Princess Health and State Medicaid boss says program won't charge premiums but may have fewer benefits; Bevin's office says all is still on the table. Princessiccia

Princess Health and State Medicaid boss says program won't charge premiums but may have fewer benefits; Bevin's office says all is still on the table. Princessiccia

governor health insurance health reform Medicaid obamacare politics state budget state government

Gusty 19:05 Add Comment

The state's revised Medicaid program won't require any beneficiaries to pay premiums, but it may offer fewer benefits, Medicaid Commissioner Stephen Miller told Adam Beam of The Associated Press.

But Gov. Matt Bevin's office told Beam that Miller's comments were preliminary: "Everything is on the table and no decisions have been finalized," spokeswoman Jessica Ditto told him.

Bevin has said Medicaid recipients should have some "skin in the game" and has pointed to Indiana, which received a federal waiver allowing it to charge premiums based on income levels to people who want benefits beyond the basic Medicaid program.

The idea drew strong opposition from health-care providers, consumer advocates, public-health professionals and representatives of higher education in a May 12 meeting, according to the Foundation for a Healthy Kentucky, which convened the gathering.

"Miller said negotiations with officials at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, indicate they will not approve a plan that requires Kentucky's expanded Medicaid population to pay for a portion of their health insurance," Beam reports.

Miller told him, "That, today, is not part of the plan. That is something that's going to be a tough sell."

Bevin is seeking changes that will save the state money. Starting Jan. 1, it will have to pay 5 percent of the costs of those who have joined Medicaid under the expanded eligibility created by the federal health-reform law. Its share will rise in annual steps to the law's limit of 10 percent in 2020. The state's expected bill for 2017 and the first half of 2018 is $257 million.

Now it seems that savings are likely to come by cutting benefits. "Miller said some Medicaid recipients could see fewer benefits under the new plan," Beam reports. "He said the health insurance plan for the state's Medicaid recipients is better than the basic plan offered to state employees. He said the new plan will likely bring the Medicaid plan more in line with the health plan offered to state workers." Miller said, "That would be a reduction in some benefit levels, such as in vision, dental."

Also, Miller said the program could encourage healthier behaviors by funding health savings accounts if they did such things as participating in smoking-cessation and weight-loss programs. "It may sound like we are rewarding them for that, but the long-term effect is it makes their health care coverage less expensive,"  Miller told Beam.

He said the state hopes to submit its waiver application in September. HHS spokesman Ben Wakana, told Beam that any changes "should maintain or build on the historic improvements Kentucky has seen in access to coverage, access to care, and financial security." Before the expansion; 20 percent of Kentuckians had no health coverage; now the figure is 7.5 percent.

Princess Health and Obama asks public to tell Congress to fund the $1.9 billion Zika fight he wants; Senate passed $1.1 billion, House $622 million. Princessiccia

Princess Health and Obama asks public to tell Congress to fund the $1.9 billion Zika fight he wants; Senate passed $1.1 billion, House $622 million. Princessiccia

birth defects Congress federal spending infectious diseases insects mosquitoes politics research vaccines viral infections

Gusty 12:14 Add Comment

The Zika funding package of Appropriations Committee Chair Hal Rogers and other House Republicans "doesn't make a lot of sense" and the somewhat larger Senate package backed by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and a bipartisan Senate majority falls well short of what is needed, President Obama told reporters Friday.

The Senate has passed a $1.1 billion package and the House approved $622 million. Obama wants more than three times the House figure, $1.9 billion, to fight the virus that causes a serious birth defect.

"We didn�t just choose the $1.9 billion from the top of our heads," Obama said. "This was based on public-health assessments of all the work that needs to be done. And to the extent that we want to be able to feel safe and secure, and families who are of childbearing years want to feel as if they can have confidence that when they travel, when they want to start a family that this is not an issue -- to the extent that that's something that we think is important, then this is a pretty modest investment for us to get those assurances."

Obama said the House package is not only inadequate, "That money is taken from the fund that we're currently using to continue to monitor and fight against Ebola. So, effectively, there�s no new money there. All that the House has done is said, you can rob Peter to pay Paul. And given that I have, at least, pretty vivid memories of how concerned people were about Ebola, the notion that we would stop monitoring as effectively and dealing with Ebola in order to deal with Zika doesn�t make a lot of sense."

The president added, "This is something that is solvable. It is not something that we have to panic about, but it is something we have to take seriously. And if we make a modest investment on the front end, then this is going to be a problem that we don't have to deal with on the back end." He said each child who has a small brain as a result of Zika "may end up costing up to $10 million over the lifetime of that child in terms of that family providing that child the support that they need. . . .  It doesn�t take a lot of cases for you to get to $1.9 billion. Why wouldn't we want to make that investment now?"

Part of the money would go to develop a vaccine for Zika, and part of that work is going on at the University of Kentucky. "You don't get a vaccine overnight," Obama said. "You have to test it to make sure that any potential vaccine is safe. Then you have to test to make sure that it's effective. You have to conduct trials where you're testing it on a large enough bunch of people that you can make scientific determinations that it's effective. So we've got to get moving."

Obama said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health are "taking pots of money from other things -- universal flu funds or Ebola funds or other funds -- just to get the thing rolling. But we have to reimburse those pots of money that have already been depleted and we have to be able to sustain the work that�s going to need to be done to finish the job. So, bottom line is, Congress . . . needs to get me a bill that has sufficient funds to do the job."

The president said that should happen before the summer congressional recess in August, "to provide confidence to the American people that we're handling this piece of business." He said the money would be insurance for young families or couples thinking about having children.

"To the extent that we're not handling this thing on the front end, we're going to have bigger problems on the back end," Obama said. "Tell your members of Congress, get on the job on this. This is something we can handle. We should have confidence in our ability to take care of it. We've got outstanding scientists and researchers who are in the process of getting this done, but they�ve got to have the support from the public in order for us to accomplish our goal."

Princess Health and Health-care consumers get little help resolving complaints, columnist says, citing some horrific examples. Princessiccia

Princess Health and Health-care consumers get little help resolving complaints, columnist says, citing some horrific examples. Princessiccia

consumers health care costs health insurance hospitals lung disease Medicare politics state governments

Gusty 18:08 Add Comment

By Trudy Lieberman
Rural Health News Service

Who protects consumers of health care?

Two recent emails from readers got me thinking about that question. I don�t mean consumers in their role as patients whose medical well-being is looked after by state medical boards and health departments that police doctors and hospitals. Those organizations don�t always do a perfect job protecting patients from harm, but at least they are in place.

But who protects patients when things go wrong on health care�s financial side? What happens when you receive a bill you didn�t expect and can�t afford to pay? What happens when insurers send unintelligible explanations of benefits you can�t understand? What about questionable loan arrangements to avoid medical bankruptcy? Consumers of health care are pretty much on their own.

From the 1960s though the 1980s when people complained, they got action from consumer organizations, government and even businesses that set up departments to handle complaints. That consumer movement is now but a flicker.

�We don�t have as many public-interest minded regulators, and officials who try to grab these issues by the horns and deal with them,� says Chuck Bell, director of programs for Consumers Union.

The emails I received show that although it�s an uphill battle to get redress, fighting back as an individual can get attention and may ultimately lead to better protections for everyone.

John Rutledge, a retiree, got snared in Medicare�s three-day rule by a hospital near his hometown Wheaton, Ill. At the end of March he took his wife, who was having breathing problems, to the hospital where she was held for three nights of �observation.� Patients must be in a hospital for three days as an in-patient before they are entitled to Medicare benefits for 100 days of skilled nursing home care, as I noted in a recent column.

Thousands of families have been caught when hospitals decide their loved ones are admitted for �observation,� a tactic that allows them to avoid repaying Medicare if government auditors find patients should not have been classified as �in-patients.� Playing the �observational� game is worth millions to hospitals but costs families tens of thousands of dollars when someone doesn�t qualify for Medicare-covered skilled nursing care.

Rutledge knew about the three-day rule. Both his doctor and a pulmonologist at the same medical practice recommended an in-patient stay, and Rutledge refused to sign a hospital document saying his wife was admitted for observation. Still, the hospital prevailed, claiming a consultant made the decision to keep her for �observation.�

Rutledge was stuck with a bill that, so far, totals over $15,000 for the skilled nursing care his wife did need. He said he had been a �significant donor� to the hospital foundation, and �I have told the foundation that what I spend as a result of �observation� will come out of what I planned to give them, starting with the annual gift.�

The second email came from Kathryn Green, a college history professor who lives in Greenwood, Miss. Green is fighting an air-ambulance company, which transported her late husband to a Jackson hospital after he suffered a fatal fall in their home. This �nightmare,� as she calls it, is a bill from the transport company that claims it�s outside her insurance network, and says she owes them $50,950.

�I am 63 and will have a devastated retirement if this is upheld,� Green told me.

Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mississippi, the administrator for her insurance carrier the State and School Employees� Health Insurance Plan, paid $7,192 of the $58,142 the transport company billed. Blue Cross has told Green that she should be held harmless and should not be charged for the �balance after payment of the Allowable Charge has been made directly to that provider.�

Green is raising a ruckus and has taken her case to state and national media, members of Congress, the state attorney general, and the Mississippi Health Advocacy Program. The company has told her it will begin collection efforts.

In both cases there�s a legislative solution. The three-day rule can be fixed by counting all the time a patient spends in the hospital whether they�re classified as an �in� or as an �observational� patient. The ambulance problem can be fixed by changing the 1978 airline deregulation law that prevents states from interfering with fares, services, and routes. But money and politics block the federal changes that would help people like Rutledge and Green.

�It�s like playing a game of health-insurance roulette,� Bell says. �Your coverage exposes you to these gaps that have been normalized. It�s become the way of doing business.� A resurgent consumer movement could change all that.

What consumer problems have you had with balance billing? Write to trudy.lieberman@gmail.com.

Princess Health and Kentucky Center for Economic Policy report warns about impact of Bevin's proposed Medicaid changes. Princessiccia

Princess Health and Kentucky Center for Economic Policy report warns about impact of Bevin's proposed Medicaid changes. Princessiccia

economy federal spending health reform jobs Medicaid obamacare Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act politics prevention state budget state government

Gusty 13:15 Add Comment

By Danielle Ray

Kentucky Health News

A research group with a liberal outlook warned Monday that Republican Gov. Matt Bevin should be careful in changing the state Medicaid program.

The Kentucky Center for Economic Policy said the state�s expansion of Medicaid eligibility under Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear has increased health screenings and job growth in health care.

Tobacco counseling and interventions increased 169 percent from 2013 to 2014, the first year of the expansion, the report noted. Influenza vaccinations went up 143 percent and breast cancer screenings increased 111 percent, it noted.

In addition, Medicaid expansion brought Kentucky health-care providers nearly $3 billion through mid-2015 and resulted in a 4.6 percent job growth in the health-care sector from 2014 to 2016, according to the report.

�No matter how you look at Medicaid expansion in Kentucky, it�s clear it has had a positive effect on access to health care that will improve our state�s economy and quality of life,� Jason Bailey, executive director of KCEP, said in a news release.

However, Bevin says the state can�t afford to have more than a fourth of its population on Medicaid and is seeking a waiver from the federal government to make changes in the program, such as �skin in the game� for beneficiaries: co-payments, deductibles or health savings accounts, as used in a year-old experiment in Indiana, which he has cited as an example.

The KCEP reports says the Medicaid waiver Bevin is seeking could result in additional costs to recipients and benefit changes. Arkansas was the first state to design a Medicaid expansion using such a waiver. So far, five other states have implemented similar waiver-based programs.

Waiver programs differ from standard Medicaid expansion in that they utilize some or all of the following: health savings accounts, a cost-sharing account to be used for health care expenses; lockouts, periods in which recipients who have been dis-enrolled for failure to pay premiums are barred from re-enrolling; and premium assistance, the use of Medicaid funds to buy private insurance plans.

These waivers are designed to grant states the freedom to enact experimental programs within Medicaid, so long as the programs continue to reflect the overall goal of Medicaid, increasing coverage of low-income individuals and improving overall health care, as well as efficiency and stability of health care programs that serve that population.

The Foundation for a Healthy Kentucky, which convened a meeting of Medicaid stakeholders last week, is holding off on making judgments of the proposed waiver program. �We believe that diverse input is essential to sustaining these gains, and to continue improving our health care system and health outcomes in Kentucky,� said Susan Zepeda, president of the foundation.

Zepeda said research the foundation has funded has shown a greater decrease in the number of Kentuckians who lack health insurance than any other state, which she attributes largely to Medicaid expansion adding about 400,000 Kentuckians to the rolls.

More than 1.4 million Kentuckians are enrolled in Medicaid, 39 percent of whom are children. Nearly 32 percent are enrolled under the expansion: childless adults in households that earn less than 138 percent of the federal poverty line, currently $33,000 for a family of four.

The KCEP report also asserts that Kentucky�s Medicaid benefits are on par with those of other states, specifically that 12 out of 13 of Kentucky�s optional benefits are also covered in at least 40 other states and territories. Kentucky Medicaid only covers services that are deemed medically necessary.

KCEP noted that Medicaid is a partnership in which the federal government funds a minimum of half of traditional Medicaid spending in each state, with poorer states receiving a larger federal match. In Kentucky, the federal share is about 70 percent. For people covered by the expansion, the federal government is paying the full cost through this year, but the state will pay 5 percent in 2017, rising in annual steps to the law�s limit of 10 percent in 2020.

The full KCEP report is at http://kypolicy.org.

Princess Health and Insurance commissioner sues contractor for failed Kentucky Health Cooperative, alleging gross negligence in handling claims. Princessiccia

Princess Health and Insurance commissioner sues contractor for failed Kentucky Health Cooperative, alleging gross negligence in handling claims. Princessiccia

Congress courts health insurance health reform obamacare politics state government

Gusty 19:41 Add Comment

State Insurance Commissioner Brian Maynard, acting as liquidator of the failed Kentucky Health Cooperative, filed suit in Franklin Circuit Court Friday against against the company that the co-op hired to process and pay claims. The suit contends that CGI Technologies and Solutions Inc. was "grossly negligent" in processing and paying claims and thus breached its contract.

The co-op, created by federal health reform to compete with insurance companies and hold down premium costs, had financial problems from the start. This year Republicans accused former Gov. Steve Beshear, a Democrat who embraced health reform, of holding down co-op premiums to make the reforms look good. Beshear denied the charge.

The co-op announced in October 2015 that it would close because Congress did not provide sufficient "risk corridor" payments to insurers with disproportionately sick policyholders and the Obama administration was unwilling or unable to make up the difference. The co-op, which had a deficit of $50 million in 2014, was expecting a risk-corridor payment of $77 million but got only $9.7 million. Most other co-ops also failed.

�We have a duty to investigate the causes of the co-op�s collapse and to hold responsible those individuals who caused the collapse,� Maynard said in a press release. �This includes recovering funds from responsible parties so that the doctors, nurses, and hospitals that treated Kentuckians insured by the co-op are fairly compensated for their services.�

Thousands of patients and thousands of providers will have to wait until Oct. 15 or later to find out how much of their medical bills sent to the co-op will be paid, Kentucky Health News reported in February. The co-op "left thousands of providers waiting for payment," Stephanie Armour reported for The Wall Street Journal. It covered about 51,000 people through the end of 2015. Franklin Circuit Judge Phillip Shepherd will decide how much will be paid to whom.

Princess Health and State and national smoke-free leaders tell Ky. advocates to focus on local smoking bans because of political climate in Frankfort. Princessiccia

Princess Health and State and national smoke-free leaders tell Ky. advocates to focus on local smoking bans because of political climate in Frankfort. Princessiccia

advertising cigarettes General Assembly governor health policy legislature local government politics smoking smoking ban smoking bans smoking ordinances tobacco tobacco prevention

Gusty 19:04 Add Comment

By Melissa Patrick
Kentucky Health News

More Kentucky localities are likely to see efforts for smoking bans, as a statewide ban appears less likely and leading advocates are saying to go local.

Stanton Glantz
photo: ucsf.edu

Stanton Glantz, one of the nation's leading advocates of smoke-free policies, said at the Kentucky Center for Smoke-Free Policy's spring conference April 28 that California initially had trouble passing a statewide indoor smoke-free law, which forced advocates to move their efforts to the local level. By the time the statewide law passed, 85 percent of the state was covered by local ordinances.

"I'm glad it worked out that way, because we are really talking about values and social norms and community norms and you just can't impose that from the outside," Glantz said during his keynote address. "And so all of these fights that you are having in all of these towns. ... In the end, when you win, you've won. And the fight itself is an important part of making these laws work."

Ellen Hahn, a University of Kentucky nursing professor and director of the smoke-free policy center, also encouraged her colleagues to shift their efforts to localities, saying the political situation doesn't support a statewide law. New Republican Gov. Matt Bevin doesn't support a statewide ban on smoking on workplaces, saying the issue should be decided locally.

"We are in a very difficult political climate in Frankfort," Hahn said in her opening remarks."We all know it. We all recognize it. And while we would all like to see Frankfort do the right thing � and it will someday, I promise � it is not the time to let somebody else do it. It is the time to go to your local elected officials and say we want this."

Advocates made some headway last year when a smoking-ban bill passed the House, but it was placed in an unfavorable Senate committee and never brought up for discussion. This year's House version of the bill, in an election year with Bevin in the governor's office, was dead on arrival.

Glantz, a University of California-San Francisco professor and tobacco-control researcher, looked at the bright side: "You're in a tough political environment, but you are really doing pretty well." He reminded the advocates that one-third of the state is covered by indoor smoke-free ordinances, with 25 of them comprehensive and 12 of them including electronic cigarettes. He also commended the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce for supporting statewide and local bans.

What's next

Glantz urged the advocates to "empower and mobilize" the 73 percent of Kentuckians who don't smoke and get them to help change the social norms. Two-thirds of Kentucky adults support a comprehensive statewide smoking ban, according to latest Kentucky Health Issues Poll, and have since 2013.

�The whole battle is a battle about social norms and social acceptability, and once you win these fights, and you have a law that�s sticking � which takes a while � you don�t go back,' he said. "And the tobacco companies understand that, and that is why they are fighting us so hard.�

Glantz armed the smoke-free warriors with research data to support smoke-free laws, including: they decrease the number of ambulance calls; hospital admissions for heart attacks, stroke, asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and the number of low-birth-weight babies and complications during pregnancy.

"In Kentucky communities with comprehensive smoke-free laws, there was 22 percent fewer hospitalizations for people with COPD," Glantz said, citing one of Hahn's studies. "That is a gigantic effect, absolutely gigantic, at almost no cost and it happened right away."

He noted that politicians are usually most interested in this short-term data, but he also cited long-term statistics about how smoke-free policies in California have decreased heart disease deaths by 9 percent "in just a few years," and lung cancer by 14 percent in about 10 years. Kentucky leads the nation in both of these conditions.

"I would argue that the economic argument is actually on our side," Glantz said, noting that economic benefits of smoke-free laws are almost immediate, especially because "every business, every citizen and every unit of government" is worried about health care costs. He also cited research that found "as you pass stronger laws, you get bigger effects.'

Princess Health and At top legislative Republican's invitation, Democrats embrace Obamacare, or at least Kynect and Beshear's Medicaid expansion. Princessiccia

Princess Health and At top legislative Republican's invitation, Democrats embrace Obamacare, or at least Kynect and Beshear's Medicaid expansion. Princessiccia

elections governor health insurance insurance exchange Kynect legislation Medicaid obamacare Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act politics

Gusty 16:01 Add Comment

By Melissa Patrick
Kentucky Health News

With a verve for Obamacare most had not publicly demonstrated, state House Democrats passed bills March 22 to preserve the Kynect health insurance exchange and the state's expansion of the federal-state Medicaid program.

The almost entirely party-line votes were a response to Republican Senate President Robert Stivers, who had challenged the House to act on the bills so the public will know where legislators stand on health reform.

The Senate is not expected to pass House Bills 5 and 6, but may use them as a device for debate of an issue on which Republicans seem to think they have had the upper hand. Democrats appear to think otherwise.

"This is a political issue, we all know that," House Speaker Greg Stumbo said. "The president of the Senate wanted to challenge us to talk about it, so I think we ought to talk about it because . . . Kynect is working."

(The debate begins four minutes into the following KET video. The continuation of the debate can be seen here.)

Kynect, where Kentuckians can sign up for Medicaid or buy federally subsidized health insurance, was established under executive order with federal grant money by then-Gov. Steve Beshear, a Democrat. It is paid for by a 1 percent assessment on all insurance policies sold in the state. The fee formerly funded a pool for high-risk insurance, which health reform made unnecessary.

Gov. Matt Bevin and other Republicans say Kynect is not necessary because the federal exchange, used by most states, does the same thing. "We will still be providing Kentuckians with access to care," said Rep. Addia Wuchner, R-Florence. "It will be as easy as going to a different website."

Democrats say using the federal exchange will leave Kentuckians without enough of the assistance needed by people who are unfamiliar with health insurance. More than 400,000 Kentuckians have used Kynect to sign up for Medicaid and about 100,000 have used it to get health insurance, many with the help of Kynect-paid "Kynectors."

Rep. Darryl Owens, D-Louisville, the bills' sponsor, said many people in Kentucky don't have access to the Internet and that many who do are not "tech savvy." He said that a decrease in the number of helpers, who are available to meet clients after hours and at convenient locations, will create additional barriers to access for many Kentuckians.

Rep. Kelly Flood, D-Lexington, told the House about one of her constituents who learned in the middle of a family medical crisis that they had been dropped from Medicaid. Flood said the woman told her she could not "reach that wonderful Kynector who used to tell me what was going on."

The Kynector later told her that "she had been swamped with others like her who wanted to know what was happening to the stability of their health care that they had just secured," Flood said. "It is so much more complicated than just going to a new website. I am wanting us to understand the people whose lives are on the line."

The state, completing a plan put in place by the Beshear administration, recently shifted Medicaid users of Kynect to a new system called Benefind that handles most public-assistance programs.

Emily Beauregard, executive director for Kentucky Voices for Health, told Greg Stotelmyer of Public News Service that the wait times on Benefind are two hours and 6,000 to 7,000 calls are going unanswered each day. Advocates have said that the average wait time on Kynect is two minutes.

Cabinet for Health and Family Services spokesman Doug Hogan told Stotlemyre that there had been "difficulties" with the transition and the cabinet is "working diligently with the contractor to correct problems and make the system perform as was intended."

The House voted on the bills separately but the main debate touched on both Kynect and Beshear's expansion of Medicaid to people with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level. The federal government is paying for the expansion until next year, when states will begin paying 5 percent, rising to the law's limit of 10 percent in 2020.

Bevin and other Republicans say that is not sustainable, and he is negotiating with federal officials to change Medicaid to save money and add more personal responsibility, such as premiums, co-payments and deductibles.

Rep. Joni Jenkins, D-Louisville, chair of the House Budget Subcommittee on Human Services, said most Kentuckians who get insurance through Kynect and expanded Medicaid work in low-income jobs and without the program cannot afford insurance.

"With all of this great news -- more people covered, profitable hospitals, more jobs, better health care and wellness -- I believe the evidence is overwhelming that Kentucky must keep Kynect and expanded Medicaid," Jenkins said.

At times the debate was more about federal health reform in general than about the specifics of Kynect or Medicaid expansion.

Rep. Jim Gooch, a Providence insurance agent who recently became a Republican, said many Kentuckians have been helped by Obamacare, others have been hurt. He said many can't afford their co-payments and deductibles, and he said President Obama lied when he said people could keep their old health plans and doctors if they wanted after the reform law passed in 2010.

Another insurance agent, Rep. Jeff Greer, D-Brandenburg, argued the other side. He said the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act had brought many people their first affordable health insurance, especially those with pre-existing conditions, and relieved many farmers of the need to to work another job to get insurance.

"What I see is that we have something that is working, and I'm in a field where I see it work and yet we want to dismantle it and go to something that we're not sure is gong to work or not, Greer said. "I just don't get it."

House Minority Leader Jeff Hoover, R-Jamestown, said using the federal exchange "will not cause a single policy to be canceled or a single person to lose coverage." He said 36 other states now use the federal exchange "seamlessly."

Hoover and other Republicans said the debate was overdue, referring to Beshear's executive actions that the legislature was unable to block.

The Kynect bill passed 52-46, followed by a 54-44 vote for the Medicaid expansion, with Republican Reps. Jim DuPlessis of Elizabethtown and Jim Stewart of Flat Lick joining the Democrats. Reps. Gerald Watkins, D-Paducah, and David Floyd, R-Bardstown, did not vote on either bill.

All House seats are on the November ballot. House Democratic Caucus Chair and state party Chair Sannie Overly was asked how a vote for Obamacare might affect the election. "I think that House Bill 5 and 6 are simply a message to others that we stand by our commitment to providing access to healthcare to all Kentuckians," she said. "We've seen that our constituents support making sure that their friends and neighbors and relatives have access to health care."

To the same question, Rep. Robert Benvenuti, R-Lexington, said, "I think the voters have already thoughtfully evaluated that and cast a strong vote for Gov. Bevin, so I do think it will come up again in these November elections."

Princess Health and Republicans accuse Beshear of holding down failed co-op's premiums to make Obamacare look good; he denies the charge. Princessiccia

Princess Health and Republicans accuse Beshear of holding down failed co-op's premiums to make Obamacare look good; he denies the charge. Princessiccia

federal spending General Assembly governor health insurance health reform insurance Kynect legislature Medicaid obamacare Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act politics state government

Gusty 13:09 Add Comment

By Al Cross
Kentucky Health News

Did Kentucky's government-sponsored insurance company fail because then-Gov. Steve Beshear and federal officials kept its rates artificially low to make Beshear's embrace of federal health reform look better?

Sen. Ralph Alvarado

That's what Republican state Sen. Ralph Alvarado of Winchester, using documents provided by Gov. Matt Bevin's office, suggested or claimed March 14 in a Senate floor speech about the Kentucky Health Cooperative.

"It appears that rates for the co-op may have been purposely kept down for the sake of optics, to make the rollout of the ACA in Kentucky appear successful when it clearly was not," Alvarado said, citing "multiple meetings between the co-op, the governor's office and CMS," the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees the state-based co-ops created under the reform law, in the fall of 2014.

"Somewhere along the way rates were kept down despite these actuarial recommendations," which said the money-losing cooperative should increase its rates 35 to 40 percent for the 2015 plan year, Alvarado said. The co-op's average increase, announced in late October 2014, was 15 percent. In November, CMS expanded the co-op's $47 million solvency loan to $125 million "to try to sustain this company," he said.

Beshear denied the charges through a spokeswoman, Hayley Prim. She said in an email, "Rates were set by the co-op, which was a privately run insurance plan. Like all other insurance plans, the rates must be certified by the Department of Insurance and actuarially sound. The state did not hold rates artificially lower to improve optics."

CMS officials encouraged co-ops "to price their plans low and grow as fast as they could," Adam Cancryn reported for SNL Financial in November 2015, in a long article that is widely regarded as the best written about the failure of the co-ops. Twelve of the 23 have closed or plan to.

The insurance co-op's offices are in eastern Jefferson County.

In December 2014, the Kentucky Health Cooperative reported a loss of $50 million, "with several hazardous financial conditions indicated," Alvarado said, but that year its chief executive officer, chief financial officer and member-services vice president got bonuses of $50,000, $40,000 and $40,000 on top of their salaries of $250,000, $179,000 and $131,000.

"This company had no money, was in deficit, and yet funds were being used clearly for bonuses," Alvarado said. Its CFO, Leonard Sherman, left the company in December 2014, according to a document filed by its liquidators.

Joe Smith of Frankfort, who was chair of the cooperative's now-dissolved board, said in an interview that the salaries and bonuses were "probably a little bit less" than typical in the insurance industry. He said bonuses were paid because the co-op enrolled many more customers than expected, but no bonuses were paid after the first year.

Smith blamed "the Republican Congress" for killing the co-op and those in many other states by limiting the "risk corridor" subsidies paid to insurance companies for covering sicker-than-average populations.

He acknowledged that the Obama administration largely abandoned the co-ops, making them "a sacrificial lamb," but he said they could not effectively compete with large insurance companies, mainly because the reform law prohibited them from advertising, as the big insurers wanted. The law created funding for the not-for-profit cooperatives as a way to provide competition with for-profit insurers and hold premiums down.

Janie Miller, who was Beshear's first health secretary, resigned as CEO of the Kentucky Health Cooperative in June 2015. That October, the co-op said it had largely eliminated its losses but would close because it was getting only a $9.7 million of a $77 million risk-corridor subsidy that it needed to stay afloat. It is now in liquidation, supervised by Franklin Circuit Court.

Alvarado said Miller and her successor, Glenn Jennings, refused to appear at a legislative budget subcommittee meeting in November. He said the Insurance Department "gave us very limited answers about what happened, [which] made me wonder if any wrongdoing was involved."

Alvarado said the legislature's Program Review and Investigations Committee should examine the co-op's finances and the Senate should issue a subpoena requiring Miller and Jennings to appear.

Then-Gov. Steve Beshear,
discussing health reform at the
Brookings Institution in D.C.

Prim, Beshear's spokeswoman, said, "While it is unfortunate the co-op did not succeed, an overwhelming majority of Kentuckians have a positive view of Kynect," the online exchange where Kentuckians can buy federally subsidized health-insurance policies. "It has succeeded by providing low-cost health insurance options and creating a competitive marketplace for private insurers that have kept rates low for everyone."

In his speech, Alvarado incorrectly referred to Kynect policies as Medicaid, the federal-state health plan for the poor and disabled. Beshear expanded Medicaid eligibility to Kentuckians in households with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level.

Alvarado declined to give Kentucky Health News the documents to which he referred in his speech, saying he got them from Bevin's office, which could be asked for them.

Bevin's office provided the liquidators' first report, filed Dec. 31; an actuarial report on small-group plans for 2016, submitted in July 2015; an actuarial report on individual plans for 2015, filed in August 2014; and a February 2015 letter from Miller responding to the Insurance Department's request for a "corrective action plan." None of the documents mention the meetings Alvarado said occurred among CMS, the co-op and the governor's office.

The August 2014 actuarial report said, "The financial viability of KHC is in question. . . . KHC's projections reflect very aggressive assumptions, albeit within a reasonable range, and may result in a very optimistic view of future experience."

The co-op's members used medical services more often than it expected. In the second quarter, there were 263 hospital patient days per 1,000 members, higher than the pricing assumption of 184 per 1,000 but a still a "significant decrease" from the first quarter, for which the report did not give a figure.

The co-op was also having trouble dealing with members and health-care providers. Its corrective plan filed in February 2015 addressed complaints about such things as slow payment standards, paid premiums not being posted to members' accounts, complaints from in-network providers about being processed as out-of-network, and long waits for customer service, with supervisors not being available.

The liquidators' report to the court estimated that the co-op still owes about $80 million in claims, and their financial analysis left unclear whether all those claims would be paid. The balance sheet in the liquidators' statement, dated June 30, said the co-op had $117 million in assets and $128 million in liabilities, and the liabilities included only $67.7 million in unpaid claims. However, the co-op's biggest federal loan, of $125 million, is "subordinate to policyholder obligations, claimant and beneficiary claims, operating expenses and state reserve and solvency requirements," the report said. CMS, the federal agency, has asked an independent actuary to provide its own estimate of unpaid claims.

Princess Health and Bill for review of medical lawsuits dies from special elections. Princessiccia

Princess Health and Bill for review of medical lawsuits dies from special elections. Princessiccia

courts doctors elections General Assembly hospitals legislation legislature malpractice nursing homes physicians politics

Gusty 09:35 Add Comment

A bill that would create panels of experts to review lawsuits against health-care providers is going nowhere, again.

State Senate President Robert Stivers said Friday that he and other leaders of the Senate's Republican majority sent Senate Bill 6 back to committee because last week's special elections continued Democratic control of the House. They did likewise with a bill for a "right to work" law that would ban union membership or fees as a condition of employment.

�The reality is the House does not see as the majority party in this Senate does, that right-to-work would even be another tool that could increase and expand on job recruitment and retention,� Stivers said. �The other thing is we�ve had Senate Bill 6 sitting on the board for quite some time. But, because of the elections two weeks ago, the consequences are, they would pass this chamber but die in the House.�

Princess Health and Bills to preserve Kynect and Medicaid expansion head for votes in Democratic House despite a likely death in Republican Senate. Princessiccia

Princess Health and Bills to preserve Kynect and Medicaid expansion head for votes in Democratic House despite a likely death in Republican Senate. Princessiccia

elections General Assembly health insurance insurance insurance exchange Kynect legislation legislature Medicaid politics

Gusty 18:41 Add Comment

By Melissa Patrick
Kentucky Health News

Bills to continue the Kynect health-insurance exchange and the state's current expansion of the federal-state Medicaid program passed out of the House Health and Welfare Committee March 17, starting a series of legislative votes on health reform that once seemed unlikely.

House Speaker Greg Stumbo said he expects the bills to pass the Democratic-majority chamber, even though Republicans in the fall elections could cast votes as support for "Obamacare," the federal reforms under which then-Gov. Steve Beshear created Kynect and expanded Medicaid.

�There�s never really been a debate on this issue,� Stumbo said. �There�s not been a true letting of the facts, if you will.�

Six days earlier, Senate President Robert Stivers had more or less dared Stumbo to move the bills, whose sponsor had said he did not expect them to pass the Republican-controlled Senate, in order to "have a full, fair debate on the issue" and see where legislators stand on it.

House Bill 5 would require the state to keep operating Kynect, which Gov. Matt Bevin is starting to dismantle or transform. In his campaign, Bevin vowed to abolish the exchange, saying it did nothing that the federal exchange does not. Recently his administration announced that it would continue operating a state-based exchange but use the federal exchange for enrollments.

"They're being pushed into what everyone calls Obamacare, and they don't want that," Stumbo told reporters.

House Bill 6 would keep the current expansion of Medicaid to people with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level. Bevin is negotiating with federal officials to change the program, saying it will not be sustainable once the state has to start paying part of the cost.

Rep. Darryl Owens

The committee approved the bills along party lines. Their sponsor, Rep. Darryl Owens, D-Louisville, said he filed them because "It is important for people to understand that there are those of us in this legislature that want to continue expanded Medicaid, that want to continue Kynect."

The exchange is paid for by a 1 percent assessment on all insurance policies sold in the state. The fee formerly funded a pool for high-risk insurance, which reform made unecessary. Approximately 1.4 million Kentuckians use Kynect, all but about 100,000 of them on Medicaid.

Kynect was started with federal grants. Rep. Robert Benvenuti, R-Lexington, argued that the state must include that $273 million when considering its cost. "I think most people in this room, most people in Kentucky, pay federal taxes as well, so this whole notion that there is a great federal money tree in which we can go pick off of and build things is just not correct," he said.

Owens replied, "I'm not saying it's a money tree, I'm just saying it's a grant that the federal government gave the states if they wanted to develop their own system," Owens said. "And I think the thing we miss when we talk about that is we have a great system; we have the best system in the country."

Rep. Tim Moore, R-Elizabethtown, whittled the definition of Kynect down to a business that advertises and markets Medicaid and health insurance to Kentuckians, and asked, "How do you spend that kind of money to go out and build a marketplace for soliciting folks to do what would be in their own interest anyway?"

Cara Stewart of the Kentucky Equal Justice Center said the marketing has value because it has created a brand that Kentuckians recognize and trust, allowing them to know where to go to get health insurance. She said Kynect runs seamlessly to help Kentuckians shop and enroll in coverage for both Medicaid and federally subsidized insurance plans, unlike Bevin's approach.

She said later that it now takes two minutes to reach customer service on Kynect and two hours on Benefind, which is operated by the state Department of Community Based Services. "We are radically changing the quality of service to Kentuckians," she said.

Rep. Tim Moore

Moore said he was glad the bills would be voted on because Kynect and the Medicaid expansion had been created through "dictatorship," not "the will of the people." Beshear acted under a state law that requires the government to get as much federal money as possible for Medicaid, and he used his broad executive powers under the state constitution to transform the high-risk pool into Kynect.

Moore said Bevin's election showed public opinion on the issue. However, a poll in November, after the election, showed Kentuckians supported the Medicaid expansion by 3� to 1 and keeping Kynect by 2 to 1.

Democratic Rep. David Watkins, a retired physician from Henderson who voted for both bills, said, "It is kind of sad that our citizens don't pay attention to what our politicians are saying because they do have consequences."

Democratic Rep. Joni Jenkins of Louisville, chair of the House Budget Subcommittee on Human Services, said her panel's hearings convinced her that the state needs to keep it. She said there is value in having one system for Kentuckians to access health insurance, and to have Kynectors, who not only help people access health insurance, but also help them access health services.

Emily Beauregard, executive director for Kentucky Voices For Health, said after the meeting that navigating health insurance is difficult, especially for those who have never had it. "We need to help connect people to a source of care and help them understand how to use their benefits and that's what we've been able to do through Kynect," she said. "Coverage alone is not going to solve Kentucky's health issues."

Benvenuti said after the meeting, "There are various ways to get people to health care and creating a huge governmental system that is duplicative of the federal system is simply not the best use of our dollars."

As for Medicaid, Benvenuti said, "We've got to create a system where everybody who gets health care through an expansion population, or however you want to define it, has skin in the game and is responsible ultimately for their own health care."

Princess Health and Criminal matter for the Attorney General of NY? Hail the gods of medical computing, and the need for human sacrifice. NYC�s $764M medical records system will lead to �patient death�: insiders. Princessiccia

Princess Health and Criminal matter for the Attorney General of NY? Hail the gods of medical computing, and the need for human sacrifice. NYC�s $764M medical records system will lead to �patient death�: insiders. Princessiccia

Dr. Charles Perry Elmhurst Hospital Center EPIC healthcare IT risk Michael Gartland Mismanagement NY Post NYC Health and Hospitals politics Ramanathan Raju

Gusty 08:41 Add Comment

I believe the suffering and death of my mother in 2010-2011 due to EHR flaws - including but not limited to lack of essential confirmation dialogs on medication deletion at triage, lack of notification messages informing down-line staff of such action by unqualified personnel (inadequate support of teamwork), and other issues - lends me some moral standing to comment on the following as a horrifying and potentially criminal matter.  (See http://khn.org/news/scot-silverstein-health-information-technology/).


Two back-to-back articles appeared in the New York Post:

NYC�s $764M medical records system will lead to �patient death�: insiders
By Michael Gartland
March 15, 2016
http://nypost.com/2016/03/15/nycs-764m-medical-records-system-will-lead-to-patient-death-insiders/

and

Hospital exec [CMIO] quits, compares $764M upgrade to Challenger disaster
By Michael Gartland
March 16, 2016
http://nypost.com/2016/03/16/hospital-exec-quits-compares-764m-upgrade-to-challenger-disaster/ 

It is well-known and indisputable that this technology can and does injure and kill, especially when poorly designed, defective, poorly implemented, or all of the above.  See for instance the ECRI EHR risk Deep Dive study results at http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2013/02/peering-underneath-icebergs-water-level.html.

Any official in leadership of health IT who denies this - or sidesteps it - or makes excuses for compromises on health IT safety, especially in view of dire warnings from clinician experts - in 2016 is guilty of conduct of the type below:

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/criminal-negligence-laws.html

What is Criminal Negligence?

Under some criminal law statutes, criminal negligence is defined as any type of conduct that �grossly deviates� from normal, reasonable standards of an ordinary person.  It generally involves an indifference or disregard for human life or for the safety of people.  Sometimes the definition for criminal negligence also requires a failure to recognize unjustifiable risks associated with the conduct.

Examples of criminally negligent behavior may include knowingly allowing a child to be in very dangerous conditions, or driving in an extremely irresponsible way.  Criminal negligence is less serious than intentional or reckless conduct.  Generally, reckless conduct involves a knowing disregard of risks, while negligence involves an unawareness of the risks.

The two articles reflect a good possibility that the politics of what I'd once termed "cybernetics �ber alles" has trumped patient safety concerns in NYC.

Here's details from the first article:

A new $764 million medical records system is launching at the municipal hospital system on April 2 � even though insiders warn it isn�t ready and patients will suffer.

The soft launch of the electronic system Epic is scheduled at Elmhurst and Queens hospitals.

�Sooner or later, it will crash,� said one source involved in the project. �There will be patient harm � patient harm and patient death.�

That sounds like insiders warning of far more problems than mere crashes causing patient harm and death, a brave act considering possible retaliation.

I wonder if the users of this EPIC system are having imposed on them the speech and though controls imposed on users at University of Arizona (see my Oct. 3, 2013 post "Words that Work: Singing Only Positive - And Often Unsubstantiated - EHR Praise As 'Advised' At The University Of Arizona Health Network" at http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2013/10/words-that-work-singing-only-positive.html).

Sources say Dr. Ramanathan Raju, who runs the municipal network, NYC Health + Hospitals, is under the gun from City Hall to meet the deadline and fears he�ll be fired if he doesn�t.

�Raju has said too many times to count that the Mayor�s Office has told him if April 1st doesn�t happen, then Ram will lose his job,� one source said.

The source added that Raju has threatened to fire top executives if the project doesn�t launch on time.

If this is true, than the "gun" from City Hall is aimed straight at patients, and if patients indeed are mortally affected, the responsible officials might be deemed accessories to murder.

I add that this type of situation represents fundamental and severe mismanagement, as I'd been writing about since the late 1990's at my academic site "Contemporary Issues in Medical Informatics: Good Health IT, Bad Health IT, and Common Examples of Healthcare IT Difficulties" at http://cci.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/cases/.

The hospital system is already on City Hall�s watch list, having required a $337 million bailout in January to stay afloat. 

Money for EHR's grows on trees.

Note other hospitals where EHR implementations led to financial disaster (e.g., http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2014/06/in-fixing-those-9553-ehr-issues.html, http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2013/05/clouded-visionary-leadership-wake.html, http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2013/06/want-to-help-hospital-go-bankrupt-get.html, http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2014/06/100-million-epic-install-dampens.html as examples).

Insiders contend that the only safe way to roll out Epic is to take more time � about three months � to address several key issues.

One is planning for a crash, which some consider almost inevitable because the new setup hasn�t been configured to work with systems at other hospitals or with some of its own internal billing and tracking software.

Existing patient data also has to be transferred from the old system � a process that would normally take six months, but which was shoehorned into less than one.

Going "live" with a half-baked EHR under such circumstances for political reasons, if these facts are true, would be, in my professional opinion, an act worthy of prison time if harm results.

�There are supposed to be all these dry runs,� a source said. �They haven�t been done.�

Again, if true, this reflects expediency at the expense of patient well-being, by rows of political hacks, fools and incompetents calling the shots in an area in which they have no business being involved.

City officials contend Epic remains �on-time and within budget.�

I have a feeling this will be revisited at some time in the future - in court.

A mayoral spokeswoman said there would be a round-the-clock effort to ensure there are no glitches. 

"No glitches?" 

That is a hollow promise that cannot be kept even under the best of circumstances.  Under the hellish circumstances described, such a statement is outright frightening. The Mayor truly has no clue about EHR "glitches", but I offer the many posts at query link http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/glitch for his education.

Mr. Mayor, here's an example of EPIC and other EHR implementations under the best of circumstances.  These systems are so immensely complex, trying to be pressure-fit into a vastly complex, varying and changing environment, that to not heed CMIO and other expert warnings is the height of recklessness:

• Nov. 2013:  "We�ve resolved 6,036 issues and have 3,517 open issues": Extolling EPIC EHR Virtues at University of Arizona Health System, at http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2013/11/weve-resolved-6036-issues-and-have-3517.html

•  June 2014:  In Fixing Those 9,553 EHR "Issues", Southern Arizona�s Largest Health Network is $28.5 Million In The Red, http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2014/06/in-fixing-those-9553-ehr-issues.html

• Oct. 2010:  "Medical center has more than 6000 'issues' with Cerner CPOE system in four months - has patient harm resulted?", http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/10/medical-center-has-more-than-6000.html)

Of course, we are reassured that the crack team assigned the implementation duties will produce stellar results:

�NYC Health + Hospitals and its Epic implementation experts are prepared to implement the new system in Queens facilities beginning April 2, and have assembled a team of about 900 technicians and Epic experts who will work around-the-clock that week both in Queens and at remote data centers to ensure the transition to the new system goes as smoothly as possible,� said spokeswoman Ishanee Parikh.

EPIC experts like these?  From this link at the "Histalk" site on staffing of health IT projects, Aug. 16, 2010. Emphases mine:

Epic Staffing Guide 

A reader sent over a copy of the staffing guide that Epic provides to its customers. I thought it was interesting, first and foremost in that Epic is so specific in its implementation plan that it sends customers an 18-page document on how staff their part of the project. 

Epic emphasizes that many hospitals can staff their projects internally, choosing people who know the organization. However, they emphasize choosing the best and brightest, not those with time to spare. Epic advocates the same approach it takes in its own hiring: don�t worry about relevant experience, choose people with the right traits, qualities, and skills, they say. 

The guide suggests hiring recent college graduates for analyst roles. Ability is more important than experience, it says. That includes reviewing a candidate�s college GPA and standardized test scores. 

I bet many readers were taught by their HR departments to do behavioral interviewing, i.e. �Tell me about a time when you �� Epic says that�s crap, suggesting instead that candidates be given scenarios and asked how they would respond. They also say that interviews are not predictive of work quality since some people just interview well. 

Don�t just hire the agreeable candidate, the guide says, since it may take someone annoying to push a project along or to ask the hard but important questions that all the suck-ups will avoid. 

Epic likes giving candidates tests, particularly those of the logic variety.

The part about "not worrying about relevant experience" and about "hiring recent college graduates as HIT project analysts" is bizarre if true, and downright frightening.

Medical environments and clinical affairs are not playgrounds for novices, no matter how "smart" their grades and test scores show them to be. These practices as described, in my view, represent faulty and dangerous advice on first principles.  The advice also is at odds with the taxonomy of skills published by the Office of the National Coordinator I outlined at the post "ONC Defines a Taxonomy of Robust Healthcare IT Leadership."

The second NY Post article cited above is even more dire:

A senior official was so worried a new $764 million medical records system for the municipal hospital system was launching too early that he resigned, comparing it to the disastrous space shuttle Challenger launch in 1986.

In a �resignation and thank-you� email last week, Dr. Charles Perry urged colleagues at NYC Health + Hospitals � formerly the Health and Hospitals Corp. � to sound the alarm and press for an �external review� to stop the system from going live next month.

Perry was chief medical information officer of Queens and Elmhurst Hospital Centers, the first scheduled to get the new electronic medical data system.

When a CMIO - a role I held in the mid 1990s -  resigns under such circumstances, a project should be halted in its tracks and external examination begun.  Instead, it appears we have spin control.

In his email, Perry offered a comparison to the launch of the Challenger � aboard which seven crew members died when it exploded 73 seconds after liftoff on Jan. 28, 1986 � and cited a presidential panel�s report examining how the disaster occurred.

That is as dire and direct a warning as they come.  Unqualified individuals who second guess such a warning should be held legally accountable for adverse outcomes.

(Such a warning letter about EHRs now sits as "Exhibit A" in the lawsuit complaint regarding my dead mother.  It had not been heeded.)

�For a successful technology, �reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled,� Perry wrote in his �email, quoting from the report.

But fools in leadership roles in health IT think they can fool Mother Nature.

Perry went on to urge a short delay despite �vehement entreaties to make the April 1st date by officials and consultants with jobs and paydays on the line.�

This is exactly how patients end up maimed and dead.

Agency president Dr. Ramanathan Raju has repeatedly told colleagues his job is on the line if the deadline isn�t met, sources said.

Perry, a medical doctor with an MBA, declined to comment.

Maybe Raju should quit, too.  He should know that Discovery over such matters would not be very pleasant, especially if I am assisting attorneys in such matters - which could very well occur.

�He [Perry] took a stand,� said one insider. �He wasn�t going to take part in something that was going to compromise patient safety.�

It's good to know someone in Medical Informatics still has balls.

The idea that we�d jeopardize patients to meet a deadline is simply wrong,� said Karen Hinton, Mayor Bill de Blasio�s spokeswoman.

�If a patient safety issue is identified, the project will stop until it is addressed.

�NYC Health + Hospitals and its Epic implementation experts have assembled a team of about 900 technicians and Epic experts who will work around the clock through the week surrounding the transition in both Queens and at remote data centers to ensure we shift to the new system as smoothly as possible.�

It's been said that one expert who truly know what they're doing will always outperform 1,000 (or 900) generalists following the finest of "process" who are in over their heads (to wit, 900 generic musicians could never exceed the work of Beethoven or Brahms).

In this matter, I take the CMIO's word over the 900 techies and "experts", once having voiced such concerns myself.

-- SS

What is Criminal Negligence?

Under some criminal law statutes, criminal negligence is defined as any type of conduct that �grossly deviates� from normal, reasonable standards of an ordinary person.  It generally involves an indifference or disregard for human life or for the safety of people.  Sometimes the definition for criminal negligence also requires a failure to recognize unjustifiable risks associated with the conduct.
Examples of criminally negligent behavior may include knowingly allowing a child to be in very dangerous conditions, or driving in an extremely irresponsible way.  Criminal negligence is less serious than intentional or reckless conduct.  Generally, reckless conduct involves a knowing disregard of risks, while negligence involves an unawareness of the risks.
- See more at: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/criminal-negligence-laws.html#sthash.3YLT7ahF.dpuf

What is Criminal Negligence?

Under some criminal law statutes, criminal negligence is defined as any type of conduct that �grossly deviates� from normal, reasonable standards of an ordinary person.  It generally involves an indifference or disregard for human life or for the safety of people.  Sometimes the definition for criminal negligence also requires a failure to recognize unjustifiable risks associated with the conduct.
Examples of criminally negligent behavior may include knowingly allowing a child to be in very dangerous conditions, or driving in an extremely irresponsible way.  Criminal negligence is less serious than intentional or reckless conduct.  Generally, reckless conduct involves a knowing disregard of risks, while negligence involves an unawareness of the risks.
- See more at: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/criminal-negligence-laws.html#sthash.3YLT7ahF.dpuf

What is Criminal Negligence?

Under some criminal law statutes, criminal negligence is defined as any type of conduct that �grossly deviates� from normal, reasonable standards of an ordinary person.  It generally involves an indifference or disregard for human life or for the safety of people.  Sometimes the definition for criminal negligence also requires a failure to recognize unjustifiable risks associated with the conduct.
Examples of criminally negligent behavior may include knowingly allowing a child to be in very dangerous conditions, or driving in an extremely irresponsible way.  Criminal negligence is less serious than intentional or reckless conduct.  Generally, reckless conduct involves a knowing disregard of risks, while negligence involves an unawareness of the risks.
- See more at: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/criminal-negligence-laws.html#sthash.3YLT7ahF.dpuf

What is Criminal Negligence?

Under some criminal law statutes, criminal negligence is defined as any type of conduct that �grossly deviates� from normal, reasonable standards of an ordinary person.  It generally involves an indifference or disregard for human life or for the safety of people.  Sometimes the definition for criminal negligence also requires a failure to recognize unjustifiable risks associated with the conduct.
Examples of criminally negligent behavior may include knowingly allowing a child to be in very dangerous conditions, or driving in an extremely irresponsible way.  Criminal negligence is less serious than intentional or reckless conduct.  Generally, reckless conduct involves a knowing disregard of risks, while negligence involves an unawareness of the risks.
- See more at: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/criminal-negligence-laws.html#sthash.3YLT7ahF.dpuf

What is Criminal Negligence?

Under some criminal law statutes, criminal negligence is defined as any type of conduct that �grossly deviates� from normal, reasonable standards of an ordinary person.  It generally involves an indifference or disregard for human life or for the safety of people.  Sometimes the definition for criminal negligence also requires a failure to recognize unjustifiable risks associated with the conduct.
Examples of criminally negligent behavior may include knowingly allowing a child to be in very dangerous conditions, or driving in an extremely irresponsible way.  Criminal negligence is less serious than intentional or reckless conduct.  Generally, reckless conduct involves a knowing disregard of risks, while negligence involves an unawareness of the risks.
- See more at: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/criminal-negligence-laws.html#sthash.3YLT7ahF.dpuf

Princess Health and McConnell touts bill to fight opioid abuse; blocks extra funding, says money is available and more should require cuts elsewhere. Princessiccia

Princess Health and McConnell touts bill to fight opioid abuse; blocks extra funding, says money is available and more should require cuts elsewhere. Princessiccia

Congress drug abuse drugs federal spending pain politics prescription drug abuse prescription drugs

Gusty 13:04 Add Comment

The U.S. Senate passed a bill 94-1 March 10 aimed at "the growing epidemic of painkiller and heroin abuse," Karoun Demirjian reports for The Washington Post. "Drug abuse has been in the spotlight this political season, with presidential candidates recalling personal stories about relatives and friends who struggled with addiction and lawmakers from states dealing with the crisis highlighting their efforts to address the problem legislatively."

Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, as majority leader, helped lead the effort to pass the bill, along with fellow Republicans who "face tough re-election battles" and whose losses could cost the GOP its majority, Demirjian notes. Sens. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio) "supported a Democratic-led, and ultimately unsuccessful, effort last week to add $600 million to the bill to support the treatment and prevention programs it would create." So did Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), "who is also facing a formidable election challenge."

McConnell opposed the funding amendment, saying there is enough money for the programs already and extra funding must be offset with budget cuts elsewhere. "Senators are now eyeing the appropriations process as the next place they intend to appeal for more drug abuse treatment and prevention funding," Demirjian reports.

McConnell said in a press release, "At a time when more Kentuckians now die from drug overdoses than car crashes, it�s clear that more action is needed."

Van Ingram, executive director of the Kentucky Office of Drug Control Policy, told Beth Warren of The Courier-Journal, �One of the nice things this bill does is sets some standards around treatment.�

"The legislation would establish grant programs to help state and local governments improve education and treatment for drug abuse, encourage medical providers to reduce unnecessary prescriptions, commit resources to help veterans deal with addiction, and give local law enforcement and mental health officials tools to lower the death rate from overdoses," the Post reports. "A key provision would provide states with incentives to make naloxone, which can counteract overdoses, more widely available by offering liability protections to officials who distribute it. The bill�s fate in the House remains unclear."

Princess Health and It Has Come to This? - Donald Trump's "Truly Absurd," "Word Salad," "Gibberish" Health Care Policy. Princessiccia

Princess Health and It Has Come to This? - Donald Trump's "Truly Absurd," "Word Salad," "Gibberish" Health Care Policy. Princessiccia

deception health care reform health policy politics ppaca propaganda

Gusty 12:07 Add Comment

Health Care Renewal is officially non-partisan.  We do not endorse candidates for office, or political parties.  That does not prevent us from commenting on policy issues, and on pronouncements and actions by politicians and government officials when they relate to the issues that interest us.

So, we have criticized excessive coziness among politicians and government officials on one hand, and big health care organizations and their leaders on the other.  We have noted conflicts of interest affecting politicians, particularly the revolving door, and other shadings towards corporatism.  We have noted how health care policy discussions may focus on health care financing, while ignoring some of the bigger issues we discuss  (For example, see our discussions of health care reform, and particularly this one of the then new US Affordable Care Act). These include: leadership of health care organizations by generic managers (managerialists) who are unsympathetic or even hostile to the health care mission; deceptive practices involving marketing, the manipulation and suppression of research, stealth health policy advocacy, stealth lobbying, etc; and timidity in regulation and law enforcement, leading to outright impunity of health care leaders.

We have criticized politicians and government leaders of all parties and from all sides of the political spectrum.  For example, in retrospect we criticized the (Democratic) Clinton administration's laissez faire attitude to conflicts of interest at the National Institutes of Health (see summary here and links to older posts).  We criticized flagrant examples of the revolving door involving top Bush adminstration officials (e.g., most recently here), and yet more involving Obama administration officials (e.g., most recently here).

Yet we also acknowledge that most policy discussions by political and government figures are at least well-intended and based in some degree on the facts and knowledge of the health care context (even if we think the results might be misguided, wrong-headed, or tangential.)  So, while health care is not so far the most important issue in the tumultuous 2016 US presidential race, there has been considerable discussion of it.  Most major candidates have staked out health care positions that again appear well-intended and based to some degree on the facts and context (although my point is not to comment on their merits.)

But there has been one major exception. 

The Leading Candidate with No Health Care Plan

Donald Trump currently seems to be the leading Republican presidential candidate.  As reported by the Minnesota Post,

Trump doesn�t have a health care plan. Go to the issues section of his campaign. Really, go there, you won�t believe what you see. A typical campaign website has position papers. Trump has none. The link to 'Issues' takes you to a pretty frightening page of short embedded videos of Trump himself summarizing his positions at a level of detail that you should find insulting.

But he doesn�t even have one of those on health care.

In addition to 'Issues,' the site�s homepage has a pulldown menu called 'Positions.' I don�t get the difference, but who cares? �Positions� are actual written-out position statements, not videos, but only on five issues, none of which are remotely related to health care (nor many other major issues).

So for Trump�s health-care thinking, we have to rely on what he says in debates and speeches and, I suppose, tweets, some of which have been controversial.

The Candidate with No Health Care Policy Advisers

On February 20, 2016, Politico reported that Mr Trump's campaign also apparently has no health policy advisers.  The article noted that Mr Trump had written in one of his books that he would

Lock the best health care policy minds in a room � and don�t let them out until they�ve crafted a plan for providing terrific coverage for everyone.

But he has not said who those advisers might be.  Furthermore, the reporter was unable to determine who, if anyone, is currently advising Mr Trump about health care,

Sam Clovis, Trump�s national policy adviser, insists the campaign is talking with lots of health care experts � but declined to name any of those advisers.

'We have experts around the world who help us on these various topics,' Clovis said in an interview with POLITICO. 'We get very frank and honest input if we do not expose these people to the scrutiny of the press. � As we get further along they might want to come out of the shadows.'

However,

POLITICO scoured the landscape of notable policy wonks � from academics to lobbyists to congressional staffers to think tank fellows � but was unable to find anyone, on either side of the political divide, who acknowledged whispering health care policy tips in the billionaire�s ear. Or for that matter, of hearing of anyone who had talked to his campaign.

'He seems to be a one-man policy shop,' said Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, and a leading critic of Obamacare.

So Mr Trump has no clear health care plan, and apparently no health care advisers.  Furthermore, reports of what this candidate has said about health care reveals some anomalies, to say the least.

Reducing Pharmaceutical Costs to Zero?

The Washington Post in a "Fact Checker" feature on February 18, 2016, entitled, "Trump�s truly absurd claim he would save $300 billion a year on prescription drugs," quoted Mr Trump three times on the costs of pharmaceuticals,

'We are not allowed to negotiate drug prices. Can you believe it? We pay about $300 billion more than we are supposed to, than if we negotiated the price. So there�s $300 billion on day one we solve.' �Donald Trump, remarks at Plymouth State University, Holderness, N.H., Feb. 7, 2016

'So I said to myself wow, let me do some numbers. If we competitively bid drugs in the United States, we can save as much as $300 billion a year.' �Trump, remarks in Manchester, N.H., Feb. 8

'We�re the largest drug buyer in the world. We don�t negotiate. We don�t negotiate. You pay practically the same for the country as if you go into a drug store and buy the drugs. If we negotiated the price of drugs, Joe, we�d save $300 billion a year.' �Trump, interview on MSNBC, Feb. 17

The problem here is that the $300 billion figure turns out to be ridiculous.  The Post article noted,

To put Trump�s $300-billion-a-year claim in perspective, let�s first note that Sanders cites a 2013 estimate from the Center for Economic and Policy Research that negotiated drug prices would result in savings to Medicare of between $230 billion to $541 billion over 10 years.

So for virtually the same policy, Sanders is claiming savings averaging $38 billion a year � and Trump is promising a figure eight times larger. (Clinton offers no estimated savings.)

What�s going on here? It�s unclear, because as usual the Trump campaign refuses to respond to any queries about Trump�s numbers.

Furthermore,

total spending in Medicare Part D (prescription drugs) in 2014 was $78 billion. So Trump, in effect, is claiming to save $300 billion a year on a $78 billion program. That�s like turning water into wine.

Finally,

It�s possible that Trump is being sloppy and when he discusses Medicare, he really means to say he would force government-led pricing on all prescription drugs. But the numbers don�t add up that way either.

In fact, depending on the source you consult, total annual spending on prescription drugs in the United States is between $298 billion a year to $423 billion. So that would mean Trump is claiming that he can eliminate virtually any cost to prescription drugs. It would suddenly be free!

So Mr Trump's claims made on at least three occasions about the magnitude of savings that would result from his (unoriginal) proposal to have the government negotiate drug prices were mathematically implausible, if not impossible. 

"Word Salad" about the Mandate

Rather right-wing columnist Jennifer Rubin, writing in the Washington Post on February 22, 2016, provided two sets of quotes from interviews with Mr Trump about his position on the "mandate" within the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  Note that the mandate imposes a (relatively modest) extra tax on people who do not have health insurance, providing an incentive to have such insurance.  For example, on "Meet the Press,"

DONALD TRUMP: Well, on the mandate, if you look at the mandate, we had a situation where we were, Anderson Cooper, who�s terrific, by the way, and did a terrific job, but we were talking over each other. Look, I want, we�re going to repeal and replace Obamacare. Obamacare is a total and complete disaster. It�s going to be gone. We�re going to come up with a great healthcare plan, whether it�s healthcare savings accounts, we have a lot of different things. We�re going to get rid of the lines between states, we�re going to have great competitive bidding. But I say all the time, you can call it anything you want. People are not going to die in the middle of the street. People are not going to die on the sidewalk if I�m president, okay?

CHUCK TODD: Well, let me get something definitive from you on this.

DONALD TRUMP: But Chuck, I say that, excuse me, I say that to packed houses with thousands and thousands of people, Republicans mostly, and I get standing ovations. I�m not going to let that happen. If I�m president, we�re not going to have people dying on the streets. So you can call it whatever you want. I don�t call it a mandate, I just say it�s common sense.

CHUCK TODD: No, I understand that. Well, let me ask you this. Do you think that it should be a law that anybody who can afford health insurance has to have it?

DONALD TRUMP: I think, no, I think it�s going to be up to them, okay? I want it to be up to them. But I�m really talking about people that can�t afford it. We�re not going to let people die in squalor because we are Republicans, okay? That�s part of the problem with the Republicans, where somehow they got fed into this horrible position. We�re going to take care of people. But no, people don�t have to have it. We�re going to have great plans, they�re going to be a lot less expensive than Obamacare. They�re going to be private. There are going to be lots of different options. We�re going to have a lot of different options. Right now you have no options. You know why? Because the insurance company controlled Obama because they gave him a lot of money. That�s why you have lines around the states. And you can�t get competitive bidding.

Her summary was:

He insists whatever inanity he said earlier was a mistake, denies he took or takes a liberal position and declares there will not be people 'dying in the streets.' (Does he understand there is a duty now to treat people, but what we are debating is insurance?) Then he ends with assurances he is loved by crowds. Superlatives by the bushel may be funny, but they also substitute for concrete answers. It may seem like a word salad or stream of consciousness at first glance, but it is a salad he tosses up over and over again, each time avoiding close scrutiny.

An article on February 22, 2016, in the left leaning MotherJones stated that Mr Trump had already contradicted his previous approval of the "mandate,"

Trump has now made clear that he doesn't like the individual mandate after all�he just misspoke when he said that to Anderson Cooper a few days ago.

So while Mr Trump has drawn attention to his position on the mandate, that position seems hopelessly incoherent, or as Ms Rubin called it, "word salad."

More "Gibberish"

The Minnesota Post article also noted,

When asked Thursday night under Rubio�s prodding to describe his plan for health care, he said, as he always does, that he wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with something 'much better.' Then he says (and this is a direct quote from the debate transcript): 'I want to keep pre-existing conditions. I think we need it. I think it�s a modern age. And I think we have to have it.' This is gibberish, especially the explanation that 'I think it�s a modern age,' which may have some meaning but I can�t imagine what.

In addition, in the most recent debate, Mr Trump did emphasize that he wanted insurance companies to be able to sell policies across state lines, although his wording was not so clear,

That weird and confusing phrasing � about 'getting rid of the lines around the states,' which Rubio mocked � as best as anyone can tell means that Trump wants national health insurers to be able to offer standardized plans all over the country, instead of having to meet the particular standards and requirements imposed by individual states. Different states require different things of health insurers, which prevents national firms from offering plans in all states.

As the article noted, this is not a new idea, and how much difference this change would make is not clear. Nonetheless, even after being badgered repeatedly, Mr Trump could not add more substance to his health care plan, nor explain how he might get more substance.

With Rubio pressing in and badgering Trump from the sidelines � the same way Rubio was badgered a few weeks ago by Chris Christie and the way Trump often badgers other candidates � and with CNN�s Dana Bash following up, Trump said his three things: Repeal Obamacare and replace it with something much better, get rid of the lines around the states, and don�t let people die in streets. I always assumed that there was more to his plan, but I never came across the details. And, during the exchange Thursday night, it came out that there is no more. Here�s that chunk of the transcript so you can decide for yourself if I�m missing something. (I�ve done a tiny bit of editing for flow.)[italics added for emphasis- Ed]

BASH: Mr. Trump, Senator Rubio just said that you support the individual mandate. Would you respond?

TRUMP: I just want to say, I agree with that 100 percent, except pre-existing conditions, I would absolutely get rid of Obamacare. We�re going to have something much better, but pre-existing conditions, when I�m referring to that, and I was referring to that very strongly on the show with Anderson Cooper, I want to keep pre-existing conditions. I think we need it. I think it�s a modern age. And I think we have to have it. (APPLAUSE)

BASH: OK, so let�s talk about pre-existing conditions. What the insurance companies say is that the only way that they can cover people [who have pre-existing conditions and would be more expensive to cover] is to have a mandate requiring everybody purchase health insurance. Are they wrong?

TRUMP: I think they�re wrong 100 percent. What we need � look, the insurance companies take care of the politicians. The insurance companies get what they want. We should have gotten rid of the lines around each state so we can have real competition. We thought that was gone, we thought those lines were going to be gone, so something happened at the last moment where Obamacare got approved, and all of that was thrown out the window.

The reason is some of the people in the audience are insurance people and insurance lobbyists and special interests. They got � I�m not going to point to these gentlemen, of course, they�re part of the problem, other than Ben [Carson], in all fairness. And, actually, the governor [John Kasich], too. Let�s just talk about these two, OK? Because I don�t think the governor had too much to do with this.

But, we should have gotten rid of the borders, we should have gotten rid of the lines around the states so there�s great competition. The insurance companies are making a fortune on every single thing they do. I�m self-funding my campaign. I�m the only one in either party self-funding my campaign. I�m going to do what�s right. We have to get rid of the lines around the states so that there�s serious, serious competition. And you�re going to see � excuse me. You�re going to see pre-existing conditions and everything else be part of it, but the price will be down, and the insurance companies can pay. Right now they�re making a fortune. (APPLAUSE)

BASH: But just to be specific here, what you�re saying is getting rid of the barriers between states, that is going to solve the problem...

TRUMP: That�s going to solve the problem. And the insurance companies are going to say that they want to keep it. They want to say � they say whatever they have to say to keep it the way it is. I know the insurance companies, they�re friends of mine. The top guys, they�re friends of mine. I shouldn�t tell you guys, you�ll say it�s terrible, I have a conflict of interest. They�re friends of mine, there�s some right in the audience. One of them was just waving to me, he was laughing and smiling. He�s not laughing so much anymore. Hi.
Look, the insurance companies are making an absolute fortune. Yes, they will keep pre-existing conditions, and that would be a great thing. Get rid of Obamacare, we�ll come up with new plans. But we should keep pre-existing conditions.

RUBIO: Dana, I was mentioned in his response, so if I may about the insurance companies...

BASH: Go ahead.

RUBIO: You may not be aware of this, Donald, because you don�t follow this stuff very closely, but here�s what happened. When they passed Obamacare they put a bailout fund in Obamacare. All these lobbyists you keep talking about, they put a bailout fund in the law that would allow public money to be used, taxpayer money, to bail out companies when they lost money. And we led the effort and wiped out that bailout fund. The insurance companies are not in favor of me, they hate that. They�re suing right now to get that bailout money put back in.

Here�s what you didn�t hear in that answer, and this is important, guys, this is an important thing. What is your plan? I understand the lines around the state, whatever that means. This is not a game where you draw maps...

TRUMP:...And you don�t know what it means?

RUBIO: What is your plan, Mr. Trump? What is your plan on health care?

TRUMP: You don�t know. The biggest problem...

RUBIO: ...What�s your plan?

TRUMP: ... You know, I watched him melt down two weeks ago with Chris Christie. I got to tell you, the biggest problem he�s got is he really doesn�t know about the lines. The biggest thing we�ve got, and the reason we�ve got no competition, is because we have lines around the state, and you have essentially....

RUBIO: ...You already mentioned that [inaudible] plan. I know what that is, but what else is part of your plan?...

TRUMP: ...You don�t know much...

RUBIO: ...So, you�re only thing is to get rid of the lines around the states. What else is part of your health-care plan?...

TRUMP: ...The lines around the states...

RUBIO: ...That�s your only plan...

TRUMP ... Excuse me. Excuse me.

RUBIO: ... His plan. That was the plan?...

TRUMP:...You get rid of the lines, it brings in competition. So, instead of having one insurance company taking care of New York or Texas, you�ll have many. They�ll compete, and it�ll be a beautiful thing.

RUBIO: Alright...So that�s the only part of the plan? Just the lines?

TRUMP: The nice part of the plan � you�ll have many different plans. You�ll have competition, you�ll have so many different plans.

RUBIO: Now he�s repeating himself.

TRUMP: No, no, no. I watched him repeat himself five times four weeks ago...

RUBIO:... I just watched you repeat yourself five times five seconds ago...

TRUMP: I watched him meltdown on the stage like that, I�ve never seen it in anybody...

BASH:...Let�s stay focused on the subject...

TRUMP:...I thought he came out of the swimming pool...

RUBIO:...I see him repeat himself every night, he says five things: Everyone�s dumb, he�s gonna make America great again...We�re going to win, win win. He�s winning in the polls...And the lines around the state. (APPLAUSE)

BASH: Senator Rubio, you will have time to respond if you would just let Mr. Trump respond to what you�ve just posed to him...

RUBIO: ... Yeah, he�s going to give us his plan now, right? OK...

BASH [to Trump]:...If you could talk a little bit more about your plan. I know you talked about...Can you be a little specific?...

TRUMP: ... We�re going to have many different plans because... competition...

RUBIO: ... He�s done it again.

TRUMP: There is going to be competition among all of the states, and the insurance companies. They�re going to have many, many different plans.

BASH: Is there anything else you would like to add to that...

TRUMP: No, there�s nothing to add. What is to add?

After being repeatedly asked about the substance of his health care policy agenda, Mr Trump only seems to have repeated the notion of selling health insurance across state lines to increase competition, interrupted by non sequiturs insulting Senator Rubio and insurance executives.  The Minnesota Post writer and I could find absolutely no other content in Mr Trump's , despite repeated inquiries about the substance of his health care plan.

It does seem reasonable to describe Mr Trump's health care policy ideas as gibberish.

Summary 

Health care and public health affect all Americans, and all people around the world.  Health care in the US is more expensive and less accessible than it is in many other developed countries.  For all the money the country spends, there is no clear evidence that the quality of patient care, or patients' outcomes are better than, or sometimes even comparable to those of other countries  The reforms embodied in the Affordable Care Act (ACA, PPACA, "Obamacare') have increased the proportion of insured patients, but insurance remains expensive for many, and insurance coverage now often has major gaps that mean a major illness can bankrupt a middle-class patient.

Furthermore, the law has done nothing to reduce concentration of power in health care.  It has done nothing to make health care leaders more accountable, especially for their organization's unethical or even criminal behavior, decrease their ability to line their pockets regardless of such behavior, and thus reduce their impunity.  It will not obviously decrease conflicts of interest affecting those who make decisions about patient care or health policy, lock the revolving door between government and the health care industry, end manipulation of clinical research to serve vested interests, or suppression of research whose results offend such interests, etc, etc.

So health care policy is increasingly important, and increasingly demands serious discussion.  A US presidential campaign ought to provide some impetus for such discussion, although health care policy is certainly not the only thing that needs to be discussed.

Most presidential candidates have at least attempted a serious discussion of health policy, if not in person, then in position papers or on their web-sites.

However, the currently leading candidate for the Republican nomination does not seem to have serious ideas about health care. Yet he has said "We�re going to come up with a great healthcare plan."  To substantiate such claims, he has repeated a few vague talking points, and when challenged, seems unable to manage any substantive conversation beyond them.  Some of his verbal pronouncements have been nothing short of ridiculous.  

"in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility...." said a 20th century world leader who inspired adulation, and led to disaster.  

We live in perilous times when a candidate with such reckless approaches to critical problems continues to attract adulation.

ADDENDUM (29 February, 2016) - This post was republished on the Naked Capitalism blog on February 28, 2016.  

ADDENDUM (1 March, 2016) - This post was republished on OpEdNews on February 29, 2016.