[img_assist|nid=23288|title=|desc=|link=none|align=left|width=300|height=227]The following article gives us a good taste of what is already happening under ObamaCare and can be found in its entirety by clicking here.
The Centers for Medicaid and Medicare (CMS), under enormous public pressure, proposed that Provenge, a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved treatment for prostate cancer, be covered by insurance following a controversial review. A final decision on the issue is expected to be published 60 days after the public comment period for the proposed decision has ended.
On the same day as the CMS decision, Judicial Watch released hundreds of pages of documents from the Obama Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) detailing how and why the review was instituted. And heres one of our major finds: While the Obama administration claimed the cost of Provenge had nothing to do with their review, these documents suggest otherwise. (Remember Medicare and the FDA are legally prohibited from denying approval of a medical treatment based solely on cost.)
Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request with HHS over Provenge after the press reported the CMS had taken the rare step of calling for a review Provenge to see if it is reasonable and necessary and should be covered by Medicaid and Medicare.
The move caused widespread panic among those patients who depend on the treatments to live, as well as anyone else who had heard all about health care rationing and death panels under Obamacare. (Lets not forget, Obama named Death Panel Donald Berwick to head CMS and Berwick is on record supporting the idea of health care rationing, so these fears are not unfounded.)
When HHS stonewalled the FOIA request, Judicial Watch sued for the documents on January 3, 2011.
According to these new documents, the purpose of the Provenge review, deemed a National Coverage Determination (NCD), is to determine if the FDA-approved treatment should be reimbursed on a uniform and national level. The CMS claims the review was triggered by the fact that local Medicare contractors were not uniformly providing coverage for the Provenge, leading to multiple complaints by patients. Some contractors withdrew coverage in the middle of treatment.
Here are some other highlights from the documents, beginning with an interesting excerpt regarding the cost issue:
The documents include a CMS Q&A sheet that denies cost was a factor in the decision to review Provenge. However, a June 8, 2010, internal email from William D. Rogers, Director of the CMS Physicians Regulatory Issues Team, to Louis B. Jacques, CMS Director of Coverage Analysis Group, states: We discussed this on the last CMD [Contract Medical Director] call. $93,000 per treatment adds four months to life, 27,000 patients a year $2.6 billion dollars a year. Obama administration officials have denied that the review of Provenge had anything to do with the treatments costs.
A July 28, 2010, letter to Louis Jacques from Hans Bishop, Chief Operating Officer of Dendreon, the company that manufactures Provenge, and Mark Frohlich, Dendreons Chief Medical Officer, objecting to the highly unusual review of Provenge.
While noting the overwhelming clinical evidence of Provenges effectiveness, and the FDAs rigorous approval process, Dendreon asked the CMS to shut down the NCD: We remind you that the patients we serve have late-stage cancer and few, if any, appealing treatment options available to them, with only chemotherapy as an FDA-approved alternative. Not only is Provenge clearly reasonable and necessary but it provides an unambiguous survival benefit and real hope for patients battling their disease. Dendreon argued to keep the systems status quo, with local contractors making coverage decisions as coverage variations have subsided. The letter also suggests that coverage is required by law as a result of the FDAs prior approval of the Provenge treatment for prostate cancer.
A number of the documents expressing concern over the review were distributed to CMS Administrator Donald Berwick himself.
If you read these documents for yourself, youll see there was a strong bias against Provenge in the Obamacare bureaucracy. Fortunately, pressure from patients, the public, Congress and groups like Judicial Watch forced the governments hand.
(…) this decision most certainly does not put an end to the issue of health care rationing. A recent study shows that in 2010, only two of the 11 National Coverage Determinations led to unrestricted positive coverage decisions. The remaining decisions mandated restrictions of coverage of one type or another.
Donald Berwick said it himself. Its not a matter of if we ration health care, its a matter of when.