Scaring seniors: Reform opponents spread myths about euthanasia

Misinformation campaigns about health reform are sparking up across the political spectrum. The one I’ve found most shocking is the notion that reform would somehow lead to the routine euthanasia of senior citizens. Last week, Politico asked the question in an article titled, “Will proposal promote euthanasia?” And at an event with AARP last week, a woman posed this question to President Obama:

“I have heard lots of rumors going around about this new plan, and I hope that the people that are going to vote on this is going to read every single page there. I have been told there is a clause in there that everyone that's Medicare age will be visited and told to decide how they wish to die. This bothers me greatly and I'd like for you to promise me that this is not in this bill.”

Obama assured the woman the rumor was false. It is.

So where did the rumor come from?

It appears to have started with Betsy McCaughey, a former Lieutenant Governor of New York, and the current chair of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths. In a radio appearance on July 16th, McCaughey said "Congress would make it mandatory — absolutely require — that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner," according to PolitiFact.com, a website of the St. Petersburg Times, which thoroughly debunked the charge. She went on: “The bill expressly says if you get sick somewhere in that five-year period, you have to go through that session again—all to do what is in society’s best interest or your family’s best interest and cut your life short.”

Despite being demonstrably false, those comments were picked up and exaggerated across the talk radio, TV, and the Web.

McCaughey sited page 425 of the House health care bill, which includes a section, titled "Advance Care Planning Consultation*." That (rather minor) section of the bill explains that Medicare under the new proposal would pay for counseling sessions about end-of-life care every five years, or more often for people with severe illness or terminal conditions. That service is currently not paid for by Medicare. But the proposal would not make such services “mandatory,” or “absolutely require” them. It would remain a voluntary decision, as it is now, between patient and doctor whether to have such discussions.

The counseling sessions about end-of-life care are designed to cover topics like advanced directives (your preferences for care in the event you are ill with no prospect of recovery and unable to express your wishes); health care proxies (someone empowered to make decisions for you when you cannot); and living wills. These are important matters that all Americans should consider with their doctors. They have nothing to do with euthanasia, which is illegal in most states, or with healthcare rationing.

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality says that patients need more effective advanced care planning. AHRQ studies have shown that seniors who discuss advance care planning with their doctor and family are more satisfied with the care they receive and have less fear and anxiety. They feel that they have a better ability to influence their care, and believe that physicians have a better understanding of their wishes.

Despite the importance of advanced care planning fewer than 50 percent of severely or terminally ill patients studied by AHRQ had an advance directive in their medical records. And just 12 percent of patients with an advance directive had talked with their doctor while developing it. 

Likening this needed healthcare service to euthanasia is inaccurate and irresponsible. We have long advised patients with severe or terminal illnesses to have such conversations with their doctor.  For more, see our tips for coping with a complicated system.

—Kevin McCarthy, associate editor

*links to PDF; Photo courtesy of pedrosimoes7

Comments

[Vic Bailey, Auburn, Georgia]

I used to think that Consumer Reports was looking out for the little people, now I find out that they are for this Socialist government, the little people will be a thing of the past, if you listen to your government and Consumer Reports. If you think long lines are bad now just wait, and if you think insurance is high now wait til the government takes over!! THis government has stolen money from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and anything else that they can steel fron and think that they can pay us back with another lie. When is America going to wake up?
Bama can't walk on water, and there are more traitors in Washington than in Iran, thay want to break our country and make it part of something that will NEVER work. But you people go ahead and believe your government and Consumer Reports.

[Dwayne Coleman]

I know this probabally won't get posted.... the truth seldom is....HERE goes, The muslim's trojon horse is here...residing in and leading the white house. he has blatenly come against Christianity and it's teachings....which by the way...this nation was founded on...many young don't know that!! yes, we need reform in health care. but if i muslim trojon horse want to destroy the USA, break it financially!! and this health reform (nobama care) will do it. They want to add how many illegals to this plan, sounds like we (the democrats)And I used to be a strong democrat, want to be sure they will be elected over and over. Of coarse the once the nation is brought down what is there to be elected to. sounds like the one world wide gov't is really behind OBAMA

[Rob E.]

Sadly lots of folks, including many who posted here, would rather indulge their paranoid fantasy rather than apply simple logic and a little bit of effort in reading the actual language. True, there's no 'minor' approved legislation, but the proposed language above simply reimburses docs for assisting seniors in understanding options associated with creating a living will. Seeing how stupid and silly much of the American public is, Neo-cons have seized on this opportunity to create a distraction from the true intent of reform. And what is that intent? Well part is providing affordable health insurance for every American. But the second is figuring out how we're ever going to afford MEDICARE. Guess what seniors, once Medicare is insolvent in 5 to 10 years, guess what's going to happen. That's right, rationing and increased taxes. You boomers, and those before you, have dug us into such a deep hole that we've got to figure out how to pay for the health care that you refuse to pay for. All you old socialists need to wake up and figure out how WE can help YOU. Otherwise, Grandma, it WILL be time to pull the plug when the money, and the debt service, for you medical care runs out!

[Dar]

As a long time subscriber to CR, I'm considering terminating my association over your obvious slant toward the liberal view of healthcare reform. CRs "Viewpoint" , p 18, Aug '09 states "facts" that are opinions and ignores the macro view of bringing in 46 million uncovered people, including illegals, into the government system. Who's going to pay for this? The logical conclusion is higher taxes and rationing. And when has government involvement in anything reduced the costs. Our government is currently showing that it cannot even run a straight forward "clunkers" program. It is costing three times the initial estimate. It is fiscally irresponsible as well as all tied up in tape and regulations that are being made on the fly. Imagine healthcare under that management! Use the Veterans Administration history of poor care for veterans as a starting point. That is an example of healthcare run by this government.

[eric]

I LOVE this line, "That (rather minor) section" - it doesn't matter how MINOR a section is, if it is in there it holds as much weight as something that takes tens of pages to describe.

CR you are getting WAY outside of your lane on this, and trusting your info is almost an impossibility now.

[Tony]

Poppy,

Regarding this blog having exposed its "liberal bias", I just noticed something rather amusing. In the sidebar is a section on "blogs we like". Most have at least some relation to health care, but high on the list (number 4 or 5) is DailyKos. I guess they aren't all that inclined to hide that liberal bias after all. This is absolutely worth taking into consideration before treating this blog as any sort of reliable information source.

[Tony]

By all means they should advocate truth. But this is also a version of the classic straw man tactic. In this case, instead of criticizing the opposite side for a view they don't hold, they are using a spurious claim made by SOME on the other side, that is taken seriously by almost no one, to divert attention from the far more substantive criticism of the plan.

While Obama claims not to advocate single payer, and that the public plan is not a means to that end, there is no benefit to be derived from such a plan other than single payer. The claim that they will keep insurance companies "honest" by competing with them is false on two levels. First, insurers are already honest -- or as honest as the government wants them to be -- because they're as heavily regulated as any industry in this country. Plus there is already plenty of competition in the industry. That competition doesn't take place at the consumer level -- again, due to regulation -- because most insurance is provided by employers who decide on behalf of all their employees who the insurer will be.

Furthermore, there will be no competing with the public plan. Not because it will be run so much better, as Obama has snidely suggested when deriding those who oppose such a scheme, but because private plans are not and will not be free to do any of the things that the public plan will do. EG the public plan will be able to tell doctors that they must participate, and the doctors will have no choice. They will tell doctors how much they will be paid for a procedure, and the doctors will have to perform the procedure, and will have to take what the plan pays. This is how Medicare currently works, and doctors make up the loss (the reimbursement is usually less than the actual cost of the procedure) by charging private clients extra. In case you didn't know, this is already in the plan.

The public plan also won't have to turn a profit, or even break even. So what you'll have is a plan that, for every dollar of care it delivers, will pay providers $0.90, charge patients $0.50, and incur another $0.40 in overhead (if Medicare is any guide). The $0.80 loss that works out to would simply be borne by the taxpayers. That private insurers will be competed right out of business is a foregone conclusion under any version of this.

And that's just where it starts to get interesting. Providers today can only provide for $0.90 services it costs them $1 to render to Medicare patients because they can charge $1.25 for those services from everyone who is privately insured. As the ranks of the privately insured dwindle, the cost premium to them to make up the loss incurred working for the government will grow, until there are no more privately insured left, and then suddenly it won't be possible to provide care for the rates the government will be paying. At that point it no longer becomes a choice for the provider between participating in the public plan and taking a loss, or leaving the field altogether. When there's no way to make up the loss, the choice is made for them.

This is supposed to be a blog with the goal of advocating for consumers on matters related to health care, at least according to the title. By toeing the political party line of the party that it nakedly working to change the system in ways that not a single person disputes will be to the great detriment of the consumer, you are betraying not only your readers, but your very identity.

[JerichoHill]

Poppy,

What may or may not be true? There is zero doubt that the claims that this will sponsor euthanasia are false. I'm dismayed at my Republican friends as there are proper criticisms and debates can be made along points that are based on truth, not on fear-mongering.

Further, if studies show 50% of folks don't take a service that they would benefit from, that appears to me to mean that we should encourage it. Congrats that you don't need it, but obviously folks do.

Thanks to CR for advocating truthfulness

[Poppyw]

Come on folks! Your Liberal bias is showing. Regardless of what may or may not be true about the specific statement, why is the government even considering adding this to Medicare?? I for one do not need the Government "counseling" me on advanced directives or anything else. While I agree that healthcare needs reform of some sort, the President's plan is too vague and general and lacks specifics, especially how to pay for it. Congress isn't much better. Instead of rushing to pass legislation no one understands and we cannot pay for, let's take the time for further study and debate, develop specifics and come up with a rational and fiscally responsible solution.