The Lexington Herald-Leader today reports that “The Kentucky Hospital Association said in a report on Monday that Kentucky hospitals will lose $1.2 billion in revenues in the next 10 years because of health care reform.”

Notably, liberal trial lawyer Jack Conway championed the massive health spending bill and attacked Dan Mongiardo during the Democrats’ contentious primary for not supporting the costly new law more vigorously. Mongiardo now refuses to endorse Conway’s candidacy.

A recent Rasmussen survey noted last month that “Opposition to the national health care bill remains higher in Kentucky than it is nationally. Sixty percent (60%) of voters in the state favor repeal of the bill, while 36% are opposed.”

Hospital association says state will lose under health care reform

Background Information:

Jack Conway Supported The Health Care Reform Bill. “There is a clear choice in the Kentucky Democratic primary for U.S. Senate – I support health care reform and Daniel Mongiardo does not. We’ve just passed health care reform and I’m optimistic that the new exchanges and other provisions are going to do great things to expand coverage and lower costs in the next few years.  I think with an issue as complex as health care the details really matter in terms of how we implement the law.” (Steve Singiser, “Orange To Blue: Jack Conway, KY-Sen,” DailyKos Blog, www.dailykos.com, Posted 4/14/10)

Conway Criticized Dr. Mongiardo On Health Care Reform, Claiming “It’s Time For Democrats To Stand Up And Be Democrats.” “Conway has criticized Mongiardo for not speaking up in favor of the legislation sooner, saying at the debate: ‘It’s time for Democrats to stand up and be Democrats.’” (The [Louisville, KY] Courier-Journal, “Mongiardo, Conway Spar At Feisty Debate,” Joseph Gerth, 4/2/10)

A new Rasmussen survey shows that a strong majority of Americans expect the Democrats’ costly and unpopular health care overhaul to raise costs, increase the deficit, and harm the country.

…61% of voters… expect the cost of health care to go up under the health care reform law, the highest level of pessimism measured since the law was passed in March…. 54% now say the new law will be bad for the country… 62% expect the plan to increase the federal deficit… Most voters… continue to believe the new law will make the quality of health care worse.

After casting the crucial 60th vote for President Barack Obama’s costly and unpopular health care overhaul, which 65 percent of Arkansans want repealed, will U.S. Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) stand by idly as Obama appoints Don Berwick, a tireless advocate of health care rationing, to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)?

Lincoln and her fellow Washington Democrats never called a Senate hearing on Berwick’s nomination. And despite the Obama White House’s claims that “many Republicans in Congress have made it clear in recent weeks that they were going to stall the nomination as long as they could,” Republicans actually have no ability to “stall the nomination” in committee.

In truth, nothing prevented Senate Democrats from calling a hearing, or voting to report the nomination out of committee. U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Lincoln, and their fellow Senate Democrats simply chose to do neither.

Notably, CMS is one of the largest agencies in the federal government. This fiscal year, it will disburse $803 billion in benefits – making CMS larger than all but 15 of the world’s economies – larger than the economies of Denmark, South Africa, and Israel combined.

“After eagerly voting for President Obama’s unpopular health spending bill, will Blanche Lincoln stand by as he appoints this radical health care rationing czar without so much as a public hearing?” asked National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) spokeswoman Amber Marchand. “Sixty-five percent of Arkansans want this disastrous health care overhaul repealed, yet with her silence, Lincoln continues to side with her Washington party bosses instead of the people of her state. Arkansas voters know Lincoln has simply rubberstamped President Obama’s out-of-control agenda in Washington, and that’s why they will elect John Boozman as their next U.S. Senator this November.”

Background Information:

Berwick Sees Need For “Health Care Rationing,” Arguing That Government Will Need To Make “Decisions About Who Will Have Access To Care And The Extent Of Their Coverage.” “And he embraces government health care rationing. ‘The decision is not whether or not we will ration care,’ he said in a 2009 interview, ‘the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.’ This is a view Berwick has held for a long time; more than 10 years ago he wrote that ‘limited resources require decisions about who will have access to care and the extent of their coverage.’” (Jeff Jacoby, Op-Ed, “Dangerous To Our Health,” The Boston Globe, 6/16/10)

When Discussing Comparative Effectiveness Research, Berwick Praised Britain’s National Institute For Health And Clinical Excellence (NICE). Q: “Are we on the right track with a federal CER agency?” Berwick: “The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom and also, to some extent, the Institut National de La Sante in France have developed very good and very disciplined, scientifically grounded, policy- connected models for the evaluation of medical treatments from which we ought to learn. … These organizations have created benchmarks of best practices that we could learn from and adapt in this country.” (Katherine T. Adams, “An Interview With Dr. Donald Berwick: Rethinking Comparative Effectiveness Research,” Biotechnology Healthcare, 6/09)

Berwick Agrees That NICE Is “A Bogeyman” In The US, But Calls It “Extremely Effective… Conscientious, Valuable.” “I know that, and it’s a misunderstanding of the deepest sort. NICE is extremely effective and a conscientious, valuable, and – importantly – knowledge-building system. The fact that it’s a bogeyman in this country is a political fact, not a technical one.” (Katherine T. Adams, “An Interview With Dr. Donald Berwick: Rethinking Comparative Effectiveness Research,” Biotechnology Healthcare, 6/09

Berwick Calls It “Irrational” To Not Consider Costs For Rationing. “You can say, ‘Well, we shouldn’t even look.’ But that would be irrational. The social budget is limited – we have a limited resource pool. It makes terribly good sense to at least know the price of an added benefit, and at some point we might say nationally, regionally, or locally that we wish we could afford it, but we can’t. We have to be realistic about the knowledge base.” (Katherine T. Adams, “An Interview With Dr. Donald Berwick: Rethinking Comparative Effectiveness Research,” Biotechnology Healthcare, 6/09)

After enthusiastically embracing President Barack Obama’s costly and unpopular health care overhaul, will Dick Blumenthal (D-CT) stand by idly as Obama appoints Don Berwick, a tireless advocate of health care rationing, to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)?

Dick Blumenthal’s fellow Democrats never called a Senate hearing on Berwick’s nomination. And despite the Obama White House’s claims that “many Republicans in Congress have made it clear in recent weeks that they were going to stall the nomination as long as they could,” Republicans actually have no ability to “stall the nomination” in committee.

In truth, nothing prevented Blumenthal’s fellow Democrats from calling a hearing, or voting to report the nomination out of committee. U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and his fellow Senate Democrats simply chose to do neither.

Notably, CMS is one of the largest agencies in the federal government. This fiscal year, it will disburse $803 billion in benefits – making CMS larger than all but 15 of the world’s economies – larger than the economies of Denmark, South Africa, and Israel combined.

“After eagerly endorsing President Obama’s unpopular health spending bill, will Dick Blumenthal stand by as Obama appoints this radical health care rationing czar without so much as a public hearing?” asked National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) spokeswoman Caroline Duke. “With his silence, Blumenthal continues to side with his Washington party bosses instead of the people of his state. Connecticut voters know Dick Blumenthal will simply rubberstamp his party’s out-of-control economic agenda in Washington, and that’s why they will elect Linda McMahon as their next U.S. Senator this November.”

Background Information:

Berwick Sees Need For “Health Care Rationing,” Arguing That Government Will Need To Make “Decisions About Who Will Have Access To Care And The Extent Of Their Coverage.” “And he embraces government health care rationing. ‘The decision is not whether or not we will ration care,’ he said in a 2009 interview, ‘the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.’ This is a view Berwick has held for a long time; more than 10 years ago he wrote that ‘limited resources require decisions about who will have access to care and the extent of their coverage.’” (Jeff Jacoby, Op-Ed, “Dangerous To Our Health,” The Boston Globe, 6/16/10)

When Discussing Comparative Effectiveness Research, Berwick Praised Britain’s National Institute For Health And Clinical Excellence (NICE). Q: “Are we on the right track with a federal CER agency?” Berwick: “The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom and also, to some extent, the Institut National de La Sante in France have developed very good and very disciplined, scientifically grounded, policy- connected models for the evaluation of medical treatments from which we ought to learn. … These organizations have created benchmarks of best practices that we could learn from and adapt in this country.” (Katherine T. Adams, “An Interview With Dr. Donald Berwick: Rethinking Comparative Effectiveness Research,” Biotechnology Healthcare, 6/09)

Berwick Agrees That NICE Is “A Bogeyman” In The US, But Calls It “Extremely Effective… Conscientious, Valuable.” “I know that, and it’s a misunderstanding of the deepest sort. NICE is extremely effective and a conscientious, valuable, and – importantly – knowledge-building system. The fact that it’s a bogeyman in this country is a political fact, not a technical one.” (Katherine T. Adams, “An Interview With Dr. Donald Berwick: Rethinking Comparative Effectiveness Research,” Biotechnology Healthcare, 6/09)

Berwick Calls It “Irrational” To Not Consider Costs For Rationing. “You can say, ‘Well, we shouldn’t even look.’ But that would be irrational. The social budget is limited – we have a limited resource pool. It makes terribly good sense to at least know the price of an added benefit, and at some point we might say nationally, regionally, or locally that we wish we could afford it, but we can’t. We have to be realistic about the knowledge base.” (Katherine T. Adams, “An Interview With Dr. Donald Berwick: Rethinking Comparative Effectiveness Research,” Biotechnology Healthcare, 6/09)

After enthusiastically embracing President Barack Obama’s costly and unpopular health care overhaul, which 62 percent of North Carolinians want repealed, will Elaine Marshall (D-NC) stand by idly as Obama appoints Don Berwick, a tireless advocate of health care rationing, to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)?

Marshall’s fellow Democrats never called a Senate hearing on Berwick’s nomination. And despite the Obama White House’s claims that “many Republicans in Congress have made it clear in recent weeks that they were going to stall the nomination as long as they could,” Republicans actually have no ability to “stall the nomination” in committee.

In truth, nothing prevented Marshall’s fellow Democrats from calling a hearing, or voting to report the nomination out of committee. U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and his fellow Senate Democrats simply chose to do neither.

Notably, CMS is one of the largest agencies in the federal government. This fiscal year, it will disburse $803 billion in benefits – making CMS larger than all but 15 of the world’s economies – larger than the economies of Denmark, South Africa, and Israel combined.

“After eagerly endorsing President Obama’s unpopular health spending bill, will Elaine Marshall stand by as he appoints this radical health care rationing czar without so much as a public hearing?” asked National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) spokeswoman Caroline Duke. “More than 60 percent of North Carolinians want this disastrous health care overhaul repealed, yet with her silence, Marshall continues to side with her party bosses instead of the people of her state. North Carolina voters know Marshall will simply rubberstamp President Obama’s out-of-control agenda in Washington, and that’s why they will reelect Richard Burr as their U.S. Senator this November.”

Background Information:

Berwick Sees Need For “Health Care Rationing,” Arguing That Government Will Need To Make “Decisions About Who Will Have Access To Care And The Extent Of Their Coverage.” “And he embraces government health care rationing. ‘The decision is not whether or not we will ration care,’ he said in a 2009 interview, ‘the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.’ This is a view Berwick has held for a long time; more than 10 years ago he wrote that ‘limited resources require decisions about who will have access to care and the extent of their coverage.’” (Jeff Jacoby, Op-Ed, “Dangerous To Our Health,” The Boston Globe, 6/16/10)

When Discussing Comparative Effectiveness Research, Berwick Praised Britain’s National Institute For Health And Clinical Excellence (NICE). Q: “Are we on the right track with a federal CER agency?” Berwick: “The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom and also, to some extent, the Institut National de La Sante in France have developed very good and very disciplined, scientifically grounded, policy- connected models for the evaluation of medical treatments from which we ought to learn. … These organizations have created benchmarks of best practices that we could learn from and adapt in this country.” (Katherine T. Adams, “An Interview With Dr. Donald Berwick: Rethinking Comparative Effectiveness Research,” Biotechnology Healthcare, 6/09)

Berwick Agrees That NICE Is “A Bogeyman” In The US, But Calls It “Extremely Effective… Conscientious, Valuable.” “I know that, and it’s a misunderstanding of the deepest sort. NICE is extremely effective and a conscientious, valuable, and – importantly – knowledge-building system. The fact that it’s a bogeyman in this country is a political fact, not a technical one.” (Katherine T. Adams, “An Interview With Dr. Donald Berwick: Rethinking Comparative Effectiveness Research,” Biotechnology Healthcare, 6/09)

Berwick Calls It “Irrational” To Not Consider Costs For Rationing. “You can say, ‘Well, we shouldn’t even look.’ But that would be irrational. The social budget is limited – we have a limited resource pool. It makes terribly good sense to at least know the price of an added benefit, and at some point we might say nationally, regionally, or locally that we wish we could afford it, but we can’t. We have to be realistic about the knowledge base.” (Katherine T. Adams, “An Interview With Dr. Donald Berwick: Rethinking Comparative Effectiveness Research,” Biotechnology Healthcare, 6/09)

After enthusiastically voting for President Barack Obama’s costly and unpopular health care overhaul, will U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) stand by idly as Obama appoints Don Berwick, a tireless advocate of health care rationing, to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)?

Murray and her fellow Washington Democrats never called a Senate hearing on Berwick’s nomination. And despite the Obama White House’s claims that “many Republicans in Congress have made it clear in recent weeks that they were going to stall the nomination as long as they could,” Republicans actually have no ability to “stall the nomination” in committee.

In truth, nothing prevented Senate Democrats from calling a hearing, or voting to report the nomination out of committee. U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Murray, and their fellow Senate Democrats simply chose to do neither.

Notably, CMS is one of the largest agencies in the federal government. This fiscal year, it will disburse $803 billion in benefits – making CMS larger than all but 15 of the world’s economies – larger than the economies of Denmark, South Africa, and Israel combined.

“After eagerly voting for President Obama’s unpopular health spending bill, will Patty Murray stand by as he appoints this radical health care rationing czar without so much as a public hearing?” asked National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) spokesman Brian Walsh. “With her silence, Murray continues to side with her D.C. party bosses instead of the people of her state. Washingtonians know Murray has simply rubberstamped her party’s out-of-control agenda in D.C., and that’s why they will elect a Republican as their next U.S. Senator this November.”

Background Information:

Berwick Sees Need For “Health Care Rationing,” Arguing That Government Will Need To Make “Decisions About Who Will Have Access To Care And The Extent Of Their Coverage.” “And he embraces government health care rationing. ‘The decision is not whether or not we will ration care,’ he said in a 2009 interview, ‘the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.’ This is a view Berwick has held for a long time; more than 10 years ago he wrote that ‘limited resources require decisions about who will have access to care and the extent of their coverage.’” (Jeff Jacoby, Op-Ed, “Dangerous To Our Health,” The Boston Globe, 6/16/10)

When Discussing Comparative Effectiveness Research, Berwick Praised Britain’s National Institute For Health And Clinical Excellence (NICE). Q: “Are we on the right track with a federal CER agency?” Berwick: “The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom and also, to some extent, the Institut National de La Sante in France have developed very good and very disciplined, scientifically grounded, policy- connected models for the evaluation of medical treatments from which we ought to learn. … These organizations have created benchmarks of best practices that we could learn from and adapt in this country.” (Katherine T. Adams, “An Interview With Dr. Donald Berwick: Rethinking Comparative Effectiveness Research,” Biotechnology Healthcare, 6/09)

Berwick Agrees That NICE Is “A Bogeyman” In The US, But Calls It “Extremely Effective… Conscientious, Valuable.” “I know that, and it’s a misunderstanding of the deepest sort. NICE is extremely effective and a conscientious, valuable, and – importantly – knowledge-building system. The fact that it’s a bogeyman in this country is a political fact, not a technical one.” (Katherine T. Adams, “An Interview With Dr. Donald Berwick: Rethinking Comparative Effectiveness Research,” Biotechnology Healthcare, 6/09)

Berwick Calls It “Irrational” To Not Consider Costs For Rationing. “You can say, ‘Well, we shouldn’t even look.’ But that would be irrational. The social budget is limited – we have a limited resource pool. It makes terribly good sense to at least know the price of an added benefit, and at some point we might say nationally, regionally, or locally that we wish we could afford it, but we can’t. We have to be realistic about the knowledge base.” (Katherine T. Adams, “An Interview With Dr. Donald Berwick: Rethinking Comparative Effectiveness Research,” Biotechnology Healthcare, 6/09)

After enthusiastically voting for President Barack Obama’s costly and unpopular health care overhaul, which a majority of New Hampshire voters want repealed, will Paul Hodes (D-NH) stand by idly as he appoints Don Berwick, a tireless advocate of health care rationing, to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)?

Hodes’ fellow Democrats never called a Senate hearing on Berwick’s nomination. And despite the Obama White House’s claims that “many Republicans in Congress have made it clear in recent weeks that they were going to stall the nomination as long as they could,” Republicans actually have no ability to “stall the nomination” in committee.

In truth, nothing prevented Hodes’ fellow Democrats from calling a hearing, or voting to report the nomination out of committee. U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and his fellow Senate Democrats simply chose to do neither.

Notably, CMS is one of the largest agencies in the federal government. This fiscal year, it will disburse $803 billion in benefits – making CMS larger than all but 15 of the world’s economies – larger than the economies of Denmark, South Africa, and Israel combined.

“After eagerly endorsing President Obama’s unpopular health spending bill, will Paul Hodes stand by as he appoints this radical health care rationing czar without so much as a public hearing?” asked National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) spokeswoman Amber Marchand. “The majority of New Hampshire voters want this disastrous health care overhaul repealed, yet with his silence, Hodes continues to side with his Washington party bosses instead of the people of his state. New Hampshire voters know Hodes has simply rubberstamped his party’s out-of-control agenda in Washington, and that’s why they will elect a Republican as their next U.S. Senator this November.”

Background Information:

Berwick Sees Need For “Health Care Rationing,” Arguing That Government Will Need To Make “Decisions About Who Will Have Access To Care And The Extent Of Their Coverage.” “And he embraces government health care rationing. ‘The decision is not whether or not we will ration care,’ he said in a 2009 interview, ‘the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.’ This is a view Berwick has held for a long time; more than 10 years ago he wrote that ‘limited resources require decisions about who will have access to care and the extent of their coverage.’” (Jeff Jacoby, Op-Ed, “Dangerous To Our Health,” The Boston Globe, 6/16/10)

When Discussing Comparative Effectiveness Research, Berwick Praised Britain’s National Institute For Health And Clinical Excellence (NICE). Q: “Are we on the right track with a federal CER agency?” Berwick: “The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom and also, to some extent, the Institut National de La Sante in France have developed very good and very disciplined, scientifically grounded, policy- connected models for the evaluation of medical treatments from which we ought to learn. … These organizations have created benchmarks of best practices that we could learn from and adapt in this country.” (Katherine T. Adams, “An Interview With Dr. Donald Berwick: Rethinking Comparative Effectiveness Research,” Biotechnology Healthcare, 6/09)

Berwick Agrees That NICE Is “A Bogeyman” In The US, But Calls It “Extremely Effective… Conscientious, Valuable.” “I know that, and it’s a misunderstanding of the deepest sort. NICE is extremely effective and a conscientious, valuable, and – importantly – knowledge-building system. The fact that it’s a bogeyman in this country is a political fact, not a technical one.” (Katherine T. Adams, “An Interview With Dr. Donald Berwick: Rethinking Comparative Effectiveness Research,” Biotechnology Healthcare, 6/09)

Berwick Calls It “Irrational” To Not Consider Costs For Rationing. “You can say, ‘Well, we shouldn’t even look.’ But that would be irrational. The social budget is limited – we have a limited resource pool. It makes terribly good sense to at least know the price of an added benefit, and at some point we might say nationally, regionally, or locally that we wish we could afford it, but we can’t. We have to be realistic about the knowledge base.” (Katherine T. Adams, “An Interview With Dr. Donald Berwick: Rethinking Comparative Effectiveness Research,” Biotechnology Healthcare, 6/09)

After enthusiastically voting for President Barack Obama’s costly and unpopular health care overhaul, which the majority of Pennsylvanians want repealed, will U.S. Representative Joe Sestak (D-PA) stand by idly as Obama appoints Don Berwick, a tireless advocate of health care rationing, to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)?

Sestak’s fellow Democrats never called a Senate hearing on Berwick’s nomination. And despite the Obama White House’s claims that “many Republicans in Congress have made it clear in recent weeks that they were going to stall the nomination as long as they could,” Republicans actually have no ability to “stall the nomination” in committee.

In truth, nothing prevented Sestak’s fellow Democrats from calling a hearing, or voting to report the nomination out of committee. U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and his fellow Senate Democrats simply chose to do neither.

Notably, CMS is one of the largest agencies in the federal government. This fiscal year, it will disburse $803 billion in benefits – making CMS larger than all but 15 of the world’s economies – larger than the economies of Denmark, South Africa, and Israel combined.

“After eagerly voting for President Obama’s unpopular health spending bill, will Joe Sestak stand by as Obama appoints this radical health care rationing czar without so much as a public hearing?” asked National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) spokeswoman Amber Marchand. “The majority of Pennsylvania voters want this disastrous health care overhaul repealed, yet with his silence, Sestak continues to side with his Washington party bosses instead of the people of his state. Pennsylvanians know Sestak has simply rubberstamped his party’s out-of-control agenda in Washington, and that’s why they will elect Pat Toomey as their next U.S. Senator this November.”

Background Information:

Berwick Sees Need For “Health Care Rationing,” Arguing That Government Will Need To Make “Decisions About Who Will Have Access To Care And The Extent Of Their Coverage.” “And he embraces government health care rationing. ‘The decision is not whether or not we will ration care,’ he said in a 2009 interview, ‘the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.’ This is a view Berwick has held for a long time; more than 10 years ago he wrote that ‘limited resources require decisions about who will have access to care and the extent of their coverage.’” (Jeff Jacoby, Op-Ed, “Dangerous To Our Health,” The Boston Globe, 6/16/10)

When Discussing Comparative Effectiveness Research, Berwick Praised Britain’s National Institute For Health And Clinical Excellence (NICE). Q: “Are we on the right track with a federal CER agency?” Berwick: “The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom and also, to some extent, the Institut National de La Sante in France have developed very good and very disciplined, scientifically grounded, policy- connected models for the evaluation of medical treatments from which we ought to learn. … These organizations have created benchmarks of best practices that we could learn from and adapt in this country.” (Katherine T. Adams, “An Interview With Dr. Donald Berwick: Rethinking Comparative Effectiveness Research,” Biotechnology Healthcare, 6/09)

Berwick Agrees That NICE Is “A Bogeyman” In The US, But Calls It “Extremely Effective… Conscientious, Valuable.” “I know that, and it’s a misunderstanding of the deepest sort. NICE is extremely effective and a conscientious, valuable, and – importantly – knowledge-building system. The fact that it’s a bogeyman in this country is a political fact, not a technical one.” (Katherine T. Adams, “An Interview With Dr. Donald Berwick: Rethinking Comparative Effectiveness Research,” Biotechnology Healthcare, 6/09)

Berwick Calls It “Irrational” To Not Consider Costs For Rationing. “You can say, ‘Well, we shouldn’t even look.’ But that would be irrational. The social budget is limited – we have a limited resource pool. It makes terribly good sense to at least know the price of an added benefit, and at some point we might say nationally, regionally, or locally that we wish we could afford it, but we can’t. We have to be realistic about the knowledge base.” (Katherine T. Adams, “An Interview With Dr. Donald Berwick: Rethinking Comparative Effectiveness Research,” Biotechnology Healthcare, 6/09)

After enthusiastically voting for President Barack Obama’s costly and unpopular health care overhaul, which 58 percent of Wisconsinites want repealed, will U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) stand by idly as Obama appoints Don Berwick, a tireless advocate of health care rationing, to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)?

Feingold and his fellow Washington Democrats never called a Senate hearing on Berwick’s nomination. And despite the Obama White House’s claims that “many Republicans in Congress have made it clear in recent weeks that they were going to stall the nomination as long as they could,” Republicans actually have no ability to “stall the nomination” in committee.

In truth, nothing prevented Senate Democrats from calling a hearing, or voting to report the nomination out of committee. U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Feingold, and their fellow Senate Democrats simply chose to do neither.

Notably, CMS is one of the largest agencies in the federal government. This fiscal year, it will disburse $803 billion in benefits – making CMS larger than all but 15 of the world’s economies – larger than the economies of Denmark, South Africa, and Israel combined.

“After eagerly voting for President Obama’s unpopular health spending bill, will Russ Feingold stand by as Obama appoints this radical health care rationing czar without so much as a public hearing?” asked National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) spokesman Chris Bond. “Nearly 60 percent of Wisconsinites want this disastrous health care overhaul repealed, yet with his silence, Feingold continues to side with his Washington party bosses instead of the people of his state. Wisconsin voters know Feingold has simply rubberstamped his party’s out-of-control agenda in Washington, and that’s why they will elect a Republican as their next U.S. Senator this November.”

Background Information:

Berwick Sees Need For “Health Care Rationing,” Arguing That Government Will Need To Make “Decisions About Who Will Have Access To Care And The Extent Of Their Coverage.” “And he embraces government health care rationing. ‘The decision is not whether or not we will ration care,’ he said in a 2009 interview, ‘the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.’ This is a view Berwick has held for a long time; more than 10 years ago he wrote that ‘limited resources require decisions about who will have access to care and the extent of their coverage.’” (Jeff Jacoby, Op-Ed, “Dangerous To Our Health,” The Boston Globe, 6/16/10)

When Discussing Comparative Effectiveness Research, Berwick Praised Britain’s National Institute For Health And Clinical Excellence (NICE). Q: “Are we on the right track with a federal CER agency?” Berwick: “The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom and also, to some extent, the Institut National de La Sante in France have developed very good and very disciplined, scientifically grounded, policy- connected models for the evaluation of medical treatments from which we ought to learn. … These organizations have created benchmarks of best practices that we could learn from and adapt in this country.” (Katherine T. Adams, “An Interview With Dr. Donald Berwick: Rethinking Comparative Effectiveness Research,” Biotechnology Healthcare, 6/09)

Berwick Agrees That NICE Is “A Bogeyman” In The US, But Calls It “Extremely Effective… Conscientious, Valuable.” “I know that, and it’s a misunderstanding of the deepest sort. NICE is extremely effective and a conscientious, valuable, and – importantly – knowledge-building system. The fact that it’s a bogeyman in this country is a political fact, not a technical one.” (Katherine T. Adams, “An Interview With Dr. Donald Berwick: Rethinking Comparative Effectiveness Research,” Biotechnology Healthcare, 6/09)

Berwick Calls It “Irrational” To Not Consider Costs For Rationing. “You can say, ‘Well, we shouldn’t even look.’ But that would be irrational. The social budget is limited – we have a limited resource pool. It makes terribly good sense to at least know the price of an added benefit, and at some point we might say nationally, regionally, or locally that we wish we could afford it, but we can’t. We have to be realistic about the knowledge base.” (Katherine T. Adams, “An Interview With Dr. Donald Berwick: Rethinking Comparative Effectiveness Research,” Biotechnology Healthcare, 6/09

After enthusiastically voting for President Barack Obama’s costly and unpopular health care overhaul, will U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) stand by idly as Obama appoints Don Berwick, a tireless advocate of health care rationing, to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)?

Boxer and her fellow Washington Democrats never called a Senate hearing on Berwick’s nomination. And despite the Obama White House’s claims that “many Republicans in Congress have made it clear in recent weeks that they were going to stall the nomination as long as they could,” Republicans actually have no ability to “stall the nomination” in committee.

In truth, nothing prevented Senate Democrats from calling a hearing, or voting to report the nomination out of committee. U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Boxer, and their fellow Senate Democrats simply chose to do neither.

Notably, CMS is one of the largest agencies in the federal government. This fiscal year, it will disburse $803 billion in benefits – making CMS larger than all but 15 of the world’s economies – larger than the economies of Denmark, South Africa, and Israel combined.

“After eagerly voting for President Obama’s unpopular health spending bill, will Barbara Boxer stand by as he appoints this radical health care rationing czar without so much as a public hearing?” asked National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) spokeswoman Amber Marchand. “With her silence, Boxer continues to side with her Washington party bosses instead of the people of her state. Californians know Boxer has simply rubberstamped her party’s out-of-control agenda in Washington, and that’s why they will elect Carly Fiorina as their next U.S. Senator this November.”

Background Information:

Berwick Sees Need For “Health Care Rationing,” Arguing That Government Will Need To Make “Decisions About Who Will Have Access To Care And The Extent Of Their Coverage.” “And he embraces government health care rationing. ‘The decision is not whether or not we will ration care,’ he said in a 2009 interview, ‘the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.’ This is a view Berwick has held for a long time; more than 10 years ago he wrote that ‘limited resources require decisions about who will have access to care and the extent of their coverage.’” (Jeff Jacoby, Op-Ed, “Dangerous To Our Health,” The Boston Globe, 6/16/10)

When Discussing Comparative Effectiveness Research, Berwick Praised Britain’s National Institute For Health And Clinical Excellence (NICE). Q: “Are we on the right track with a federal CER agency?” Berwick: “The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom and also, to some extent, the Institut National de La Sante in France have developed very good and very disciplined, scientifically grounded, policy- connected models for the evaluation of medical treatments from which we ought to learn. … These organizations have created benchmarks of best practices that we could learn from and adapt in this country.” (Katherine T. Adams, “An Interview With Dr. Donald Berwick: Rethinking Comparative Effectiveness Research,” Biotechnology Healthcare, 6/09)

Berwick Agrees That NICE Is “A Bogeyman” In The US, But Calls It “Extremely Effective… Conscientious, Valuable.” “I know that, and it’s a misunderstanding of the deepest sort. NICE is extremely effective and a conscientious, valuable, and – importantly – knowledge-building system. The fact that it’s a bogeyman in this country is a political fact, not a technical one.” (Katherine T. Adams, “An Interview With Dr. Donald Berwick: Rethinking Comparative Effectiveness Research,” Biotechnology Healthcare, 6/09)

Berwick Calls It “Irrational” To Not Consider Costs For Rationing. “You can say, ‘Well, we shouldn’t even look.’ But that would be irrational. The social budget is limited – we have a limited resource pool. It makes terribly good sense to at least know the price of an added benefit, and at some point we might say nationally, regionally, or locally that we wish we could afford it, but we can’t. We have to be realistic about the knowledge base.” (Katherine T. Adams, “An Interview With Dr. Donald Berwick: Rethinking Comparative Effectiveness Research,” Biotechnology Healthcare, 6/09