Skip to comments.Death Panels for Babies in Obamacare? Kids With RSV Should Beware
Posted on 04/11/2013 12:05:54 PM PDT by Morgana
Sarah Palin was attacked mercilessly for her claims that the Obamacare legislation would lead to death panels where bureaucrats would make treatment decisions for patients or ration their expensive medical care.
Since her warning salvo was fired, numerous examples have come up involving Obamacare rationing medical care or putting in cost containments that would lead to rationed care or prohibit patients from spending more of their own money on lifesaving medical treatment or wanted care.
Now, Jacqueline Halbig, principal at Sovereign Global Solutions and former senior policy adviser for the Dept. of Health and Human Services, has a guest post at the pro-life blog run by Jill Stanek about another Obamacare rationing example.
Parents of children with disabilities should pay particular attention because Halbig says babies, especially those born prematurely, now face an even greater uphill battle receiving needed health care thanks to Obamacare. The rest of her column follows:
Every year between November and March, there are outbreaks of Respiratory Syncytial Virus, an illness similar to the flu.
RSV1RSV is the leading cause of pneumonia and bronchiolitis, and hospitalization for children under the age of one; premature infants and children before the age of two with congenital heart or chronic lung disease are considered to be at highest risk.
Each year RSV causes two million hospitalizations and 14,000 deaths. In addition, RSV disproportionately affects minority and especially African American babies, who, according to the Centers for Disease Control, are 59% percent more likely to be born prematurely than white infants.
While there is no vaccine for RSV, there is an FDA-approved treatment available. When it became available in 1997, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued evidence-based guidelines for its use, recommending that the treatment be administered once per month during outbreak season (an average of five months total).
But in 2009, with no clear medical evidence for doing so, the AAP both shrunk the pool of eligible infants and reduced the number of RSV treatments that would be made available for some babies down to 3 doses, while for others as low as 1 dose. The only clear reason given was cost.
Unfortunately, the AAPs guidelines are widely implemented by Medicaid and insurance providers, who in turn followed suit and greatly reduced coverage.
In response, concerned groups of parents, prenatal advocates, and medical providers such as the National Perinatal Association, the National Medical Association, and the National Black Nurses Association have pointed out that there is no definitive research to support these changes (indeed, these are not FDA-approved doses) and are urging the AAP to reconsider their recommendations.
If cost is the issue, lets consider the cost of non-treatment. A 2010 study by the NMA and NBNA showed the rate of hospitalization and emergency room visits without proper treatment for RSV is astronomical.
For example, a child not properly treated for RSV is five times more likely to be hospitalized and more than twice as likely to visit an emergency room visit than with the flu.
But for those premature infants who received treatment, hospitalization decreased by 55-80%. Furthermore, infants who received the recommended treatment had decreased emergency room and physician office visits. As a result, there are cost savings associated with proper treatment.
Since RSV disproportionately affects African American, Hispanic and premature babies, there is great concern that this rationing policy will further increase health disparities in these communities.
So whats the real benefit of limiting this treatment? If Obamacares objective is to make health care more accessible and affordable, an honest cost benefit analysis would respect the bottom line and acknowledge that an ounce of RSV prevention is cheaper than a pound of emergency room cure unless their bottom line equates death as the cheapest option.
I work primarily at a teritary care children’s hospital. When Obamacare was before the House & Senate, I wondered what would happen to these chronically ill children who pretty much live at the hospital. IPAB is the answer.....they’ll pull the plug on half these kids. Need a transplant? Too bad! Have cancer? Maybe we’ll treat it....depends what kind. I could go on & on
It’s going to get very ugly, and not just for old people.
You’re almost there. The only people they are interested in keeping around are those who can produce for the collective. Just take that bell curve thingy many thought was great in school gradings and apply it to age. Works the same in those rising on the curve get the best benefits and those slipping on the other side of it start to loose them. Those at either end have no hope at all of receiving any kind of treatment.
The scariest thing about this is the selective kind of master race philosophy. Just like the jungle where only the fittest survive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.