Researchers Challenge Diabetes Guidelines

Now universities are promoting less care for the elderly. Yes, I know many of the elderly have memory problems and trouble with many medications. But to advocate that we not be cared for and die seems like advocating for death panels to rid them of troublesome patients.

When researchers for the University of Michigan make the statement, “Harm to quality of life outweighs benefits of treatment for older patients and those with negative feelings about side effects, burden of medication,” this not only harms patients with their words, but also shows that they could care less about the elderly.

What else they say shows their ignorance about diabetes. They claim that patients with type 2 diabetes that are over age 50 should not have frequent insulin shots because the side effects of weight gain trumps the benefits of drugs. Why can't they teach patients about cutting carbohydrates and how to exercise? All they can emphasize is insulin and how this harms patients. The fear of hypoglycemia rules their thinking.

As a person with type 2 diabetes and over 70 in years, this is an insult and says I should not be on insulin. Well, I intend to stay on insulin and these researchers can take a hike. The study by the University of Michigan Health System, the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, and University College London was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association Internal Medicine. They claim that for many, the benefits of taking diabetes medications are so small that they are outweighed by the minor hassles and risks.

I would like to know when the benefit of diabetes medications depended less on blood glucose and more on hassles. Yes, safety and side effects are important, but when these factors of hassles becomes all important, I think these researchers have their priorities scrambled.

To my way of thinking, these researchers are challenging the diabetes guidelines for the wrong reasons and because they are setting the age of 75 as their goal for people to have reduced treatment because of hassles seems very arbitrary and smacks of discrimination against the elderly. When our elders develop dementia and Alzheimer's disease, there needs to be concern and different guidance for treating them.

However, to pick an age of 75 and put a one-size-fits-all equation in place is not practical and basically says – let people over 75 die. This is discrimination of the worst type and researchers at universities are trying to set parameters on treatment of the elderly to help them die. Their tactics need to be recognized for what they are and opposed at every turn.

I suggest that the elderly that develop memory problems be seen by someone that can properly assess them and then be allowed to develop community assistance programs that would help them in their treatment and prevent the hassles those of the university say exist.

Physician-Assisted Suicide – For Real?

The election is over and we know what the vote result is in the Massachusetts vote on Physician-Assisted Suicide proposition 2. I may as well state now that I am not in favor of this proposition in any way, shape, or form. I am not a resident of Massachusetts, but this will possibly be on the ballot in other states in the years ahead and I feel it is necessary to speak out now.

It was narrowly defeated thank goodness. At least this will give other states pause for rushing this to a vote. Is the battle over? Don't count on it as there may be an appeal to the state supreme court and if the justices do like they have in some other states on other issues, it may be necessary to take it to the US Supreme Court to have the vote upheld.

This is one reason I am grateful to David Mendosa for using the words of Pastor Martin Niemöller in his blog, on page 2. I have been searching for this for many years and it sure fits this situation.

Pastor Martin Niemöller said it:

First, they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

One piece of information that I have not seen in the discussion is the crimes committed by unethical physicians and other medical personnel that take the lives of people that are ill and may or may not be near death. With these crimes happening, and physician-assisted suicide made legal, prosecuting these offenders will be made much more difficult, if not almost impossible.

The laws may be well crafted, but they may be sidestepped quite easily by those that are greedy and think this will limit continued rising healthcare costs. Under the current healthcare law, the incentives may be there for more physicians to practice euthanasia on a much larger scale rather than spend the money possibly to extend life. They will argue that quality of life was the deciding issue when in fact it may not be.

In a discussion, David Mendosa asked me to think about what many people do to their pets when the pet is seriously ill or near the end of life. Yes, I have had pets put down when they had a disease with no cure possible, but most of the time I let nature take its course. Animals are one thing, but when is comes to humans, several religions view human life as given by God and not to be taken by anyone including suicide. This seems like a conflict to many people and I will not argue the point. I am against medical personnel being able legally to assist suicide or having any right for euthanasia.

I will continue to speak out against physician-assisted suicide or medical euthanasia as practiced in many hospitals. Yes, I have said it, and know that many doctors and nurses practice medical euthanasia and report it as adverse events or often don't even report anything about it. Under the Affordable Care Act, hospitals will have monetary incentives to reduce medical costs – hence the medical euthanasia topic is on the table and will be practiced to reduce costs and reap the monetary rewards offered by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Hospitals Now Are More Monopolistic

Medical practice is nearing a crossroad and not the road everyone is talking about. This is the legal mess of monopolistic medicine that many patients are starting to wonder if this is in their best interest. While it is true that we will continue to need hospitals, the size and dictatorial power they will possess may not be in the best interest of medicine. A hospital monopoly combined with the insatiable appetite for profits may create problems in patient care with too many patients being ignored and euthanized to preserve the almighty profit.

Hospital CEOs will demand higher and higher salaries and bonuses and as such, it will become second nature to end life for patients needing care that is more expensive. This drain of financial expenditures will be unacceptable for these hospitals and we know what this will mean for the patient. If you want an example, read this article of what is being allowed in Britain. Follow the link provided for the chilling details. Don't wonder how or if this will happen in the USA, but be concerned about when.

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), the rising cost of medical care will become a priority and euthanasia will become a fact of everyday cost cutting.  When the ACA was first enacted, it was thought that physicians and hospital accountable care organizations (ACOs) would be approximately proportionate. I don't think the early prognosticators had counted on hospitals having almost the entire lock on ACOs. It is now speculated (unfortunately no official studies) that doctors were not creative enough and lacked leadership skills to organize ACOs. Hospitals were willing to seize the opportunity and take advantage of doctor indecision to hire a majority of doctors. Hospitals thereby garnered most doctors leaving too few capable of forming ACOs.

Up until June 28, 2012, there was more speculation than fact about what would happen to ACOs, but now we know which way the arrow is pointing. I suspect there will be many lawsuits trying to break the monopolies that hospitals will be creating. We have seen hospitals also merging and becoming larger and larger. Size and scale will create some savings, but not enough to make up for the increase in expenses and inefficiencies generated by bloated overhead and massive referrals internally.

In addition to the mandate to cut expenses (creating more euthanasia), we will soon see the medical insurance industry supporting euthanasia as a method of keeping their profits on the rise. These two profit minded organizations will be able to eliminate many costs but supporting each other and still have the financial ability to fight the lawsuits bound to happen for unwarranted euthanasia.

A study that is going to create some controversy around the country is this one. I am seeing some of this in my own community and surrounding communities and if people could read about this study, many might not be so happy. Yes, there is some need in Iowa's rural communities for better medical care, but are we really obtaining it. In many cases, much of this may go unnoticed because to the protection that is being given ACOs from antitrust and other benefits. The current administration is promoting the formation of ACOs and shielding them from antitrust laws.

The further I get into some of the new law and the discussions, blogs, and articles that I read, the more I have some real concerns about the impending abuse and fraud that will accompany the Accountable Care Organizations. I am now even more concerned because of the Supreme Courts action.

Because of all the concern being raised, we will have of course more abuse and fraud as the different departments, the Department of Human and Health Services, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Department of Justice, under the direction of the White House, have been and will be granting more waivers, safety zones, and guidance to providers.

It is unclear if the law, the Affordable Care Act provides for waivers and the legality of these waivers. An ACO, as defined by ACA, is an organization of health care providers that agrees to be accountable for the quality, cost, and overall care of Medicare patients for whom they provide the bulk of primary care services. With hospitals having all but eliminated private medical practice in some areas of the country, they will continue their efforts in the rest of the country.

Although I have seen no discussions yet on the independence of the different medical associations, if a majority of doctors are hospital employees, does it not seem reasonable that the hospitals will soon be making their agenda felt in the medical associations. I think we have seen this in the quick response of the American Diabetes Association to the Supreme Court decision.

I have pulled many different areas together for this blog. I am working on more now that the Supreme Court has ended the ambiguity.

What Is A Medicare Patient To Do?

With the mounting deficit and calls to curtail government spending, what is in store for Medicare and Medicaid patients? Will we see more healthcare rationing, more hospital supervised euthanasia, or will these patients be left where they are to suffer an undignified death? As a retired person on Medicare, I can believe all of this and more as our government forces euthanasia on the less fortunate.

Inhumane is a word that comes to mind. Just how far will all this be taken remains to be seen; however, I foresee some of our worst nightmares coming true as the medical community lobbies for higher and higher profit margins. I do not like raising these alarms, but as the saying goes, I do not want to be the only one left speaking out when they come for me.

Will the votes of the “baby-boom generation” and earlier generations be nullified by legislators that refuse to listen to their constituents? Judging by what the trend has been for the last few years, this seems likely to happen. Just because our federal legislators are insulated with extremely good medical care, they can look past those that have a need for medical care.

This article in Medscape points out how our medical community thinks. It points out how our physicians are willing to protect their profits. While I can believe a little of their needs, they seem most unwilling to consider any compromise and will stop seeing Medicare patients if congress does not give them what they want. They are laying out their intentions with a boldness unheard of before.

When 82% of the physicians say they will stop seeing new Medicare patients or severely limit access to existing Medicare patients, this cannot be a good thing for the patients.

While the Medscape article says nothing about the stance of hospitals, many of the physicians are employed by hospitals. It seems likely that the hospitals are in this as well

This is a warning to current and future Medicare patients about the future access to medical care – it is not going to be there for us, unless you are independently wealthy enough to pay your way.