Weeding out the worthless?

The Trump administration is pushing policies that threaten to undermine Medicare coverage for many of America’s most vulnerable seniors and people with disabilities. The worst of these misguided proposals could kill people. This might sound hyperbolic, but it’s not.

The Trump administration is seeking to put these policies in place through a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed rule released in November that, if finalized, will unravel long-standing coverage protections for six categories of illness, including cancer, HIV/AIDS and mental health.

Until now, the Part D plans that provide Medicare prescription drug coverage were required to cover most medications within those so-called “six protected classes” because the treatments are highly specialized.

[...]

This is particularly troubling for patients whose existing regime will be disrupted by the change, forcing them to abandon effective treatments for less-effective options that Part D plans may prefer.

In some cases, this change could block patients’ access to the only effective therapy to treat their specific illness.

[...]

Under this new proposal, patients who are finally stable on a medicine in the six protected classes would find themselves at risk for no longer having coverage for that medicine. This is because CMS will let insurance companies second guess doctors by forcing stable patients to prove they meet the health plan’s criteria for coverage of a drug. Health plans will also be allowed to force patients to fail first on one treatment before the plan lets them resume taking a medicine that has already been shown to work for them.

[...]

CMS believes the shift will save money, but it could wind up costing the government much more by forcing patients into less-effective treatment plans before Medicare plans will cover the most effective medicine. And those disruptions can have catastrophic consequences if patients are forced off of their existing treatments just to prove other treatments are less effective.

Hundreds of prominent patient-advocacy groups have raised alarms about these proposals. “What is the point of having protected therapeutic classes, if they are not truly protected?” the head of the Community Oncology Alliance asked in a statement after the proposal was released.

  The Hill

UPDATE:

He's just going to keep getting worse

President Donald Trump fired the remaining members of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA) Wednesday, reportedly informing them without explanation with a letter delivered by FedEx.

The mass dismissal of the advisers marked another nadir in the administration’s dealing with the council. In June, six members resigned from PACHA writing in an open letter, published in Newsweek, saying the Trump White House was pushing for legislation that would harm people living with HIV.

Scott A. Schoettes, a Chicago-based HIV/AIDS activist and one of the members of the advisory panel who resigned over the summer, tweeted yesterday that the remaining council members had been fired for calling President Trump and Vice President Mike Pence “dangerous.”

[...]

Gabriel Maldonado, CEO of the LGBT and HIV/AIDS group Truevolution and a remaining member of PACHA said the reasons for the firings remain unclear but may have been borne of a desire by the Trump administration to clear out appointments made by his predecessor Barack Obama.

  Newsweek

Either reason would fit Trump's M.O.

Let's see if he hires any replacements.

Just under a year into his first term, Trump has yet to appoint an HIV/AIDS chief, the first time since Bill Clinton created the position in 1993 that a president has failed to do so.

[...]

In the 2018 fiscal year budget Trump has sought huge cuts to programs including $150 million on HIV/AIDS at the Centers of Disease Control. The administration has also sought more than than $1 billion in cuts from global programs like the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

And take away health insurance. Food will be next.

Sources close to the decision explained they suspect the charter for PACHA will be re-written with renewed focus on abstinence and religious, non-evidence based public health approaches.

Jesus wept.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

What a Difference a Day Makes

Apparently, Hillary put her foot in her mouth today.

I can assure you, it won't be hard for her to brush them off. However, anyone who was in the least bit aware in the 80s knows the Reagan's led the country in ignoring the AIDS crisis, consigning people to horrible deaths.

She "misspoke."

 

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Ebola: Scary; Be Afraid

Remember when Ronald Reagan appointed an AIDS czar as soon as there were two confirmed deaths from it in the US? Me neither. How many hundreds died before any national political attempt to address it?

We now have an “Ebola Czar” who has no medical background. But we still don’t have a surgeon general because…well, idiots.

The Ebola epidemic is a global health crisis that demands a concerted, global response. Here in the United States, action has been disjointed, seemingly driven by fear rather than science. One clear reason for this: The nomination of President Barack Obama’s choice to fill the public health position of surgeon general, Dr. Vivek Murthy, is languishing in the U.S. Senate. You would think that an Ebola epidemic would move people to transcend partisan politics.

[...]

[T]he surgeon general commands more than 6,500 healthcare workers in the “Commissioned Corps” who are tasked with protecting U.S. public health.

[...]

But Vivek Murthy, despite his impressive medical credentials, made one crucial mistake before being nominated: He said that guns are a public health problem. That provoked the National Rifle Association to oppose him, which is all it takes to stop progress in the Senate.

[...]

Since the Democrats have a 55-to-45 majority in the Senate (at least for now), Murthy’s approval as surgeon general should have been routine.

Fear of the NRA’s perceived power, however, prompted several Democrats — those with tight re-election races in 2014 — to indicate they would not vote to support Murthy. Among those expected to vote against him were Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, and Mark Begich of Alaska.

  Democracy Now!

Underscoring Dr. Murthy’s comments.

“Tired of politicians playing politics w/ guns, putting lives at risk b/c they’re scared of NRA. Guns are a healthcare issue,” he wrote in [a tweet] October 2012