Health Care News Podcast: Recent Episodes
Heartland Institute
The Heartland Institute podcast featuring libertarian and conservative health care scholars who are working to put power back into the hands of patients and doctors, and away from government bureaucrats.
Direct primary care (DPC) gets rave reviews from patients and doctors. So why aren’t more people gravitating to this affordable, no-hassle care that provides care outside that of the health insurance maze? Dr. Lee Gross, a direct primary care physician in southwest Florida, discusses how the Personalized Care Act can open the market for more choice, including better access to DPC. Dr. Gross describes how small business were the ones who encouraged him into opening a DPC practice for their employees, and he has not looked back.
The Personalized Care Act, reintroduced in Congress by Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX), and the U.S. Senate by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) will address one of the biggest obstacles to DPC: freedom. The government restricts health savings accounts to high deductible health insurance plans, which removes options for people who don’t have employer health care and don’t want government plans or be confined to Medicaid. The bills also give workers without employer health insurance the same tax advantages to pay for health care that are now only given to employers.
Useful links:
DPC Action: https://dpcaction.com/personalized-care-act-for-healthcare-transformation/
How Four Pages Could Transform Health Care, January 1, 2020, Townhall
Congress has a Prescription for Health Care’s Sickly Status Quo, January 27. 202, Real Clear Policy
It's not hard to find someone not complaining about healthcare these days, but it's not because we lack talented health professionals, it's the delivery system. There is an ongoing battle going on in healthcare that many patients might not realize, and that battle is independent practice versus corporate medicine.
Dr. Hal Scherz, Fonder of Docs for Patient Care Foundation and a doctor at Georgia Urology, where 24 physicians were ranked "best" by Atlanta Magazine joins Health Care News Podcast to discuss the difference between small independent private practice and large corporate health care.
Starting July 21, the Uniform Law Commission (ULC) will be meeting to consider two options that would expand the legal definition of death. The first option is what currently exists in the Uniform Determination of Death Act and includes loss of total brain function, not just the brain stem. Dr. Heidi Klessig, a retired anesthesiologist and authority on clinical death, explains what the options are and how families and patients can best prepare themselves.
The American Academy of Neurology has petitioned the ULC to revise the legal definition of death. Option one uses the word “irreversible,” and Option 2 uses the word “permanent.” Klessig says Option 2 will give hospitals and doctors huge discretion in whether to give or continue life-sustaining treatment. Klessig will discuss cases of patients, such as Zack Dunlap, who survived sustained unresponsiveness and went on to describe their level of consciousness during that time.
Canada has now adopted provisions similar to “Option 2.” Two factors may be driving the change in the U.S.: the live donor organ transplants where patients need to be alive for their organs to be harvested and given to others (i.e., heart, lung) and legal liability, where an expanded definition of death might potentially protect hospital defendants in wrongful death actions.
Key links for patients and families:
Respectforhumanlife.org
Halovoice.org
Declared Brain Dead – the story of Zack Dunlap
Uniform law commission: determination of Death Committee
Redefining Definition of Clinical Death Under Consideration, Kevin Stone, Health Care News, February 24, 2023
Procedure to Harvest Live Organs Raises Red Flags, Kevin Stone, Health Care News, January 6, 2023
Would I Receive a Transplant, Heidi Klessig, M.D., American Thinker, April 22, 2023
Canada Updates Death Determination Standards. Is America Next?, Heidi Klessig, M.D., Health Care News, July 24, 2023
The Biden administration recently proposed a new rule to change health care privacy protections under the HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act). The rule would limit access to medical records if inquired in the interest of “reproductive health.” The proposed rule has created huge blowback because it is seen as a way to get around state laws regulating abortion and transgender procedures. Twila Brase says the change reveals what a myth HIPAA is in protecting health data and only now in the interest of protecting abortion and child transgender treatments, does it decide to beef up HIPAA.
Topics discussed:
-
Is the proposed HIPAA rule a tacit admission that privacy under HIPAA is a myth?
-
What is the proposed rule? Will it block states from investigating providers who violate their laws?
-
What is the “personal representative” as mentioned in Biden’s proposed rule?
-
What about protecting minors who flee to other states for “reproductive health” services - will this rule encourage that?
-
Does HIPAA protect any medical information?
-
Do you expect Biden to eventually sign this legislation into law?
Read more on the issue here:
Congress Moves to Protect Abortion With New Privacy Rules - https://heartlanddailynews.com/2023/07/hhs-wants-to-change-hipaa-privacy-to-protect-reproductive-health-care-by-annemarie-schieber/
Did the FDA destroy what could have been a non-addictive pain killer that might have staved off the opioid crisis before it ever stood a chance? Several decades ago, the agency approved the drug Toradol, the first non-addictive pain killer that had pain killing effects of morphine without the addictive potential. However, the FDA set the desired peak dosage, known as the loading dose, far higher than manufacturer Syntex desired. The company reluctantly complied. 97 people prescribed Toradol dies within the first few years as a result.
With their drug no longer used in it’s original form, pharmaceutical company Syntex tried to introduce the drug in an oral form. However, the FDA overcompensated for their initial error, restricting dosage to levels not useful for medicinal applications
Today’s guest, Charles L. Hooper worked at Syntex when Toradol was coming onto the market as a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug. This was a time of excitement for the company says Hooper. They were eager to cooperate with the FDA for a successful launch.
What went wrong? Hooper discusses how a decision on something like the “loading dose” can come down to a single person, and people are fallible. The FDA’s position of final the final say had disastrous consequences, leading credence to the position that they should act as a “guiding agency. Even with all the FDA’s power and authority, nothing is a certainty.
On April 19, 2023, when asked about the opioid crisis, FDA Commissioner Robert Califf told the Senate Appropriations subcommittee it would help if pharma could develop a “non-addictive” pain medicine. “It is a tough job, but we are not successful in having nonaddictive pain medicines coming through the pipeline. We need to do everything we can do to push industry and make this happen.”
Read Charles Hooper’s article in the Wall Street Journal for more: How the FDA Helped Fuel the Opioid Epidemic
This episode of Health Care News focuses on the recent repeal of the Certificate of Need and financial credentialing in the healthcare industry by Governor Henry McMaster on May 17. Dr. Marcello Hochman, a surgeon in Charleston and president of the organization "IndeDoc," has been advocating for healthcare market reforms since 2019. In an interview, Hochman explains the process of passing the bill and how it will enhance competition in the healthcare market, ultimately leading to reduced prices.
The discussion covers various topics such as:
-
The need for patience in passing healthcare reforms, as it sometimes takes multiple attempts.
-
The concept of "financial credentialing" by hospitals and its negative impact on consumers.
-
How the Certificate of Need hinders competition and increases costs.
-
The events leading up to the bill's passing in 2023.
-
Non-compete clauses that hospitals require healthcare professionals to sign and how it affects market competition.
-
The role of "Indy Docs" in advocating for healthcare market reforms.
-
The challenges physicians face in remaining independent and having ownership in their practice.
In early spring of 2021, the family of Grace Schara, a 19-year-old young woman with Down’s Syndrome, brought their daughter to an emergency room at the direction of an urgent care clinic due to wavering blood oxygen levels from COVID-19. According to her father Scott Schara, this was a grave mistake.
Schara claims the hospital, St. Elizabeth’s in Appleton, Wisconsin, became an adversary, not an ally, in treating Grace. The relationship broke down when the Schara's were not convinced Grace needed to be put on a ventilator, a treatment encouraged by the federal government with financial incentives. Within a matter of days, Grace was dead. Her family discovered the physician put a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order in place and infused a combination of powerful anesthesia drugs into her system. As a result, they've filed a lawsuit claiming the hospital engaged in euthanasia.
Schara insists that this lawsuit extends beyond mere malpractice. He says his family initiated the legal battle to highlight concerning issues related to hospital care, COVID-19 treatment policies, financial incentives, DNR orders, and the rights of the disabled. Supporting his argument, Scott shared three documents: Section 1553 of the Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148, March 28, 2010), which tackles the "prohibition against discrimination on Assisted Suicide," a letter from Jennifer Garrett of the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services which refers to Chapter 154 of WS Statutes indicating there was no action against the physician who implemented the DNR order against Grace, and policy guidance from the Palliative Care Network of Wisconsin outlining how medical professionals should treat individuals with Down Syndrome. To learn more about Grace and her case, click here.
Scott also addressed his removal from the hospital by a security guard due to his stance of being "against medical advice."
Milton Friedman was a staunch advocate for privatizing Medicaid and Social Security, relying on the free market to regulate healthcare. The 'Plan for America' (PFA) is a proposal to bring this vision to life. Terry Nager, one of the co-authors of this plan, aimed to fortify the nation's entitlement programs, alleviate the country's deficits, debts, and unfunded liabilities, and provide Americans with personal accounts that they could grow using compound interest. These accounts would grant individuals the freedom and resources to purchase private lifetime health insurance.
Nager provides an in-depth discussion on how the PFA would operate, the origins of the plan, why attempts to privatize entitlement programs failed under President George W. Bush, why the plan would appeal to younger generations, and how it could guarantee the same benefits currently associated with Social Security and Medicare. He also addresses the prospect of most people accruing sufficient funds in their accounts to bequeath a financial legacy to their families.
The PFA has recently held its inaugural major conference and is in the midst of updating its future projections.
To learn more, click these links:
‘Plan for America’ Pushes Private Accounts to Fix Entitlement Programs, Health Care News, May 16. 2023 (includes links to the first PFA conference, April 28, 2023, Principia College)
Plan for America, A Public-Private Partnership: https://www.theplanforamerica.us
Terry Nager, CFP, CHFC, CLU, Eric Nager, CRPS, Kyre Lahtinen, Ph.D.
The Plan for America: How to Place the American Dream on a Sure Foundation Forever, (2020),
Amazon, $9.95
You may want to rethink checking that box making you an organ donor. Unlike tissue donation, organs often need to be harvested from a live person in order to be viable for a transplant. Heidi Klessig, M.D., retired anesthesiologist, pain management specialist, and co-founder of respectforhumanlife.com, highlights how hospitals have harvested organs from live patients for the last few years. This procedure makes the person brain dead and then resuscitates their heart to keep blood flowing to the organs. According to Klessig, this goes against the Uniform Definition of Death Act (UDODA).
UDODA, passed in 1981, states that to declare someone legally dead, there must be irreversible cessation of cardiopulmonary function or irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem. These determinations are to be made in accordance with accepted medical standards, but hospitals can never be 100 percent sure. Klessig says there are many cases where people have been resuscitated and survived 10 minutes after the heart stopped beating, but a transplant team may begin the harvest of organs in a matter of minutes.
The procedure is banned in Australia and the American College of Physicians has asked for a pause until legal and ethical issues can be ironed out. Yet, hospitals have been vigorously pushing the procedure to increase the supply of organs which require a patient to be alive before they can be harvested.
She also discusses:
- How hospitals can take your live organs if you are incapacitated, no family can be reached, and they determine your condition is “irreversible,” which Klessig says, “is terrifying because their interest lies in what money can be made from your organs, not what is in your best interest.” Organs can be worth about $5 million to transplant centers. The only way to prevent this is by carrying a card: https://halovoice.org/wp-content/uploads/donor_refusal_card.pdf
- How putting all resources into “live organ harvesting” has nearly eliminated research and development of alternatives to people with failing organs
- Ethical donations (tissue after death, kidney or lobe of liver from healthy donors)