May 1, 2009
Ms. Lori Robertson
FactCheck.org
Annenberg Public Policy Center
320 National Press Building
Washington, D.C. 20045
Dear Ms. Robertson,
As Executive Director of Conservatives for Patients' Rights, I take issue with your "fact check" of our current ad.
Conservatives for Patients' Rights has one simple goal - What is best for patients? We should have an open debate on health care reforms and should not shy away from educating the American people on how our health care may change under various reforms.
Attached to this letter, I have documented and sourced materials which rebut your analysis, and which show your article is either incomplete, makes assumptions that are not supported by available facts, or in some cases, is blatantly erroneous and not in keeping with the mission of Fact Check.
Accordingly, we request that you remove this article from the "Fact Check" site and issue any retractions to other media outlets as necessary.
Sincerely,
Mary Anne Carter
Conservatives for Patients' Rights Action Fund
Executive Director
www.cpractionfund.org
"FACT CHECK" ANALYSIS:
A group called Conservatives for Patients' Rights began airing a television ad this week that criticizes government-run health care and falsely suggests Congress wants a British-style system here in the U.S.:
CPR RESPONSE:
1. The ad doesn't state that at all. The ad specifically points out the pitfalls of government-run health care, not that someone is attempting to adopt a specific country's health system in the United States.
2. Moreover, several prominent Democrat Members of BOTH the House and Senate DO favor a single payer system which would be very similar to the British system.
• On January 26, 2009, Congressman John Conyers introduced H.R. 676, a universal health care bill with single payer. The legislation has 76 co-sponsors.
• On March 25, 2009, Senator Bernie Sanders introduced legislation for a single payer plan.
• The Progressive Caucus in the House at the minimum supports a "government-run" insurance and a number of their members favor a single payer plan.
3. The ad refers to the Federal Coordinating Council board being modeled after Britain's National Institute of Clinical Excellence, NICE.
• [The bill] further creates an entity called the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research, which will decide which treatments you should get, whether you should get them, and whether they should even be available. It is modeled after a British board which helps run the notoriously inefficient and bureaucratic National Health Service. (Editorial, Investor's Business Daily, March 5, 2009)
• Using "comparative effectiveness," countries which already have government-run healthcare deny patients life-saving medical treatment. It's been used, for instance, by the UK's National Center for Health and Clinical Excellence to repeatedly denying breakthrough drugs to citizens suffering with breast cancer, Alzheimer's, and multiple sclerosis. (Congressman John Shadegg)
• "In other countries, national health boards have helped ensure quality and rein in costs in the face of these challenges. In Great Britain, for example, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), which is part of the National Health Service (NHS), is the single entity responsible for providing guidance on the use of new and existing drugs, treatments, and procedures. ... NICE also weighs what it calls 'economic evidence,' or how well the medicine or treatment works in relation to how much it costs."
"FACT CHECK" ANALYSIS:
The ad neglects to mention that President Obama hasn't proposed a government-run plan and, in fact, has rejected the idea.
CPR RESPONSE:
1. CPR does not even mention President Obama in the ad.
2. For the record, President Obama has previously voiced support for a government single payer plan. The video link is below. "I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care plan....that's what I'd like to see" Barack Obama.
"FACT CHECK" ANALYSIS:
[The ad] claims that a research council created by the stimulus bill is "the first step in government control over your health care choices." The legislation actually says the council isn't permitted to "mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies."
CPR RESPONSE:
This national board is a "first step." Without having the "comparative effectiveness" data, there would be no way for the government to approve or disapprove certain drugs or treatments. Therefore logically, the collection and analysis of this data is a FIRST STEP to application of the data.
Moreover, forty-four members of the Senate were obviously not comfortable enough with the intent or language of the bill as they voted for an amendment that would have clearly prohibited any use of data obtained from comparative effectiveness research to deny coverage of a health care treatment.
"This amendment, I hope, will receive very strong bipartisan support because the entire essence of it is to ensure that nothing that we have done so far here will allow health care in the United States to be rationed by the federal government...I have offered this pro-patient amendment that would send a clear message to the Administration and clarify the Senate's intent regarding the stimulus funding."
"My amendment states two principles. One, the federal government shall not use the data obtained from comparative effectiveness research to deny coverage of a health care treatment under a federal health care program. Very simple. And, two, the federal government shall ensure that such research accounts for advancements in genomics and personalized medicine, unique of health disparity populations and differences in the treatment response and treatment preferences of patients." Senator Jon Kyl, April 1, 2009
As Senator Kyl rightly stated in his remarks:
"...if nobody is intending to do it, then there's no problem saying you can't do it."
[111st] S.AMDT.793 to S.CON.RES.13 To protect all patients by prohibiting the use of data obtained from comparative effectiveness research to deny coverage of items or services under Federal health care programs and to ensure that comparative effectiveness research accounts for advancements in genomics and personalized medicine, the unique needs of health disparity populations, and differences in the treatment response and the treatment preferences of patients.
Sponsor: Sen Kyl, Jon [AZ] (introduced 3/31/2009) Cosponsors (3)
Latest Major Action: 4/1/2009 Senate amendment not agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 793 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 44 - 54. Record Vote Number: 127.
HHS announced the new Council will "guide" investments in comparative effectiveness research.
HHS Names Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research
Recovery Act Allocates $1.1 Billion for Comparative Effectiveness Research
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services today announced the members of the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the new council will help coordinate research and guide investments in comparative effectiveness research funded by the Recovery Act.
And those investments are going into "cost effective research"
Despite language clearly stating that it is not Congress' intent to use comparative effectiveness research to "mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies," the National Institutes of Health (NIH) testified before Congress that cost may be evaluated in their studies. Acting Director of the NIH, Raynard Kington, told the House Committee on Appropriations on March 26, 2009:
"We have identified [comparative effectiveness research] as one of the priority areas within the Challenge Grants Program and if we receive high-quality applications that meet the definition for comparative effectiveness research that include cost we will fund them."
In fact, among the research areas NIH considers to be "the highest priority" for research grants using the stimulus funds is a topic entitled, "Integrating Cost-Effectiveness Analysis into Clinical Research":
"This initiative calls for the inclusion of rigorous cost-effectiveness analysis in the design and testing of new and innovative interventions, as well as existing interventions with demonstrated effectiveness. Cost-effectiveness research will provide accurate and objective information to guide future policies that support the allocation of health resources for the treatment of acute and chronic diseases across the lifespan."
"...allocation of health resources..." directly relates to the rationing of care and treatments and clearly supports our ad's assertion. Clearly the grants they are seeking under the CER mandate reveal the true intentions to use the data to "allocate" health resources.
"FACT CHECK" ANALYSIS:
The ad quotes a Canadian doctor who has been critical of his country's system, but leaves out the fact that the doctor has praised other government-funded systems, such as those in Austria and France.
CPR RESPONSE:
CPR does not state that Dr. Day is opposed to any specific health care system. The ad shows two Doctors give their opinions on what happens when government runs health care and when government boards ration care.
What Ms. Robertson failed to mention in her "fact check" is when she contacted one of the physicians, Dr. Sikora, not only did he confirm that he had no problem with our ad, he applauded President Obama's attempts at reducing health care costs but also reiterated his opposition to a "monopolistic state provider" of health care.
Ms. Lori Robertson
FactCheck.org
Annenberg Public Policy Center
320 National Press Building
Washington, D.C. 20045
Dear Ms. Robertson,
As Executive Director of Conservatives for Patients' Rights, I take issue with your "fact check" of our current ad.
Conservatives for Patients' Rights has one simple goal - What is best for patients? We should have an open debate on health care reforms and should not shy away from educating the American people on how our health care may change under various reforms.
Attached to this letter, I have documented and sourced materials which rebut your analysis, and which show your article is either incomplete, makes assumptions that are not supported by available facts, or in some cases, is blatantly erroneous and not in keeping with the mission of Fact Check.
Accordingly, we request that you remove this article from the "Fact Check" site and issue any retractions to other media outlets as necessary.
Sincerely,
Mary Anne Carter
Conservatives for Patients' Rights Action Fund
Executive Director
www.cpractionfund.org
"FACT CHECK" ANALYSIS:
A group called Conservatives for Patients' Rights began airing a television ad this week that criticizes government-run health care and falsely suggests Congress wants a British-style system here in the U.S.:
CPR RESPONSE:
1. The ad doesn't state that at all. The ad specifically points out the pitfalls of government-run health care, not that someone is attempting to adopt a specific country's health system in the United States.
2. Moreover, several prominent Democrat Members of BOTH the House and Senate DO favor a single payer system which would be very similar to the British system.
• On January 26, 2009, Congressman John Conyers introduced H.R. 676, a universal health care bill with single payer. The legislation has 76 co-sponsors.
• On March 25, 2009, Senator Bernie Sanders introduced legislation for a single payer plan.
• The Progressive Caucus in the House at the minimum supports a "government-run" insurance and a number of their members favor a single payer plan.
3. The ad refers to the Federal Coordinating Council board being modeled after Britain's National Institute of Clinical Excellence, NICE.
• [The bill] further creates an entity called the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research, which will decide which treatments you should get, whether you should get them, and whether they should even be available. It is modeled after a British board which helps run the notoriously inefficient and bureaucratic National Health Service. (Editorial, Investor's Business Daily, March 5, 2009)
• Using "comparative effectiveness," countries which already have government-run healthcare deny patients life-saving medical treatment. It's been used, for instance, by the UK's National Center for Health and Clinical Excellence to repeatedly denying breakthrough drugs to citizens suffering with breast cancer, Alzheimer's, and multiple sclerosis. (Congressman John Shadegg)
• "In other countries, national health boards have helped ensure quality and rein in costs in the face of these challenges. In Great Britain, for example, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), which is part of the National Health Service (NHS), is the single entity responsible for providing guidance on the use of new and existing drugs, treatments, and procedures. ... NICE also weighs what it calls 'economic evidence,' or how well the medicine or treatment works in relation to how much it costs."
"FACT CHECK" ANALYSIS:
The ad neglects to mention that President Obama hasn't proposed a government-run plan and, in fact, has rejected the idea.
CPR RESPONSE:
1. CPR does not even mention President Obama in the ad.
2. For the record, President Obama has previously voiced support for a government single payer plan. The video link is below. "I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care plan....that's what I'd like to see" Barack Obama.
"FACT CHECK" ANALYSIS:
[The ad] claims that a research council created by the stimulus bill is "the first step in government control over your health care choices." The legislation actually says the council isn't permitted to "mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies."
CPR RESPONSE:
This national board is a "first step." Without having the "comparative effectiveness" data, there would be no way for the government to approve or disapprove certain drugs or treatments. Therefore logically, the collection and analysis of this data is a FIRST STEP to application of the data.
Moreover, forty-four members of the Senate were obviously not comfortable enough with the intent or language of the bill as they voted for an amendment that would have clearly prohibited any use of data obtained from comparative effectiveness research to deny coverage of a health care treatment.
"This amendment, I hope, will receive very strong bipartisan support because the entire essence of it is to ensure that nothing that we have done so far here will allow health care in the United States to be rationed by the federal government...I have offered this pro-patient amendment that would send a clear message to the Administration and clarify the Senate's intent regarding the stimulus funding."
"My amendment states two principles. One, the federal government shall not use the data obtained from comparative effectiveness research to deny coverage of a health care treatment under a federal health care program. Very simple. And, two, the federal government shall ensure that such research accounts for advancements in genomics and personalized medicine, unique of health disparity populations and differences in the treatment response and treatment preferences of patients." Senator Jon Kyl, April 1, 2009
As Senator Kyl rightly stated in his remarks:
"...if nobody is intending to do it, then there's no problem saying you can't do it."
[111st] S.AMDT.793 to S.CON.RES.13 To protect all patients by prohibiting the use of data obtained from comparative effectiveness research to deny coverage of items or services under Federal health care programs and to ensure that comparative effectiveness research accounts for advancements in genomics and personalized medicine, the unique needs of health disparity populations, and differences in the treatment response and the treatment preferences of patients.
Sponsor: Sen Kyl, Jon [AZ] (introduced 3/31/2009) Cosponsors (3)
Latest Major Action: 4/1/2009 Senate amendment not agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 793 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 44 - 54. Record Vote Number: 127.
HHS announced the new Council will "guide" investments in comparative effectiveness research.
HHS Names Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research
Recovery Act Allocates $1.1 Billion for Comparative Effectiveness Research
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services today announced the members of the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the new council will help coordinate research and guide investments in comparative effectiveness research funded by the Recovery Act.
And those investments are going into "cost effective research"
Despite language clearly stating that it is not Congress' intent to use comparative effectiveness research to "mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies," the National Institutes of Health (NIH) testified before Congress that cost may be evaluated in their studies. Acting Director of the NIH, Raynard Kington, told the House Committee on Appropriations on March 26, 2009:
"We have identified [comparative effectiveness research] as one of the priority areas within the Challenge Grants Program and if we receive high-quality applications that meet the definition for comparative effectiveness research that include cost we will fund them."
In fact, among the research areas NIH considers to be "the highest priority" for research grants using the stimulus funds is a topic entitled, "Integrating Cost-Effectiveness Analysis into Clinical Research":
"This initiative calls for the inclusion of rigorous cost-effectiveness analysis in the design and testing of new and innovative interventions, as well as existing interventions with demonstrated effectiveness. Cost-effectiveness research will provide accurate and objective information to guide future policies that support the allocation of health resources for the treatment of acute and chronic diseases across the lifespan."
"...allocation of health resources..." directly relates to the rationing of care and treatments and clearly supports our ad's assertion. Clearly the grants they are seeking under the CER mandate reveal the true intentions to use the data to "allocate" health resources.
"FACT CHECK" ANALYSIS:
The ad quotes a Canadian doctor who has been critical of his country's system, but leaves out the fact that the doctor has praised other government-funded systems, such as those in Austria and France.
CPR RESPONSE:
CPR does not state that Dr. Day is opposed to any specific health care system. The ad shows two Doctors give their opinions on what happens when government runs health care and when government boards ration care.
What Ms. Robertson failed to mention in her "fact check" is when she contacted one of the physicians, Dr. Sikora, not only did he confirm that he had no problem with our ad, he applauded President Obama's attempts at reducing health care costs but also reiterated his opposition to a "monopolistic state provider" of health care.