Myths and misinformation continue to swirl around HR 3200, the chief health reform proposal now pending in the U.S. House of Representatives.

AARP has not endorsed this bill nor any other specific bill now pending in Congress. We do, however, support various elements of various proposals that we believe will advance our members' interest in quality, affordable health care options.

We also think it's important to separate myth from fact about some of those proposals, including these specific claims that have been made about HR 3200.

This is a somewhat long document, but we are confident it will bring important information to the forefront of our country's crucial national debate around health care reform.

• How employers who self-insure and who buy insurance are alike and differ.
• Whether self-insuring employers have sufficient funds to pay their health care obligations.
• Whether rate regulations cause some employers to buy insurance and others to self-insure.

Commentary by Betsy McCaughey “rife with gross, cruel distortions.”

WASHINGTON—AARP Executive Vice President John Rother issued the following statement in response to recent commentary by Betsy McCaughey in various media outlets on health care reform measures passed or currently being considered by Congress.

“Betsy McCaughey’s recent commentary on health care reform column in various media outlets is rife with gross—and even cruel—distortions.

“Ms. McCaughey has again launched her customary broadside attack against comparative effectiveness research.  She describes this term as ‘code’ for ‘limiting care based on a patient’s age.’  In fact the term for that is ‘age rating,’ a practice used by insurance companies to discriminate against older Americans against which AARP is vigorously fighting, and we look forward to her next column to help the cause.

“‘Comparative effectiveness research,’ on the other hand, is a technical term that just means giving doctors and patients the ability to compare different kinds of treatments to find out which one works best for which patient.

“Some estimates say that only about half of all therapies that patients receive have been backed up by head-to-head comparisons with alternatives.  While our country spends more than $2 trillion a year on health care, we spend less than 0.1 percent on evaluating how that care works compared to other options.

“This research has been around (although sadly not enough) for decades, enjoying support from political leaders of both parties, doctors, patients, and consumer advocacy groups.

“The main opponents of this research are those groups with a vested interest in a health care system that wastes billions of dollars each year on ineffective or unnecessary drugs, treatments or tests.  Given Ms. McCaughey’s position as a Director of a medical device producer, I would hope that any potential conflict of interest has not influenced her commentary.

“More concerning, Ms. McCaughey’s criticism misinterprets legislation that would actually help empower individuals and doctors to make their own choices on end-of-life care. 

“This measure would allow Medicare to pay doctors for taking the time to talk with individuals about difficult end-of-life care decisions.  It would help provide people with better information on the positives and negatives—both physical and financial—that different treatments can mean for them and their families. 

“Facing a terminal disease or debilitating accident, some people will choose to take every possible life-saving measure in the hopes that treatment or even a cure will allow them more time with their families.  Others will decide that additional treatment would impose too great a burden—emotional, physical and otherwise—on themselves and their families, declining extraordinary measures and instead choosing care to manage their discomfort.  Either way, it should be their choice.

“This measure would not only help people make the best decisions for themselves, but also better ensure that their wishes are followed.

“To suggest otherwise is a gross, and even cruel, distortion—especially for any family that has been forced to make the difficult decisions on care for loved ones approaching the end of their lives.

“AARP is committed to improving the quality, effectiveness, and affordability of health care for our 40 million members and their families.  We will fight any measure that would prevent individuals and their doctors from making their own health care decisions.  We will also fight the campaign of misinformation that vested interests are using to try to scare older Americans in order to protect the status quo.  Profits should never be allowed to come before people in this debate.”

# # #

Commentary by Betsy McCaughey “rife with gross, cruel distortions.”

WASHINGTON—AARP Executive Vice President John Rother issued the following statement in response to recent commentary by Betsy McCaughey in various media outlets on health care reform measures passed or currently being considered by Congress.

“Betsy McCaughey’s recent commentary on health care reform column in various media outlets is rife with gross—and even cruel—distortions.

“Ms. McCaughey has again launched her customary broadside attack against comparative effectiveness research.  She describes this term as ‘code’ for ‘limiting care based on a patient’s age.’  In fact the term for that is ‘age rating,’ a practice used by insurance companies to discriminate against older Americans against which AARP is vigorously fighting, and we look forward to her next column to help the cause.

“‘Comparative effectiveness research,’ on the other hand, is a technical term that just means giving doctors and patients the ability to compare different kinds of treatments to find out which one works best for which patient.

“Some estimates say that only about half of all therapies that patients receive have been backed up by head-to-head comparisons with alternatives.  While our country spends more than $2 trillion a year on health care, we spend less than 0.1 percent on evaluating how that care works compared to other options.

“This research has been around (although sadly not enough) for decades, enjoying support from political leaders of both parties, doctors, patients, and consumer advocacy groups.

“The main opponents of this research are those groups with a vested interest in a health care system that wastes billions of dollars each year on ineffective or unnecessary drugs, treatments or tests.  Given Ms. McCaughey’s position as a Director of a medical device producer, I would hope that any potential conflict of interest has not influenced her commentary.

“More concerning, Ms. McCaughey’s criticism misinterprets legislation that would actually help empower individuals and doctors to make their own choices on end-of-life care. 

“This measure would allow Medicare to pay doctors for taking the time to talk with individuals about difficult end-of-life care decisions.  It would help provide people with better information on the positives and negatives—both physical and financial—that different treatments can mean for them and their families. 

“Facing a terminal disease or debilitating accident, some people will choose to take every possible life-saving measure in the hopes that treatment or even a cure will allow them more time with their families.  Others will decide that additional treatment would impose too great a burden—emotional, physical and otherwise—on themselves and their families, declining extraordinary measures and instead choosing care to manage their discomfort.  Either way, it should be their choice.

“This measure would not only help people make the best decisions for themselves, but also better ensure that their wishes are followed.

“To suggest otherwise is a gross, and even cruel, distortion—especially for any family that has been forced to make the difficult decisions on care for loved ones approaching the end of their lives.

“AARP is committed to improving the quality, effectiveness, and affordability of health care for our 40 million members and their families.  We will fight any measure that would prevent individuals and their doctors from making their own health care decisions.  We will also fight the campaign of misinformation that vested interests are using to try to scare older Americans in order to protect the status quo.  Profits should never be allowed to come before people in this debate.”

# # #

WASHINGTON—In reaction to conflicting reports on AARP’s support for different measures in the House TriComittee health care reform bill that would help millions of older Americans in Medicare afford prescription drugs, AARP Executive Vice President Nancy LeaMond issued the statement below. Specifically, AARP is urging lawmakers NOT to remove Subtitle E Section 1181 from the current legislation being considered.

“As Congress continues its work on health care reform, we strongly encourage lawmakers to support measures that will completely close the Medicare Part D ‘doughnut hole’ over time.

“Last month, AARP endorsed an agreement by the pharmaceutical drug industry and the Senate Finance Committee to cut brand name drug prices in half for people who fall into the doughnut hole.  We believe this deal will provide important help in the short term for millions of people who find themselves in this coverage gap—who are currently responsible for paying the full price of their prescription drugs while also paying their insurance premiums—and we hope it will be included in any final health care reform package.

 “However, as we have for years, AARP and our members continue to push for a long term solution that closes the doughnut hole entirely. 

 “These measures are part of our broader efforts to lower the cost of prescription drugs for all Americans, including our fight to bring generic versions of important biologic drugs to market in a safe and timely way.  We will also keep pushing for measures that allow for the safe and legal importation of lower cost prescription drugs from abroad and give the HHS Secretary the power to negotiate prescription drug prices.

 “For the millions of Americans who struggle with skyrocketing prescription drug costs, and particularly for those affected by the Medicare doughnut hole, these solutions are not mutually exclusive.”

• Emergency preparedness plans are enhanced with input from the disability community.
• Incorporation of universal design is evident throughout the city’s buildings, recreation facilities and capital improvement projects.
• Mayor’s Summit on Inclusive Employment and local business networks promote public- and private-sector jobs for people with disabilities.
• Multiple transportation options include wheelchair accessible taxi vans.
• The Convention and Visitors Association highlights accessibility to promote tourism and trade shows.

On a Friday afternoon in 2006, a medical computer network linking 6 million patients noted a surge in cases of an intestinal bug causing nausea and vomiting. Within 24 hours, it was traced to an Indianapolis grocery selling tainted custard-filled doughnuts.

The quick detective work is just one example of the efficiency of the Indiana Health Information Exchange. 

Multi-media Report Details Stonewall's Lasting Impact and the Lives of America's 50+ LGBT Community

WASHINGTON— AARP Executive Vice President for Social Impact Nancy LeaMond commended the partnership announced today by HUD, DOT and EPA to apply a series of “livability principles” to federal transportation, environmental protection and housing spending. AARP has long advocated for livable communities that have affordable and appropriate housing options, supportive community features and services, and adequate mobility options which together facilitate personal health independence and engagement in community life. LeaMond said:

”AARP applauds the shared vision for livable communities announced today by Transportation and HUD Secretaries LaHood and Donovan and EPA Administrator Jackson. It reflects an understanding that their plans and policies have to focus first on people. Putting into practice the goals the cabinet officers announced today – “to help improve access to affordable housing more transportation options, and lower transportation costs while protecting the environment in communities”-- could raise the quality of life for older Americans. Most people age 50+ want to stay in their homes for as long as possible and when they move they prefer to stay in the general area. But today substantial numbers report they can’t safely cross their neighborhood’s major streets; they find their public transportation inconvenient and their sidewalks inadequate and all too often affordable and accessible housing is unavailable nearby. The framework announced today could change that.”

# # #

June 17, 2009