PAs for Health Freedom

Source: Boston Globe, May 21 2008

Should the government have a monopoly on medical licensing?  In a recent ruling, the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine has disciplined a Cape Cod Physician for failing to renew her medical license while she continued to provide medical consultation (without prescribing medications) to other people.  While this doctor did sign a contract with the government saying she would not “practice medicine” (which is another topic of dissent for another day), at what point does “practicing medicine” cross the line to become “illegal”?  Why does the government insist on dictating what is good for us?  While I may not agree that alternative therapy is the most beneficial treatment for a condition, is it up to my government to tell others not to promote such remedies?  

Is this the government protecting me from “dangerous” people who “may” harm me, or is this the government protecting it’s monopoly by smacking the wrists of anyone, particularly anyone with an accredited medical degree, who dares give out medical advice?

Source: Boston Globe, March 26, 2008

In 2007 Massachusetts became the first state to pass a law requiring health insurance coverage by every citizen. It’s been less than two years since this legislation took effect, and already the state government is looking to cut costs which will allow it to provide more people with more care…..for today. As stated in the article, almost 350,000 people now have some form of coverage that they did not have before the law took effect. Of these, nearly half have been signed up for government sponsored care (medicaid, medicare, etc). So, the amount of money the state is spending on health care has of course drastically increased in a very short period of time.

Rather than re-thinking whether or not they are able to provide people with coverage, the governement is instead seeking a different, and unfortunately predictable, approach: cut the cost of health care. Nevermind controlling the number of people you have promised care to–instead seek to tamper with the market until it works to your advantage. Then when costs (and quality, as we’ve learned) are rock bottom there just might be enough capital to support the people you have promised coverage…for now. Nevermind that the mean and median ages of the state is growing older, or that there are still roughly 300,000 people who haven’t signed up for coverage yet (ie it’s likely there will be at least another 100,000 people seeking government sponsored care). Forget that new technologies cost more, often equate to better, more reliable care, and often cannot thrive in a government-controlled market. Fix the market, raise taxes on things that are “bad” for us, and milk the federal government for financial support appears to be all that they can come up with for solutions.

The most important statement in this article is the last sentence: “Nobody has to give much up to expand coverage, but in controlling cost there will always be losers.” Couldn’t agree more. It would be wise for a few lawmakers to look critically at what has happened to other nation-states (Oregon, Canada, England, etc) who have sought to expand coverage by cutting costs…

Source: May 15, 2008 AAPA News

From the article on “Clinical Resolutions on 2008 HOD Agenda:

“Genetic testing by private non-clinical companies is addressed in a resolution proposed by the Clinical and Scientific Affairs Council (CSAC). The resolution states that “AAPA believes that genetic testing for the presence of or susceptibility to disease should be available to the public only through the services of a qualified health care provider.”

My read of this statement: “The AAPA feels the public is not smart enough to be allowed a choice (free market) in who provides them with genetic information. The AAPA and other health industry stakeholders will decide what is good for people. Further, the AAPA will accept the opinion of the few PAs on the Clinical and Scientific Affairs Council’s (CSAC) as speaking for all PAs. After all, the CSAC knows better than any of us what we Americans need.”