Health Care Reform - Propaganda and Fact

PART ONE – THE PROPAGANDA
(A search of the AMA database reveals that Dr.Pollard is neither a member of the AMA nor the Georgia Medical Association. Goggling reveals that this scree has been widely distributed in the last two months, including a posting and discussion thread in Surfing Magazine.)

Eye Consultants of Atlanta
3225 Cumberland Blvd., SE
Suite 900
Atlanta , GA 30339
404-351-2220
By Zane F Pollard, MD
I have been sitting quietly on the sidelines watching all of this national debate on healthcare. It is time for me to bring some clarity to the table by explaining many of the problems from the perspective of a doctor.

First off the government has involved very few of us physicians in the healthcare debate. While the American Medical Association has come out in favor of the plan, it is vital to remember that the AMA only represents 17% of the American physician workforce.
I have taken care of Medicaid patients for 35 years while representing the only pediatric ophthalmology group left in Atlanta, Georgia that accepts Medicaid.
For example, in the past 6 months I have cared for three young children on Medicaid who had corneal ulcers. This is a potentially blinding situation because if the cornea perforates from the infection, almost surely blindness will occur. In all three cases the antibiotic needed for the eradication of the infection was not on the approved Medicaid list.
Each time I was told to fax Medicaid for the approval forms, which I did. Within 48 hours the form came back to me which was sent in immediately via fax, and I was told that I would have my answer in 10 days. Of course by then each child would have been blind in the eye.
Each time the request came back denied. All three times I personally provided the antibiotic for each patient which was not on the Medicaid approved list.
Get the point -- rationing of care.
Over the past 35 years I have cared for over 1000 children born with congenital cataracts. In older children and in adults the vision is rehabilitated with an intraocular lens. In newborns we use contact lenses which are very expensive. It takes Medicaid over one year to approve a contact lens post cataract surgery. By that time a successful anatomical operation is wasted as the child will be close to blind from a lack of focusing for so long a period of time.
Again, extreme rationing. Solution: I have a foundation here in Atlanta supported 100% by private funds which supplies all of these contact lenses for my Medicaid and illegal immigrants children for free. Again, waiting for the government would be disastrous.
Last week I had a lady bring her child to me. They are Americans but live in Sweden, as the father has a job with a big corporation. The child had the onset of double vision 3 months ago and has been unable to function normally because of this. They are people of means but are waiting 8 months to see the ophthalmologist in Sweden. Then if the child needed surgery they would be put on a 6 month waiting list. She called me and I saw her that day. It turned out that the child had accommodative esotropia (crossing of the eyes treated with glasses that correct for farsightedness) and responded to glasses within 4 days, so no surgery was needed. Again, rationing of care.
Last month I operated on a 70 year old lady with double vision present for 3 years. She responded quite nicely to her surgery and now is symptom free. I also operated on a 69 year old judge with vertical double vision. His surgery went very well and now he is happy as a lark. I have been told -- but of course there is no healthcare bill that has been passed yet -- that these 2 people because of their age would have been denied surgery and just told to wear a patch over one eye to alleviate the symptoms of double vision. Obviously cheaper than surgery.
I spent two years in the US Navy during the Viet Nam war and was well treated by the military. There was tremendous rationing of care and we were told specifically what things the military personnel and their dependents could have and which things they could not have. While I was in Viet Nam, my wife Nancy got sick and got essentially no care at the Naval Hospital in Oakland, California. She went home and went to her family's private internist in Beverly Hills. While it was expensive, she received an immediate work up. Again rationing of care.
For those of you who are over 65, this bill in its present form might be lethal for you. People in England over 59 cannot receive stents for their coronary arteries. The government wants to mimic the British plan. For those of you younger, it will still mean restriction of the care that you and your children receive.
While 99% of physicians went into medicine because of the love of medicine and the challenge of helping our fellow man, economics are still important. My rent goes up 2% each year and the salaries of my employees go up 2% each year. Twenty years ago, ophthalmologists were paid $1800 for a cataract surgery and today $500. This is a 73% decrease in our fees. I do not know of many jobs in America that have seen this sort of lowering of fees.
But there is more to the story than just the lower fees. When I came to Atlanta, there was a well known ophthalmologist that charged $2500 for a cataract surgery as he felt the was the best. He had a terrific reputation and in fact I had my mother's bilateral cataracts operated on by him with a wonderful result. She is now 94 and has 20/20 vision in both eyes. People would pay his $2500 fee.
However, then the government came in and said that any doctor that does Medicare work cannot accept more than the going rate ( now $500) or he or she would be severely fined. This put an end to his charging $2500. The government said it was illegal to accept more than the government-allowed rate. What I am driving at is that those of you well off will NOT be able to go to the head of the line under this new healthcare plan, just because you have money, as no physician will be willing to go against the law to treat you.
I am a pediatric ophthalmologist and trained for 10 years post-college to become a pediatric ophthalmologist (add two years of my service in the Navy and that comes to 12 years).A neurosurgeon spends 14 years post -college, and if he or she has to do the military that would be 16 years. I am not entitled to make what a neurosurgeon makes, but the new plan calls for all physicians to make the same amount of payment. I assure you that medical students will not go into neurosurgery and we will have a tremendous shortage of neurosurgeons. Already, the top neurosurgeon at my hospital that is in good health and only 52 years old has just quit because he can't stand working with the government anymore. Forty-nine percent of children under the age of 16 in the state of Georgia are on Medicaid, so he felt he just could not stand working with the bureaucracy anymore. We are being lied to about the uninsured. They are getting care. I operate on at least 2 illegal immigrants each month who pay me nothing, and the children's hospital at which I operate charges them nothing also. This is true not only of Atlanta, but of every community in America.
The bottom line is that I urge all of you to contact your congresswomen and congressmen and senators to defeat this bill. I promise you that you will not like rationing of your own health.
Furthermore, how can you trust a physician that works under these conditions knowing that he is controlled by the state? I certainly could not trust any doctor that would work under these draconian conditions.
One last thing: with this new healthcare plan there will be a tremendous shortage of physicians. It has been estimated that approximately 5% of the current physician work force will quit under this new system. Also it is estimated that another 5% shortage will occur because of the decreased number of men and women wanting to go into medicine. At the present time the US government has mandated gender equity in admissions to medical schools .That means that for the past 15 years somewhere between 49 and 51% of each entering class are females. This is true of private schools also, because all private schools receive federal funding.
The average career of a woman in medicine now is only 8-10 years and the average work week for a female in medicine is only 3-4 days. I have now trained 35 fellows in pediatric ophthalmology. Hands down the best was a female that I trained 4 years ago -- she was head and heels above all others I have trained. She now practices only 3 days a week. 


PART TWO – THE TRUTH

One sided, doom and gloom, propaganda. It is also filled with distortions, errors and half-truths.

1. "They will retire if Obama's health care plan is adopted"

2. Oh yeah? I guess that means they have done so well financially they have the $5,000,000 in retirement money it would take to maintain their lifestyle (5%/year X $5,000,000 = $250,000)

3. "the AMA only represents 17% of the American physician workforce."

The AMA has 340,000 members. There are 981,000 doctors licensed to prescribe in the US. You do the math.

4. "In newborns we use contact lenses which are very expensive. It takes Medicaid over one year to approve a contact lens post cataract surgery."

It takes me five minutes to obtain approval from Medicaid for pain medication that costs $3,000 per month and will be required indefinitely. Either this is a lie, a distortion, an anomaly in Georgia or he's not doing something right.

5. "in Sweden ....... if the child needed surgery they would be put on a 6 month waiting list."

More nonsense. Waiting lists are primarily for elective procedures. What would you bet that if you research this you'll find it to be a total concoction?

6. "I have been told -- but of course there is no health care bill that has been passed yet -- that these 2 people because of their age would have been denied surgery and just told to wear a patch over one eye to alleviate the symptoms of double vision. Obviously cheaper than surgery."

Who told him this? How would they know? In fact, the proposals currently being considered make absolutely no change in the existing Medicare program which currently covers both a 69 and 70 year old. Where does this "rationing" fear-mongering come from? Guess. As far as rationing is concerned, I have many patients who are now into their second year of waiting to be reimbursed by their very large insurance companies for benefits that the company has already acknowledged are covered by their plan. I currently spend about four hours a week arguing with non-medically trained insurance company employees about "medical necessity" and "formulary requirements", etc., etc. That is rationing in sheep's clothing.

7. "In England people over 59 cannot receive stents for their coronary arteries. The government wants to mimic the British plan. For those of you younger, it will still mean restriction of the care that you and your children receive."

More B.S. Check it out. There's no waiting list or denial of stents where needed in Great Britain. But the English have not adopted the current U.S. fad. The fact is that stents are not a panacea and research data here in the U.S. has recently raised questions about this current U.S. fad of placing them in everyone with a putative coronary artery narrowing.

No one has said anything about "wanting to mimic the British Plan" That's just a typical "swift-boating" buzz word sound bite. Medical care now is not restricted but denied entirely to 54 million Americans. How about that? Based on quality of health care, the United States now ranks 39th in the world, right behind Bulgaria!! Check that fact out.

8. "The government said it was illegal to accept more than the government-allowed rate. What I am driving at is that those of you well off will NOT be able to go to the head of the line under this new health care plan, just because you have money, as no physician will be willing to go against the law to treat you."

Another distortion. There is nothing in the current proposal that would eliminate private care. If you have the money you can see anyone you want (just as in Great Britain and anywhere in the European Union.) Restrictions on charges apply only to people on Medicare. The law does not allow a participating physician to charge more to a Medicare patient than is allowed. If a doctor wants to charge more than the fee schedules allow, all he (or she) has to do is opt out of Medicare. I did it four years ago and have never missed it for one day. It is a perfect solution to inadequate fees. If enough doctors opt out the fees will have to be increased to a level that attracts the doctors back in. The term for this is "the force of the marketplace". Currently insurance companies try to escape the marketplace by forcing doctors into "panels", where they have to eat whatever the insurance company serves them or be excluded from treating the Insurance company's patients.

9. "the new plan calls for all physicians to make the same amount of payment."

Another untruth. There is no such provision in the current proposals. More "swift-boating" buzzwords.

10. "The top neurosurgeon at my hospital who is in good health and only 52 years old has just quit because he can't stand working with the government anymore. Forty-nine percent of children under the age of 16 in the state of Georgia are on Medicaid, so he felt he just could not stand working with the bureaucracy anymore."

See number 1, above. He must have a lot of money if he "quit". Is the truth (if this isn't another complete fiction) something more like he quit accepting Medicaid? (see No.7, above). What about working with the insurance company "bureaucracy"? You can't call your Congressman about them. I currently have to deal with 100 times more insurance company "bureaucrats" than government "bureaucrats".

11. "with this new health care plan there will be a tremendous shortage of physicians. It has been estimated that approximately 5% of the current physician work force will quit under this new system. Also it is estimated that another 5% shortage will occur because of the decreased number of men and women wanting to go into medicine."

Again, apocryphal B.S. WHO estimated it? Want to guess, again?

12. "At the present time the US government has mandated gender equity in admissions to medical schools .That means that for the past 15 years somewhere between 49 and 51% of each entering class are females. This is true of private schools also, because all private schools receive federal funding. "

Just in case you haven't figured out the kind of politics behind this propaganda, they give you another chance to figure it out with this little piece of misogyny. The government doesn't mandate gender equality in medical school classes. It mandates gender, (and race, and creed) equality in the process of admission. You can't set quotas on admissions for any reason. If half the new medical students are women it is because women now want to be doctors and see themselves in that career in equal numbers to men, and have obviously proven that they are intellectually and personally equally qualified by winning admissions to medical school at rates equal to men. As for how long they stay in medicine, I think a little peak at the facts will reveal this argument to be more propaganda, this time of the misogynistic type.


THE REAL FACTS:

Insurance companies currently siphon off from 32 to 70% of every health care dollar spent in the U.S. with their "overhead". The current Medicare "overhead" cost is 5%. If insurance companies have to compete with a governmental alternative this highway robbery will stop overnight. 50% of the $3 trillion dollars spent annually on health care is $1.5 trillion dollars. If the insurance companies had to operate honestly, in the marketplace, even a 15% overhead (three times that of Medicare) would put $1 trillion dollars back into actual health care - enough money to pay for all those people currently uninsured. The insurance companies have spent 130 billion dollars in the last three months trying to kill health care reform, using every slimy device they can find, including this piece of propaganda.

Wake up America. Wake up American medicine. If it looks, like it, smells like it, and tastes like it, it most certainly is, B.S. I don't care how much they spend and how many lies they spread. Use your common sense - it sure as hell isn't honey!

J.S. Hochman MD
In private practice for 39 years
Executive Director
The National Foundation for the Treatment of Pain
www.paincare.org