How to Enforce Health Laws

How to Enforce Health Laws

https://www.daily-remedy.com/how-to-enforce-health-laws/

Entrepreneurs will tell you success is in the execution. Anyone can come up with an idea, but the execution of it separates the pretenders from the real empire builders.

The same goes for many healthcare laws, which have undergone radical revisions in recent weeks. The laws may have changed, but enforcing those changes will be particularly difficult.

Healthcare laws rely heavily on tips and expert witnesses – meaning healthcare self-regulates. When RaDonda Vaught was indicted because of a fatal medical error, the prosecutors brought a slew of expert witnesses to testify the medical error rose to the level of being a crime.

There is no legal argument for healthcare behavior to be considered a crime or worthy of legal liability – civil or otherwise. There is no standard legal theory or method of adjudication. It comes down to medical experts and witnesses. It comes down to self-regulation.

When a physician makes a mistake, it is reported by someone to the medical licensing board or state attorney general’s office. That office then initiates an investigation, gathering experts and witnesses to testify against that physician. Sanctions against that physician essentially depend on the interpretation of others. If other medical professionals believe that person committed a crime, then he or she did.

In this way, healthcare is only bound by the laws it chooses to adhere to. If a law is medically unjust, healthcare can effectively nullify it by standing in solidarity against it. The only problem is in healthcare, we lack such unity.

We have no shortage of healthcare providers clamoring to be expert witnesses or to showcase their charisma on media outlets. It is endemic to the field. But the same physician or nurse seeking personal glory is the one who will testify against a colleague in the court of law.

No other profession behaves like this. Law enforcement has immense union protections for its members to where officers cited for multiple misconduct violations can continue to work in that department. Federal agencies place immense stigma against those who whistle-blow or testify against former associates, even in cases of legitimate federal misconduct – and good luck getting any lawyer to testify against another one of its own kind.

Yet healthcare has no shortage of expert witnesses and purported legal experts. No shortage of professionals willing to bend medical data or interpret medical information a certain way to justify a given legal stance.

As a result, we see opioid litigation essentially boiling down to testimonies from competing expert witnesses. It is professional cannibalism. No one wins when litigation outcomes distill down to different interpretations of clinical knowledge.

It is time we protect the integrity of healthcare by demonstrating a sense of solidarity.

Healthcare has always been and will always continue to be, a self-regulating entity. No law can change the standard of care in medicine so long as those practicing medicine adhere to good patient care. We in healthcare define what it means.

So instead of fighting non-clinically trained politicians or law-makers for the healthcare laws they enact, healthcare should unify in a stance of noncompliance. Agree not to comply with laws intended to subjugate healthcare to the political whims of lawmakers.

It requires physicians and nurses to put the common good of healthcare over individual self-interests. We would hope this is why most entered healthcare in the first place.

But hope is not a strategy. We have yet to see individuals in healthcare sacrifice for the common good when it comes to healthcare regulations and uphold a sense of solidarity.

Let us call it for what it is. It is time to end snitch culture in healthcare.

 

State AG Perspective: Exposing the Truth – as attorneys understand the pharmaceutical industry

State AG Perspective: Exposing the Truth

https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/blog/

Guest post by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella, New York Attorney General Letitia James, North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, and Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares

Today’s disclosure of more than a million documents from Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, one of the country’s most prolific opioid sellers, is an important step to expose the truth and prevent a manmade crisis like the opioid epidemic from ever happening again.

Drug companies profited by pushing dangerous prescription opioids, and Americans have become the biggest users of opioids in the world. Communities across our nation suffered the consequences as a result: addiction, overdose, and death.

Families most impacted by the crisis have led the way in advocating for justice. Parents whose own children died because of the opioid crisis have dedicated years of their lives to protect others. They demanded that lawbreakers be held accountable, failed systems be reformed, and urgent investments be made for harm reduction, treatment, recovery, and prevention.

State Attorneys General heard the calls for action and acted. Working together, across party lines and across the nation, our teams conducted a searching investigation of illegal conduct throughout the opioid industry. We filed lawsuits and won verdicts from judges and juries, forcing companies to pay tens of billions of dollars that will be dedicated to address the crisis.

An essential part of justice is exposing the truth. Our teams pursued that truth for years. Our efforts resulted in the public disclosure of millions of documents and of the critical facts revealed by witnesses ranging from drug sales reps to company presidents.

We rejected the companies’ attempts to keep the evidence sealed, or to hand it back to the perpetrators. Instead, we posted it online.

For the first time in a generation, since the landmark tobacco cases, an industry’s secrets are being turned over to the public. Under orders entered by courts throughout the nation, millions of opioid industry documents will be posted in a free public archive, in perpetuity.

The families who suffered in this crisis will be able to see for themselves the evidence that we uncovered – the company emails, board minutes, and business plans that changed so many lives.

Journalists, filmmakers, artists, and scholars will tell the story of this epidemic using the real words and actions of the people who drove the opioid business.

Policymakers throughout the country will be informed by what went wrong.

Executives, directors, and employees in every industry will know that, if they break the law and endanger the public, the whole world may see what they did.

Today is a step toward justice. We are grateful to the advocates who demanded action in the face of a devastating crisis, to our staff who work every day to serve the public, and to the archivists at the University of California San Francisco and Johns Hopkins who will preserve this evidence for the public good.

FAILURE: the government’s ability to deal with opiate abuse and OD’s for the last CENTURY PLUS

This showed up in my inbox today.  This letter was dated before the CDC 2016 guidelines were published. We really don’t know when those guidelines were actually created… since there was NO PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.  According to the date on this letter,  at least the 6 members of the House of Representatives that signed this letter was aware the guidelines were in the early stage of being composed or already finished. I wonder if some of the questions that were asked were ever answered ? Notice that the six signatures at the bottom of the letter is three from each political party.  Of course, the head of the CDC Thomas Frieden knew his years at the agency were most likely numbered.  Pres Obama was “tapped out” and could not run for reelection and we would have a new president in Jan 2017 and he would be looking for a new job.  The CDC amended their name in 1992 with the permission of Congress https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00017924.htm and since the 2016 guidelines per published… the OD’s from opiates – mostly illegal fentanyl from China/Mexico – has jumped several fold.  While the CDC tracks the number of OD’s involving opiates… there seems to be little/no data kept on chronic pain pts that have died prematurely from complication of their existing comorbidity health issues from having their opiates reduced/eliminated because of the CDC 2016 guidelines, or chronic pain pts suicides that were reported as a opiate OD’s because their toxicology showed a opiate… I guess just like the DEA has been a 50 yr failure in the war on drugs, the CDC seems to be following down the same path as a failure in the PREVENTION of opiate abuse, hell… they were not even able to PREVENT the increase in opiate abuse & OD’s.



Best Documentary Film

Image

Winner ! Best documentary film March 2022 .
A film by Toronto filmmakers Tina Petrova and Eugene Weis – Pain Warriors. Now streaming on Amazon

Did Fauci and Collins Collect Big Pharma Royalties?

Did Fauci and Collins Collect Big Pharma Royalties?

https://patriotpost.us/articles/88360-did-fauci-and-collins-collect-big-pharma-royalties-2022-05-16

Records show that NIH researchers received over $350 million in royalty payments from 2010 to 2020

A newly acquired Freedom of Information Act request report reveals that from 2010 to 2020, individuals at the National Institutes of Health received an awful lot of money in royalty payments from third-party payers, likely pharmaceutical companies. How much money? The FIOA report, obtained by the nonprofit government watchdog group Open the Books, found that “between fiscal years 2010 and 2020, more than $350 million in royalties were paid by third-parties to the agency and NIH scientists — who are credited as co-inventors.”

The report further observes, “Because those payments enrich the agency and its scientists, each and every royalty payment could be a potential conflict of interest and needs disclosure.”

Exactly who at NIH received royalties and who paid those royalties remains a mystery, given that the documents received from NIH were heavily redacted. The information that was available notes the total number of NIH scientists and the total aggregate royalty payments NIH received.

The report noted that the agency’s top officials did indeed receive royalty payments, but the total amount and the source of those royalty payments remains hidden. What is known is that former NIH Director Francis Collins as well as Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), received royalty payments.

The revelation brings up an obvious conflict of interest question. Without knowing exactly what drug company was paying the royalties, it’s difficult to answer that question, but at the very least there is certainly the appearance of impropriety. Making matters worse is the fact that both Fauci and Collins went out of their way during the pandemic to promote certain narratives, like support of vaccine and masking mandates, while at the same time stifling legitimate inquires, such as the lab leak theory.

If it is learned that any of the pharmaceutical companies that produced COVID vaccines — companies like Pfizer, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson — were making royalty payments to Fauci or Collins or both, that would present a significant breach of trust.

But it could go even deeper. Should any company with roots in China be discovered to have been making payments to NIH leadership, that might also go a long way to explaining the reason why Collins in particular was so adamant in his downplaying of the lab-leak theory.

More light needs to be shined on this, and NIH needs to disclose who was paid and by whom. The officials need to be held to account and not be allowed to hide behind a mountain of bureaucratic obfuscation.

 

Monkeypox… or just old MONKEY BUSINESS ?

No alternative text description for this image
Crane Stephen Landis, MBA, JD

So… the ONLY thing that has been reported through the Mainstream Media is that a small number of cases have been found in the US – which is somewhat a new phenomenon, since it’s disease usually limited to Africa. Additionally, those few cases seem to be of some concern, because none of those cases are found in people who have traveled to Africa.

NO ONE IS SOUNDING ANY ALARM. At all. No one. Not the CDC or NIH or even the US Government. And certainly not the Media.

So, why the bullshit conspiracy crap?

Because it’s all a big HOAX? The small number of people who apparently have it, don’t? Seriously?

That’s right… THE EVIL GOVERNMENT IS AFTER YOU!

Just like the Lizard People walking among us. Or the Jewish Cabal – no doubt lead by George Soros – and libertards who are bringing Brown and Black immigrants to replace White Americans and take over the Vote. All while operating Space Lasers and covertly running the world’s banking system. Right?

Good God.

If you’re so worried about mayhem, stop causing it. Such idiocy.

undiagnosed/untreated mental health can kill people, including 50K suicides and 1 Mil attempts

Is Pot Really Safe? Tales From the ER. An Interview with Dr. Roneet Lev

Is Pot Really Safe? Tales From the ER. An Interview with Dr. Roneet Lev

https://www.acsh.org/news/2022/05/26/pot-really-safe-tales-er-interview-dr-roneet-lev-16315

Marijuana is being decriminalized across the US. Most are celebrating, but there is a real (and sometimes serious) public health threat that tags along. Most of you will be unaware of what you’re about to read. Dr. Roneet Lev, the former head of the Scripps Mercy Hospital emergency department and also an addiction specialist shares some eye-opening information in the following interview.

I’ve been interviewed numerous times about the colossal mess we call the “opioid crisis,” so when Dr. Roneet Lev, who runs the High Truths website, asked me to do a podcast I figured it would be much of the same. It wasn’t. Dr. Lev is not only a specialist in addiction (a real one, unlike some of the dilettantes making the rounds) but is also a clinician – the head of the Emergency Department at Scripps Mercy Hospital in San Diego. Additionally, she was also the first Chief Medical Officer of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. 

During the interview, I learned that Dr. Lev is also an expert in marijuana addiction. (Yes, you heard that right.) Given the sea change in recreational drug use as marijuana becomes decriminalized and the profound difference in marijuana potency, compared to that of a generation ago, the drug is now more of a public health issue than ever. ACSH is very fortunate that Dr. Lev generously agreed to work with us to help convey that marijuana has a dark side that its proponents rarely discuss. She knows; she sees it every day,

JB: Dr. Lev, thanks very much for taking some of your valuable time to share your expertise with us.

RL: It’s my pleasure, and I’d also like to thank you for discussing opioids on my High Truths on Drugs and Addiction podcast.

JB: Speaking of opioids, it’s a bit ironic that as anti-opioid fever continues to rage in the US, making it difficult for legitimate pain patients to get their medications, marijuana, which has questionable medical utility, now gets a free pass just about everywhere. What are your thoughts about this? 

RL: My sympathies to the many people with chronic pain who have been unfairly cut off opioids without humane weaning or alternatives. I have spoken to family members whose loved ones were driven to suicide because of abrupt opioid withdrawal.  And it’s not just patients that have suffered in today’s climate. Lawsuits, threats to medical licenses, publicized law enforcement investigations, and vigilant government monitoring have scared the medical community from overprescribing to under-prescribing. There are agencies that have blood on their hands for their action.

JB: What is your philosophy regarding prescribing powerful drugs?

RL: I promote the Goldilocks method of prescribing: not too much, not too little, but just right. While denial of opioid pain medications to patients who truly need them is tragic, just as tragic is that the marijuana industry preys on people with chronic pain and leads them from opioids to pot. It is medically safer to take regulated and prescribed opioids such as hydrocodone or oxycodone under a doctor’s supervision than unregulated high-dose THC products with various contaminants and adulterants.

This is worth repeating:

It is medically safer to take regulated and prescribed opioids such as hydrocodone or oxycodone under a doctor’s supervision than unregulated high dose THC products with various contaminants and adulterants.

Roneet Lev, M.D.

To clarify definitions, cannabis refers to all products from the Cannabis sativa plant. THC is the most common psychoactive chemical. CBD (cannabinoid) is another common component of the plant. Marijuana refers to parts or products from the plant that contains substantial THC. The medical literature uses both cannabis and marijuana interchangeably, so I do as well.

I agree with your irony assessment. Opioids, FDA-approved medications, have many barriers. Cannabis products, which have no FDA approval have been declared a medicine, but without the science. As a physician, I must follow the standard of care before I prescribe any medication. I obtain a medical history, check vital signs, ask about other medications, and allergies, and perform a physical exam. My license would be in jeopardy without keeping medical records. Non-health professionals can recommend high potency cannabis products with significant health risks without following medical standards and with little accountability.

JB: Most people I speak with are astounded to find out that Emergency Department visits for marijuana overdoses are not rare. In fact, they’re rather common. How frequently do you see overdoses at your hospital?

 RL: Every shift I take care of marijuana poisoning. Every emergency department in America treats cannabis-related illnesses every day. I don’t refer to it as “marijuana overdose” because people think of an opioid overdose where someone stops breathing and almost dies. Instead, I refer to the cases as cannabis poisoning, an adverse event due to cannabis.

JB: Can you describe the symptoms of cannabis poisoning?

RL: The list of cannabis-related illnesses is long. The two most common symptoms are cannabis hyperemesis syndrome and cannabis-induced psychosis.

Cannabis Hyperemesis Syndrome (CHS) is associated with long-term cannabis use, typically of the smoked product. The symptoms of CHS have been described as “scromiting”, screaming and vomiting. There are reported deaths with CHS caused by electrolyte imbalance. The problem is caused by the inundation of the cannabinoid receptors by THC over a long period of time causing the neurons to act irradicably. 

Cannabis-induced psychosis is also common. THC is lipophilic, meaning it is absorbed by fat, and the brain is a fatty organ. The greatest problem in emergency departments across the nation is the increase in the volume of mental health emergencies. The issue is exacerbated due to the lack of mental health beds. We have patients who live in our emergency department for weeks waiting for placement. Some of them have cannabis-induced psychosis.

JB: How do you treat these conditions?

RL: THC and CBD do not have an antidote. Opioids are unique because of the availability of an overdose reversal agent, naloxone. Most other drugs, including cannabis products, cannot be reversed.

Patients simply need to wait until the cannabis is metabolized and removed from the body. That can take hours and sometimes days. In emergency cases, we direct our efforts to treat symptoms. Psychosis can be treated with antipsychotic medications. Blood pressure, fast heart, nausea, and vomiting can also be treated.  

JB: Con you compare this to what you observed five years ago? How about 15 years ago?

RL: When I started my career as an emergency doctor in the 1990s, I never saw cases of cannabis poisoning; there was no such thing as cannabis hyperemesis syndrome. Marijuana in those days was just weed – low potency, 3% THC flower rolled in a joint or blunt. Today low potency weed is long gone – try finding a marijuana plant with less than 10% THC. If you walk into a present-day cannabis dispensary you’ll see the new world order of dabs, shatters, oils, concentrates, vapes, sodas, candies, suppositories – seemingly endless possibilities. The high potency THC products behave more like a stimulant such as methamphetamine, a hard drug.

Data from 2019 in San Diego showed 13,525 primary and secondary diagnoses of marijuana-related emergency department visits, or 37 cases a day. In 2014 there were 10,302 and in 2006 there were 1,108. California emergency department visits for cannabis rose 53% between 2016 and 2019. That’s a steep trajectory (1).

Graph created using Canva

JB: It is well known that the concentration of psychotropic chemicals, particularly the dozens of cannabinoids in the plant, is far higher than in marijuana a generation ago. But the availability of marijuana is also far greater. Which of these factors do you consider to be more relevant to the two factors?

 RL: Both factors are important – potency and availability. I treat a lot of patients with methamphetamine poisoning. We studied 150 consecutive urine drug screens from our emergency department and 76% were positive for methamphetamine. Meth is cheap to make and purchase, readily flows across the Mexican border to San Diego, and the manufacturing method produces a purer chemical. The devastation to our population is caused by purity (potency) and availability.

Similarly, cannabis products are ever more available and the products are more potent. In the same emergency department drug surveillance study, 50% of drug screens were positive for THC. 

JB: You’re clearly not a big fan of unrestricted use of marijuana. What will be the negative fallout from the enormous experiment that is now underway? 

RL: I wouldn’t describe my views on marijuana as being a fan or not a fan. I want the public to make informed decisions. If people drink alcohol, they understand the risk of addiction, liver disease, and drunk driving. If people smoke cigarettes they know the risk of addiction, lung cancer, and emphysema. The opioid risks are well known. What makes marijuana different is that the risks are being hidden and denied.

JB: Most people will look at you like you’re insane if you suggest that marijuana is addictive. What would you say to them now?

I would tell people to follow the science. Cannabis use disorder or addiction is defined using the same DSM V 11-point criteria as alcohol use disorder or opioid use disorder. Approximately 1 in 10 people who use marijuana will become addicted. If starting before age 18, the rate of addiction rises to 1 in 6.

Cannabis withdrawal is reported in up to 30% of regular users and in 50-90% of heavy users. Many cannabis users do not believe they suffer from withdrawal until they understand that the symptoms of cannabis withdrawal are different than alcohol or opioid withdrawal. The common symptoms of cannabis withdrawal are irritability, anxiety, insomnia, and headache, and significant cravings for marijuana. Typically, these symptoms last for about 2 weeks after cessation.

 JB: It was ridiculous to imprison people for possessing small amounts of marijuana for personal use, so decriminalization makes quite a bit of sense. But have we gone too far? What policy makes the most sense to you?

RL: I agree along with most Americans that marijuana should be decriminalization. But the savvy Marijuana Industry has used the popular decriminalization stance and extended it to legalization for both recreational and medical use. It is now openly promoting high potency THC products.

There are different philosophies on drugs. Some support legalizing all drugs – cocaine, methamphetamine, and illicit fentanyl. I support a public health approach, especially one that protects our youth and allows for transparency and informed consumers.

Current legalization has gone too far because it has grown with little regulation. There is no deterrence or consequences for making false health claims or selling high potency products. There is no childproof packaging for babies.  There is little consequence for prompting products to youth. Why does the world need Wheetos that look like Cheetos and send babies to the emergency room?

Smart policy would be to follow the science. We have a duty as a society to protect our youth and most vulnerable. All drugs that can be addicting should be avoided until the brain completes myelination and synaptic pruning. Adults should be aware of the various medical risks and make informed decisions.

JB: Are there known issues using marijuana with other medications? 

Yes. Both THC and CBD are metabolized by the cytochrome P450 system and therefore may interact with many medications – over 300 for THC and over 500 for CBD. There are many pain medications and psychiatric medications that cause drug interactions with cannabis.

For example, I treated a man who was admitted three times to the hospital with internal bleeding. Each time he received blood transfusions and endoscopies evaluate a source of bleeding. On his third visit I asked him about drug use. He admitted to being a regular cannabis user with no problems. The problem was that he was on a blood thinner for her heart stents. The cannabis interacted with his blood thinner and was causing bleeding that could have been fatal.

I encourage people to use the Drugs.com medication interaction checker.  Enter cannabis for THC or cannabidiol of CBD and check your medications for interactions.

————————————————————————————–

I would like once again to thank Dr. Lev for her time and also the extremely valuable information that will probably surprise many of our readers. Additionally, we will publish two more articles on this topic that delve more deeply into the science and medicine of this important topic.

NOTE:

(1) It is difficult to distinguish whether marijuana poisoning was the primary or secondary diagnosis for an emergency room visit, which can affect the numbers. Dr. Lev explains: “There are very few cannabis ICD-10 codes, for example, there is no ICD-10 code for cannabis hyperemesis syndrome or cannabis induced psychosis. Therefore primary diagnoses are for typical symptoms such as vomiting, psychosis, or chest pain. Secondary, or subsequent diagnosis can include cannabis.  Given this methodology, cannabis diagnoses are underestimated.”

 

Is how the DEA enforces the CSA… in violation of this federal law ?

Currently there is a case before SCOTUS Ruan v. United States

that is trying to resolve this Issue: Whether a physician alleged to have prescribed controlled substances outside the usual course of professional practice may be convicted of unlawful distribution under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) without regard to whether, in good faith, he “reasonably believed” or “subjectively intended” that his prescriptions fall within that course of professional practice.

Within the Controlled Substance Act (CSA), it is illegal for a person to obtain a controlled substance without a valid medical reason. Historically, the DEA tried to trace back a OD/dead body back to a prescriber, didn’t seem to matter that the person that OD had not be seen by the prescriber for up to a year OR MORE.  The DEA charged the prescriber for prescribing opiates for someone without a valid medical necessity. Opiate Rxs peaked in 2011-2012 and they have been reduced by abt 60% since then.  Apparently “dead bodies’ that could be attached to a prescriber and opiate Rx, the DEA shifted to doing data search of those prescribers who were “believed” to be prescribing opiates for non-medical reasons.  The DEA – apparently to justify their conclusion – would publish how many doses of opiates – typically in millions – over a period of time – typically YEARS – and how many pts – typically in thousands…the prescriber had prescribed.

People – like me – would reverse engineer the numbers the DEA provided and in many instances … it would calculate that the “average pt” may have received a SINGLE DOSE every DAY OR TWO and I would share my findings on my blog and other places on the internet.

Over recent years, I have not seen any person that the DEA claimed the prescriber was providing opiates to that did not have a valid medical necessity getting arrested and sent to jail.  There have been rumors over the years, that the DEA would find a “bogus pt” in a particular practice and promise that person a free “get out of jail card” if they testify against the prescriber precisely what the DEA wants to be said under oath when the DEA takes the prescriber to Federal court.

Of course, the DEA is mostly interested in using the Civil Asset Forfeiture Act to confiscate all the prescriber’s assets.  So the prescriber has no income and no assets and the DEA has GROSSLY OVER CHARGED the prescriber, so going to trial with a public defender and facing so many years that a guilty verdict would pretty much means a LIFE SENTENCE… so the prescriber has no choice but to plead guilty to a SINGLE CHARGE and 20 yrs in jail and the bogus pt doesn’t have to perjure themself at trial and can’t admit to what they have done.

And all those legit pts in the prescriber’s practice is left “out in the cold”, because no other practice who wants to take a chance of accepting one of those pts from a “dirty practice” into their practice. Is the manner in which the DEA is enforcing the CSA, actually interfering with those pt’s medical care?

If you notice, 42 USC 1395 was added to our FEDERAL LAW in 1965 – FIVE YEARS before the CSA was signed into law and EIGHT YEARS before the DEA was created to enforce the CSA. Does this suggest that the Congress that passed the CSA and was signed into law by Pres “Tricky Dick” Nixon was technically signing into law a unconstitutional bill ?

42 USC 1395: Prohibition against any Federal interference

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:42%20section:1395%20edition:prelim)

From Title 42-THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 7-SOCIAL SECURITY SUBCHAPTER XVIII-HEALTH INSURANCE FOR AGED AND DISABLED

§1395. Prohibition against any Federal interference

Nothing in this sub chapter shall be construed to authorize any Federal officer or employee to exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine or the manner in which medical services are provided, or over the selection, tenure, or compensation of any officer or employee of any institution, agency, or person providing health services; or to exercise any supervision or control over the administration or operation of any such institution, agency, or person.

(Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title XVIII, §1801, as added Pub. L. 89–97, title I, §102(a), July 30, 1965, 79 Stat. 291 .)


Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

Short Title

For short title of title I of Pub. L. 89–97, which enacted this subchapter as the “Health Insurance for the Aged Act”, see section 100 of Pub. L. 89–97, set out as a Short Title of 1965 Amendment note under section 1305 of this title.

Protecting and Improving Guaranteed Medicare Benefits

Pub. L. 111–148, title III, §3601, Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 538 , provided that:

“(a) Protecting Guaranteed Medicare Benefits.-Nothing in the provisions of, or amendments made by, this Act [see Short Title note set out under section 18001 of this title] shall result in a reduction of guaranteed benefits under title XVIII of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.].

“(b) Ensuring That Medicare Savings Benefit the Medicare Program and Medicare Beneficiaries.-Savings generated for the Medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act under the provisions of, and amendments made by, this Act shall extend the solvency of the Medicare trust funds, reduce Medicare premiums and other cost-sharing for beneficiaries, and improve or expand guaranteed Medicare benefits and protect access to Medicare providers.”

Medicine & Law Cannot Get Along

Medicine & Law Cannot Get Along

https://www.daily-remedy.com/medicine-law-cannot-get-along/

We see a growing discrepancy between what most Americans understand healthcare to be, and what forms the philosophical basis of the Constitution. It leads to riots on the streets and vitriolic policy debates, particularly for polarizing healthcare issues.

The problem is neither side is entirely wrong. Regardless of whether the issue may be vaping, abortions, or prescription opioids, most are complex enough to justify nearly any stance. This is because healthcare and the Constitution as we currently interpret it are fundamentally incompatible.

“In Europe, the charters of liberty have been granted by power; America has set the example of charters of power granted by liberty”, said Founding Father and fourth President, James Madison. He was talking about the nature of rights in the then nascent United States.

Rather than a government giving rights to its people, the United States would assume that all Americans had pre-existing, unalienable rights “endowed by their Creator” and the American government would merely restrict certain rights in the name of public good.

Political scientists call these negative rights. In contrast, positive rights provide something or assume some obligation from the government to its people. Needless to say, healthcare as we understand it is derived from positive rights.

The problem is the Constitution is written to align philosophically with negative rights. The right to bear arms is considered an unalienable right, so the Constitution cannot restrict that right from people. Abortion was outlawed by English Common Law, so the writers of the Constitution, referencing Common Law, never saw abortion as an unalienable right.

This is why you hear so many anti-abortion policy wonks claim the Constitution never guaranteed the right to an abortion or assumes any provisions in protecting that right. They understand the Constitution is based on negative rights, restricting rights already assumed innate to all peoples.

To then turn around and claim that abortion should be protected violates the ethos of the Constitution and of the Common Law precedent that serves as the conceptual basis for it.

So who is right and who is wrong? Are those who steadfastly heed to the negative rights principle of the Constitution right? Or is it that those who intimately understand the modern socioeconomic constraints driving women toward abortions?

Attributing binary labels of right or wrong to any stance on a healthcare issue has proven to be counterintuitive at best. What would make more sense is analyzing how we can integrate positive rights beliefs underlying healthcare with a legal framework based on negative rights. In other words, how can we integrate healthcare into the framework of the Constitution?

There are two methods. The first is to concretely define the unalienable rights that constitute healthcare. European philosopher Henri Frederic Amiel wrote: “In health there is freedom. Health is the first of all liberties.” So conceivably, we would categorize healthcare as a liberty to be further elaborated, or enumerated, to use the most Constitution-friendly terms.

The problem with this approach is that we are already doing it. We ceaselessly chase our own tails arguing preconceived stances that we already believe. Some will say the right to pain relief is a fundamental liberty. Others will say the right to life, in all instances of life, is true liberty. We moralize our gut feelings through grandiose prose until our voices grow horse. And we continue to argue and bicker.

The second, and more reasonable, approach is to construct laws in an affirmative manner, which means laws balance rights afforded with commensurate responsibilities or obligations. We already have something like this, only we do not call it a law, we call it insurance. Health insurance policies balance medical risks with monthly premiums or deductible payouts.

Most insurance policies are already federally administered. The leap to extend this affirmative balance found in insurances to all aspects of healthcare would not be difficult. In fact, it would be quite logical.

Instead of issuing blanket restrictions on abortions, the right to the medical procedure would be determined by socioeconomic constraints, individual harms, and broader social benefits – and administer rights with responsibilities accordingly.

The Constitution has made provisions for such laws in the Fourteenth Amendment. Included within it are two core doctrines that serve as the basis for this type of law – Fundamental Fairness and Equal Protection of the Law.

These are abstract concepts, which have been formalized to enact laws like those that ushered in the Civil Rights Movement and fair immigration practices. Perhaps it is time we apply those concepts to healthcare.

So we can once and for all codify what we mean by rights in healthcare – not as a restriction, but as a balance.