Check us out on YouTube! - Click Here

You will need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader installed to view the UFO articles. Download it from here.


Dreams and disaster happening at the same time.

Dr. Antonio de Nicolas' brother has just been elected the 30th Superior General of the Society of Jesus! History is made! Click here.
New superior urges Jesuits to strengthen service to poor. Click Here
Province Express - Father Adolfo Nicol�s. Click Here

Letters Sent to Us from the Public

Articles by Joel Martin

Articles by Margaret Wendt

Paper Media: click thumb (where applicable) for full size image/.pdf files

Back to Top

The Nightmare of Rationing in Oregon by Jeff Emanuel

Share |

Two cases of “public option” administrators rejecting patient  requests for lifesaving or life-extending drugs (and instead offering  to fund those patients’ assisted suicides) reached the mainstream media  in the last two weeks. This has caused critics of President Barack  Obama’s health care overhaul proposal to look to Oregon for clues about  what a national health system would bring.

The picture is not pretty. Oregon, the only state to allow assisted  suicide (via the 1997 “Death With Dignity Law”), has used its public  health care “option” as a pretext for enacting an official policy of  trading lives that bureaucrats determine to be “expendable” for  monetary savings by the government.

The problem does not end with the state government either condoning  or encouraging suicide. Rather, it comes as a result of the public  option’s bureaucratic masters, who have made Oregon’s government the  first in the world to officially prioritize treatments for the express  purpose of rationing care.

Bureaucrats crunching the “comparative effectiveness” numbers — a  benign-sounding term that is government code for “rationing” — at  Oregon Health Services Commission headquarters have come up with a  master list of 503 treatments and conditions the “public option” will  cover for its enrollees. They have ranked them in ascending order of  priority.

Under this rationing program, a patient enrolled in the public  option who was in need of a treatment or procedure the commission  decided was not a top-503 priority would be out of luck; the procedure  or treatment simply wouldn’t be covered. This is not terribly  troubling; private insurers have a similar set of guidelines about what  they will and will not cover

What is insidious is the fact that state bureaucrats  balancing Oregon’s figurative checkbook could decide the public  option’s budget only had enough cash left for a given fiscal year to  fund some of the procedures on the list. This is where the prioritization comes in — to guide bureaucrats approving and denying treatments in the rationing of care.

The state’s prioritization database reads like a case study in  medical prioritization turned on its head. Like those pushing  preventive care in the current national debate, administrators say the  rationing program’s foundational focus is on prevention rather than on  actual medical conditions and emergencies. This was borne out of a  desire to save the government more money in the long run.

However, as always happens when bureaucrats and elected officials  are left to work out the nuts and bolts of a program, the  determinations of what is covered under Oregon’s public option, and  where those covered conditions fall on the rationing list, were heavily  influenced by special interest groups and lobbyists who are paid  handsome amounts for gaining access to the ears of state government  officials and cost-effectiveness regulators.

A brief look at the state’s rationing policy demonstrates how out of  whack the Oregon Health Services Commission’s medical priorities are.  For example, under the OHSC directive, a person in need of an emergency  appendectomy (prioritized 84th) would be denied that treatment before an individual in need of treatment for “tobacco dependence” (ranked 6th).

A closer look reveals still more examples of absurd prioritization. The state rationing board ranked abortion 41st  overall in state-funding priority, meaning the bureaucrats who designed  the priority structure in this “public option” program determined that  the use of taxpayer funds for abortion is more important (and more  medically necessary) than covering injuries to major blood vessels  (ranked 86th), surgery to repair injured internal organs  (88), a “deep wound to the neck” or open fracture of the larynx or  trachea (91), or a ruptured aortic aneurysm (306).

Also of note is the fact that treatments for esophageal, liver, and  pancreatic cancers take up priority slots 337 through 339, with  treatment for stroke at 340 — all over 300 places behind obesity (8),  depression (9), and asthma (11).

End-of-life care — both for the elderly and for those with terminal  illnesses — has stolen attention from the state’s rationing program,  and with good reason. As part of the Beaver State’s focus on prevention  over treatment, and of monetary savings over care, the bureaucrats  responsible for Oregon’s rationing regime adopted a policy of comfort  over life extension in dealing with both end-of-life scenarios and  chronic illnesses.

While coverage for “comfort/palliative care” — pain medication,  wheelchair issues, in-home care, and “services under [the] Oregon Death  With Dignity Act,” to name a few listed in the rationing guidelines –   is provided by the government-run public option, the OHSC expressly  forbids patients from obtaining treatments that may actually improve their conditions. Under the rationing directive, chronic and  presumed-terminal patients are barred from receiving “chemotherapy or  surgical interventions with the primary intent to prolong life or alter  disease progression” and “medical equipment or supplies which will not  benefit the patient for a reasonable length of time.”

What the term “reasonable length of time” actually means is, of  course, left entirely up to the bureaucrats counting the change in that  year’s budget. This means the definition of the “reasonable length of  time” treatments must benefit chronic or elderly patients in order for  the state to consider them worthy of use. Further, it is dependent on  how much money is left in the public option cookie jar after all  enrolled Oregonians have their conditions treated (in order of  priority, of course).

The bottom line on Oregon’s end-of-life policy is that the health  care — and, ultimately, length of life — of Oregonians enrolled in the  public option is left entirely up to state bureaucrats.

In other words, this politician-run medicine has fallen victim to …  politics. As John Graham of the Pacific Research Institute recently  said, “the best way to keep politics out of medical decisions is to  keep politicians out of medical decisions.”

Oregonians are finding that out the hardest way possible. Despite the president’s persistent  push to remake America’s health care system in Oregon’s image, we as a  nation can’t afford to learn the same lesson that Oregon is learning  the hard way.

Back to Top


It has been brought to our attention that Margaret is being portrayed as a psychic on $1.99 sites. These sites are doing so without Margaret's permission. Margaret has not claimed she is a psychic. - MW