As Seniors know the new healthcare law is 575 billion cut from Medicare while 77 million Baby Boomers are coming on to Medicare. While it is critical to repeal this devastating attack on our healthcare, we need to examine the state based plan in MA to see if that is an alternative.

by Betsy McCaughey

Presidential aspirant Mitt Romney may not have intended that the mandatory
health insurance law he signed in 2006 would look like the Obama health law. But
the Massachusetts law does a lot more than cover the uninsured (a worthy goal).
The law broadens the powers of government to dictate treatment decisions and
even interferes in where and how patients die. The result will be a breathtaking
shift of decision-making from the doctor at bedside to the state.

The Massachusetts law has come under fire for soaring premiums, now the highest in
the nation. A 2011 Beacon Hill Institute study concluded that 18,000 fewer
people were employed in the state, because employers required to provide
coverage left the state or stopped hiring to avoid the cost. But the cost
cutting has begun, and the results are alarming.

Chapter 305 of the 2006
law created councils and regulatory bodies charged with cost-cutting, and after
several years they have produced a plan. Here are key

Mandatory electronic medical records: All physicians must
comply by January 2015 as a condition of keeping their medical

Comparative effectiveness: A state board — with unions,
consumers, employers and other nonphysicians on it — will synthesize medical
research into guidelines and ensure that all insurers and doctors follow them.
These guidelines will lay out what care is “medically necessary” and include
“how to address individual patient cases and circumstances.” Massachusetts says
it and its bureaucrats can make better decisions than highly trained physicians
at bedside. (Roadmap to Cost Containment pp. 10, 21,36)

End of Life Program: Sec. 41 of Chapter 305 of the Massachusetts law creates an
expert panel to deal with how and where people die. The state will launch an
aggressive public relations campaign to get hospitals and doctors to encourage
palliative care, hospice care, and death at home. In Massachusetts, only 24
percent of people die at home. The state says that is too low. (Roadmap,
pp.32,33, 41,90,)

Sometimes a patient doesn’t die at home because the
doctor doesn’t foresee that death is imminent. A 2006 Emory University study
found that doctors treat patients who are expected to die less intensively than
patients who are expected to survive, but often doctors can’t predict who is
near the end.

The benefits of hospice care are obvious. But physicians
also worry that some patients will break down at the mention of hospice care and
lose the will to fight their disease. Ultimately, the question is how involved
should government be in how we die, especially when the goal is to cut

Ending fee-for-service insurance options: Massachusetts will push
patients into “medical homes,” to limit access to costly specialists and
diagnostic tests, and substitute nurse practitioners and physicians assistants
for doctors.

A 2008 Congressional Budget Office report noted that. if
cost control is the priority, medical homes are likely to present the same
problems as those  HMOs of 20 years ago.

HMOs would withhold physicians’
fees until the end of the year and give it back only to the physicians who met
targets for limiting referrals or diagnostic tests. Ultimately, what a doctor
prescribed for a patient came out of the doctor’s own pocket at the end of the
year, setting up a conflict between you and your doctor. (Roadmap, p.

ROMNEYCARE                                          OBAMACARE
Individual mandate                                    Individual mandate
Employer mandate                                     Employer mandate
Mandatory electronic records.                   Mandatory electronic records
Comparative effectiveness                         Comparative effectiveness
End of life program                                    End of life program
Medical homes                                           Medical homes

Perhaps Governor Romney didn’t read Section 305 of the health law
he signed, or couldn’t anticipate how it would undermine the doctor-patient

The Massachusetts cost-cutters claim that care could be cut
by 20 percent to 30 percent without doing harm. President Obama’s former budget
director  Peter Orszag made the same claim to defend deep cuts to Medicare

Don’t believe it. Wherever these cost cutting strategies — the
same ones that are in Romneycare and Obamacare — are used, the results are
deadly. An important study in the Annals of Internal Medicine (February 2011)
based on all hospitals in California shows that seniors treated in hospitals
providing more intense care and spending more have a better chance to recover
and resume their lives. In fact, 13,813 elderly patients with pneumonia,
congestive heart failure, stroke and hip fractures who died at low spending
hospitals would have survived and gone home had they received more care. That’s
a lesson for Massachusetts and the nation.

Betsy McCaughey,
Ph.D., is a former lieutenant governor of New York and author of “The Obama
Health Law: What It Says and How to Overturn