewarning of what is coming with Obamacare. It looks as though Governor Gregoire and the Democrat legislature has already established state health care death panels.

[Eva]

Exactly, Gregoire has set up her own death panels and aimed them at children with diabetes. ...oh, and families of government workers.

[Minn]

If we just don’t worry about the glucose level of type 1 children, we will be rid of them by the time they are 20; saving the Obamacare system millions.

[r9etb]

For those who want to read the actual thing, poke here.

For those who claim to hate the media but lap up everything the media tell them if it suits their biases, don't poke the link.

[Eva]

I believe that is the intention. I have to wonder if the effects of the diabetes and multiple hospitalizations could end up being more expensive than the preventative treatment.

[r9etb]

I suggest you read the 152 page report at the link. That way you can use actual information to make up your own mind on what's actually being said, rather than relying the opinions of a group of reporters in New York.

But that's just me....

[Eva]

I believe that is exactly what the article says, that the death panel deemed the home monitoring to be inconclusively beneficial.

In the comment section of the article, a physician states that the federal government has already cut the monitoring devices for medicare patients and that he has seen patients die as a result. I guess that is what the government intends.

[Eva]

Your link summarizes the issue exactly the way the WSJ summarized it. They cannot prove the efficacy because it would be unconscionable to create a control group, so the state will simply refuse the preventative device to all.

Like I said before, the feds are already refusing to pay for the device for medicare patients, against the recommendation of doctors.

Frankly, I trust the editorial board at the WSJ a whole lot more than I could ever trust Gregoire. They may not be perfect, but they are not known frauds like Gregoire.

[r9etb]

I believe that is exactly what the article says, that the death panel deemed the home monitoring to be inconclusively beneficial.

I believe if you read the 152 page paper, you can rely on what they actually said, rather than what a bunch of reporters wants you to see.

[r9etb]

They cannot prove the efficacy because it would be unconscionable to create a control group, so the state will simply refuse the preventative device to all.

Are you just lying because it makes you feel good? Because you are lying.

[TruthConquers]

Knock it off, not everyone here is going to go read your 152 page link.

When someone does, they can post to you.

Who made you king?

[Eva]

I’m not going to dignify that with a response.

[MarMema]

Thanks.

[r9etb]

Knock it off, not everyone here is going to go read your 152 page link.

Including those yelling the loudest in ignorance of what the report might actually say. It's funny, but alas unsurprising, that a person who could choose a screen name like yours, should defend such behavior.

[r9etb]

I’m not going to dignify that with a response

Then how's about you dignify your ridiculous statement with an actual quote to back it up.

And the answer is: you cannot. You made it up. I'm sick of "conservatives" who behave like that.

[Eva]

r9 is upset because his first link that summarized the findings of the WA state death panel, verified what was in the the WSJ.

[TruthConquers]

NO one has appointed YOU the arbiter of truth, not even me, bozo.

[Eva]

I don’t respond to ad hominem attacks.