Fox News’ Shepard Smith, On Comparing Health Insurance Reform To European-Style Health Care, Said “You Wonder If It’s Really A Fair Comparison When No One Has Introduced A Single-Payer Here.” “Fox News' Shepard Smith: “[o]f course you wonder if it's really a fair comparison when no one has introduced a single-payer system here." [Fox News, 9/28/09]

Frist: The Health Care Bills Would Not Create A Government Takeover. Former Majority Leader Bill Frist: "You hear a lot of people on the extreme say that socialized medicine is going to come in and control everything. ... That’s not what’s in these bills." [C-SPAN, 10/16/09]

FactCheck.org: Under Obama’s Health Care Plan, “Nobody Would Be Forced To Drop His Or Her Current Insurance.” [FactCheck.org, 5/1/09]

AMA President-Elect Reassured: Physicians And Patients Don’t Need To Fear The Rise Of A Monolithic Health System With No Choice From President Obama. The Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal reported that “American Medical Association president-elect Dr. James Rohack told Mississippi doctors Friday…Physicians and patients don't need to fear the rise of a monolithic health system with no choice, because it's not something the American people would accept, Rohack said. The president didn't advocate a single-payer system for the United States at the meeting, Rohack said. Obama said he believes in access to health care for all with a system that is a mix of public and private sources with patients still able to see the physicians of their choice.” [Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal, 5/30/09]

AARP’s David Certner, On The House Bill, Said “We Think This Is The Strongest Bill We’ve Seen To Date. It Helps Both The Medicare Population And Those That Are Not Yet Eligible For Medicare.” AARP’s David Certner: “We think this is the strongest bill we’ve seen to date. It helps both the Medicare population and those that are not yet eligible for Medicare.” [MSNBC, 11/5/09]

AARP: “We Can Say With Confidence That” House Democratic Legislation Will Make “Coverage Affordable To Our Younger Members And [Protect] Medicare For Seniors.” [Politico Live Pulse, 11/5/09]

AARP Warned Seniors Against “Myths and Scare Tactics” In Health Reform Debate, Said “None Of The Health Care Reform Proposals Being Considered By Congress Would Cut Medicare Benefits.” AARP wrote in a myth-vs.-fact health reform website that, “There are special interest groups trying to block progress on health care reform by using myths and scare tactics. Like the notion that health care reform would ration your care, hurt Medicare or be a government takeover. Actually, these are false statements.” AARP concluded about the Medicare claim that, “[n]one of the health care reform proposals being considered by Congress would cut Medicare benefits or increase your out-of-pocket costs for Medicare services.” [AARP, Myths Vs. Facts]

AARP Clarified That “Medicare Cuts That Have Been Proposed So Far Would Not Affect Benefits.” The Washington Post reported that, “Tom Nelson, AARP's chief operating officer, said, ‘Indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate.’ Like Obama, AARP wants action this year to cover the uninsured and restrain health care costs, but the organization has refrained from endorsing legislation. Nelson said AARP would not endorse a bill that reduces Medicare benefits. A spokesman said the Medicare cuts that have been proposed so far would not affect benefits.” [Washington Post, 8/11/09]

AARP Said The Proposed Medicare Changes Would Have “Little Impact” On Medicare Beneficiaries. “AARP, the seniors' advocacy group, argues that the proposed changes would have little impact on Medicare beneficiaries because they represent such a small portion of total Medicare spending, and says insurance providers have agreed to accept the reductions as part of reforms that would deliver millions of new customers. The cuts ‘are about a 3 percent reduction overall in what Medicare is expected to spend over the 10-year budget window. So the question is: Can we find 3 to 5 percent in efficiencies in the Medicare program?’ said David Sloane, a senior vice president at AARP.” [Washington Post, 9/23/09]

Politifact: The House Health Care Bill Does Not Outlaw Private Insurance. [Politifact, 7/15/09]

Reuters: CBO Said The Public Option Proposed By Democrats Would Not Drive Private Insurers Out Of Business. Reuters: "The report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the public option proposed by Democrats would not drive private insurers out of business and most people would still choose to get their medical coverage through employers." [Reuters, 7/28/09]

KEN THORPE: "The Congressional Budget Office said basically the cost of that plan would be about 10 percent less of the private insurance plans and they enroll 15 million, 16 million people. Obviously, most people would still be covered by private health insurance in this country." [CNN, 8/18/09]

FactCheck.org: Under Obama’s Health Care Plan, “Nobody Would Be Forced To Drop His Or Her Current Insurance.” [FactCheck.org, 5/1/09]

AMA President-Elect Reassured: Physicians And Patients Don’t Need To Fear The Rise Of A Monolithic Health System With No Choice From President Obama. The Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal reported that “American Medical Association president-elect Dr. James Rohack told Mississippi doctors Friday…Physicians and patients don't need to fear the rise of a monolithic health system with no choice, because it's not something the American people would accept, Rohack said. The president didn't advocate a single-payer system for the United States at the meeting, Rohack said. Obama said he believes in access to health care for all with a system that is a mix of public and private sources with patients still able to see the physicians of their choice.” [Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal, 5/30/09]

Sen. McConnell: “Seniors Take A Serious Hit From This Legislation – Either Through Cuts In Services…Or By Being Forced Off The Plans They Have.” Sen. Mitch McConnell said, “Seniors take a serious hit from this legislation — either through cuts in services that millions of them currently enjoy, or by being forced off the plans they have.” [The Hill, 9/24/09]

AARP: “We Can Say With Confidence That” House Democratic Legislation Will Make “Coverage Affordable To Our Younger Members And [Protect] Medicare For Seniors.” Politico Live Pulse reported on AARP and the American Cancer Society endorsing House Democrats’ reform efforts: “‘We started this debate more than two years ago with the twin goals of making coverage affordable to our younger members and protecting Medicare for seniors,’ said AARP CEO Barry Rand. ‘We've read the Affordable Health Care for America Act and we can say with confidence that it meets those goals with improved benefits for people in Medicare and needed health insurance market reforms to help ensure every American can purchase affordable health coverage.’” [Politico Live Pulse, 11/5/09]

FactCheck.org: “We Never Have Said That Seniors Would Suffer ‘Massive Cuts To Medicare Benefits’ Under [Health Reform Legislation], And In Fact Have Done Our Best To Debunk [Those] Claims.” FactCheck.org wrote: “We never have said that seniors would suffer ‘massive cuts to Medicare benefits’ under the pending House or Senate overhaul bills, and in fact have done our best to debunk claims to that effect.” [FactCheck.org, 11/3/09]

AARP: Baucus Proposal Ensures Medicare Patients Receive “The Highest Quality Of Care,” Medicare Advantage Subsidy Cut Would Save “Taxpayers Billions In Waste.” AARP released its comments on the Senate Finance Committee Health Reform Legislation, noting that “AARP is pleased that the bill focuses on keeping people healthy by eliminating out-of-pocket spending for important screenings and preventive services in Medicare, and by covering annual wellness visits for Medicare beneficiaries and their doctors to focus on prevention. Under the legislation, doctors would be rewarded for providing quality care instead of for the number of tests ordered—a critical step in ensuring patients receive the highest quality care. The bill also includes incentives to improve quality of care by providing bonuses to Medicare Advantage plans while reducing subsidies to MA plans, saving taxpayers billions in waste.” [AARP Press Release, 9/16/09]

AP: Under The Finance Bill, Medicare Coverage For Doctors, Hospitals And Other Basic Services Would Remain Fully Intact, With No Reductions In Benefits. “In its assaults on a Democratic health care overhaul bill, the insurance industry uses facts selectively and mixes accurate assertions with misleading spin and an embrace of worst-case scenarios. … The budget office's director, Douglas Elmendorf, has said that as a result of the proposed cuts, the extra benefits Medicare Advantage recipients receive would be halved over the next decade. But the ad leaves unspoken the fact that under the Finance bill, Medicare coverage for doctors, hospitals and other basic services would remain fully intact, with no reduction in benefits.” [AP, 10/14/09]

AARP Warned Seniors Against “Myths and Scare Tactics” In Health Reform Debate, Said “None Of The Health Care Reform Proposals Being Considered By Congress Would Cut Medicare Benefits.” AARP wrote in a myth-vs.-fact health reform website that, “There are special interest groups trying to block progress on health care reform by using myths and scare tactics. Like the notion that health care reform would ration your care, hurt Medicare or be a government takeover. Actually, these are false statements.” AARP concluded about the Medicare claim that, “[n]one of the health care reform proposals being considered by Congress would cut Medicare benefits or increase your out-of-pocket costs for Medicare services.” [AARP, Myths Vs. Facts]

Politifact: The House Health Care Bill Would Change Benchmarks Set To Payments In Medicare Advantage, Making Them Equal To What The Government Pays For Traditional Medicare Services. "Obama also wants to save money on the Medicare Advantage program, which covers about one-fifth of all Medicare patients. 'We do think that systems like Medicare are very inefficient right now, but it has nothing to do at the moment with issues of benefits,' Obama said in his speech in New Hampshire. 'The inefficiencies all come from things like paying $177 billion to insurance companies in subsidies for something called Medicare Advantage that is not competitively bid, so insurance companies basically get a $177 billion of taxpayer money to provide services that Medicare already provides. And it's no better — it doesn't result in better health care for seniors. It is a giveaway of $177 billion.' Indeed, a June 2009 MedPAC analysis said that the Advantage plan costs taxpayers on average of 14 percent more than the traditional Medicare plan. The House bills propose to change the benchmarks that set the payments, making them equal to what the government pays for traditional Medicare services. According to the Congressional Budget Office, those changes would translate to a savings of $156 billion over 10 years. [Politifact, 8/14/09]

Medicare Advantage Health Economist: 86 Percent Of Extra MA Plan Payments Went To Profits, Only 14 Percent Went To Extra Benefits – “Cuts To MA Should Be A No Brainer.” Health Economist Austin Frakt, a professor at Boston University, has studied Medicare Advantage plans extensively and wrote on his blog about his findings: “Payment to MA plans has gone way up since 2003. Did the payment increase largely benefit beneficiaries or not? This is a current political and policy debate, about which much has been written in the media (both traditional and blogospheric). It turns out the answer is known and quantifiable. My work (with Steve Pizer and Roger Feldman) shows that for each additional dollar spent by the federal government (taxpayers) on the program since 2003, just $0.14 of it can be attributed to additional value (consumer surplus) to beneficiaries (see also: findings brief). What do we make of the other $0.86? That goes to the insurance companies but doesn’t come out “the other end” in the form of value to beneficiaries. In part it is accounted for by the costs of the additional benefits and in part it is captured as additional insurer profit. So, do higher MA payments produce little value to beneficiaries, as Obama claims, or are the benefits they fund important to maintain, as Republicans would have us believe? The balance of the evidence is on Obama’s side. In fact, it is a landslide: for each dollar spent, 14% of the value reaches beneficiaries and 86% of it goes elsewhere (profit or cost). Cuts to MA should be a no brainer.” [Incidental Economist - Austin Frakt, 9/28/09]

Medicare Advantage Plans Unpopular In Rural States: “It’s Not Unusual For A Small Town Doctor To Refuse Participation In Advantage Plans Because They Mean More Paperwork And Less Pay.” Kansas Health Institute reported that, “[i]n Kansas, about one in 10 Medicare beneficiaries is enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan. That's about half the national average. Medicare Advantage plans, which have about 40,000 Kansas participants, tend to be more popular in urban states where the beneficiary pools are larger and most doctors and hospitals participate in the plans. But in a rural state like Kansas, it's not unusual for a small town doctor to refuse participation in Advantage plans because they mean more paperwork and less pay. Most small town hospitals also balk at joining an Advantage plan network.” [Kansas Health Institute, 11/9/09]

Medicare Launched Investigation Into Letters From Humana For Violating Marketing Rules – Told Its Customers That “Millions Of Seniors And Disabled Individuals Could Lose Many Of The Important Benefits And Services” Under Health Reform. The Wall Street Journal reported that, “[t]he Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services launched an investigation into Humana Inc.'s effort to enlist beneficiaries to fight proposed cuts to Medicare's private plans. The investigation, launched Friday, is looking at whether Humana, one of the largest providers of Medicare Advantage plans, violated marketing rules by sending letters to beneficiaries in Michigan, Florida and other states urging them to contact lawmakers to register their opposition to proposed cuts. The letters state that ‘millions of seniors and disabled individuals could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare Advantage health plans so valuable’ -- a claim congressional Democrats say is false.” [Wall Street Journal, 9/21/09]

Medicare Advantage Business “Accounts For About Half Of Human’s Revenue.” The Wall Street Journal reported that, “Humana, with about 1.4 million Medicare Advantage enrollees, is the second-biggest provider of the plans, behind UnitedHealth Group Inc. The business accounts for about half of Humana's revenue.” [Wall Street Journal, 9/21/09]

Sen. McConnell: “If The Government Is In The Insurance Business There Won’t Be Any Other Insurers, It’s Inevitable.” “Schieffer countered McConnell's contention that the Obama plan would choose (or deny) which treatments a covered individual may get; the White House is not proposing any kind of rationing board, he said. He also repeated the administration's assertion that a public insurance plan would give people another option. ‘If they want to keep their private insurance, that's OK,’ Schieffer said. ‘I know they say that, Bob,’ McConnell countered, ‘but if the government is in the insurance business there won't be any other insurers, it's inevitable.’” [CBS News, 6/14/09]

CBO Said The Public Option Proposed By Democrats Would Not Drive Private Insurers Out Of Business. "Democrats in the House pounced on a congressional budget analysis to bolster their plan for a government-run health insurance option Monday, as party leaders said they were closer to agreement on healthcare reform. The report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the public option proposed by Democrats would not drive private insurers out of business and most people would still choose to get their medical coverage through employers. " [Reuters, 7/28/09]

…AND THAT THE PUBLIC OPTION WILL DESTROY US ALL Sen. McConnell: “Any Kind Of Government Insurance Program…Will Lead Us In The Direction Of The European Style…Single Payer, Government Run System…And It May Cost You Your Life.” Think Progress wrote that on Dennis Miller’s radio show, Sen. Mitch McConnell had the following exchange: “MCCONNELL: Well, it doesn’t make any difference frankly whether you opt-in or you opt-out, it’s still a government plan. You know, Medicaid, the program for the poor now, states can opt-out of that, but none of them have. I think if you have any kind of government insurance program, you’re going to be stuck with it and it will lead us in the direction of the European style, you know, sort of British-style, single payer, government run system. And those systems are known for delays, denial of care and, you know, if your particular malady doesn’t fit the government regulation, you don’t get the medication. MILLER: Right. MCCONNELL: And it may cost you your life. I mean, we don’t want to go down that path.” [Think Progress, 10/29/09]

Sen. Murkowski: “It Does Us No Good To Incite Fear In People By Saying There’s These End-Of-Life Provisions, These Death Panels. Quite Honestly, I’m So Offended At That Terminology Because It Absolutely Isn’t [In The Bill].” “U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski on Tuesday told an Anchorage crowd that critics of health care reform, the summer's hottest political topic, aren't helping the debate by throwing out highly charged assertions not based in fact. ‘It does us no good to incite fear in people by saying that there's these end-of-life provisions, these death panels,’ Murkowski, a Republican, said. ‘Quite honestly, I'm so offended at that terminology because it absolutely isn't (in the bill). There is no reason to gin up fear in the American public by saying things that are not included in the bill.’” [McClatchy, 8/12/09]

MCCONNELL CITED DISCREDITED “EXPERTS” Sen. McConnell Cited Canadian Doctor David Gratzer, Who Said The Canadian Medical Establishment Is In Revolt, In Arguing That We Shouldn’t Reform Health Care. Sen. McConnell said, “[a]ll of us want reform. But the government-run plan that some are proposing for the U.S. isn't the kind of change Americans are looking for. We should learn a lesson from Canada. At a time when some in the U.S. want government-run health care, Canada is instituting reforms that would make their system more like ours. According to Canadian-born doctor David Gratzer, the medical establishment in Canada is in revolt, with private sector options expanding and doctors frustrated by government cutbacks that limit access to care. And the ‘New York Times’ reported a few years ago that private clinics were opening in Canada at a rate of about one a week. Dr. Gratzer asks a simple question: 'Why are [Americans] rushing into a system of government-dominated health care when the very countries that have experienced it for so long are backing away?' Many Americans are beginning to ask themselves the same thing.” [Sen. McConnell remarks, 6/10/09]

Former Rudy Giuliani Campaign Adviser David Gratzer’s Has Been Slammed By Experts, Who Have Questioned His Statistics, Calling Them “Complete Nonsense,” “Misleading,” Were “Absolutely Not” Legitimate, Were “Inappropriate Use” Of Science. FactCheck.org analyzed figures from the Giuliani campaign about prostate cancer survival rates in the U.S. compared to those in the U.K. The figures were from David Gratzer, a campaign advisor, and FactCheck..org reported that, “one of the authors of the report cited by the adviser says the figures in the ad are ‘misleading’ and the math employed is ‘absolutely not’ a legitimate way to calculate survival rates…What we find truly striking is Gratzer’s lack of thoroughness in checking his facts. His source, he says, is a 2000 report for the Commonwealth Fund by Gerard F. Anderson and Peter S. Hussey, of Johns Hopkins. When we checked with Hussey, now with the RAND Corp., he said Gratzer made inappropriate use of his report and was simply wrong…Gratzer, when we confronted him with this, conceded that his 44 percent figure ‘technically wasn’t a survival rate’ – even though that's what he called it in his article. He now calls his figure ‘a very crude indicator’ and claims it ‘does give you an indication of what’s going on.’ We disagree, as do other public health experts we consulted. The 44 percent figure is better described as a miscalculation based on decade-old data.” When Rudy Giuliani again used the misleading statistics, FactCheck again protested: “Peter Albertson, professor and chief of urology at the University of Connecticut Health Center, calls such calculations a ‘very dangerous thing to do’, and ‘complete nonsense.’” [FactCheck.org, 10/30/07; FactCheck.org, 11/8/07]

MCCONNELL RAISED UNFOUNDED FEARS ON COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH Sen. McConnell Introduced A Bill That Would Bar The Federal Government From Using “Comparative Effectiveness Research,” To Stop Rationing Of Care. “Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, in a floor speech scheduled for this afternoon warned that what Americans ‘don’t want is a Washington takeover of health care along the lines of what we’ve already seen with banks, insurance companies, and the auto industry. Americans don’t want a government-run system that puts bureaucrats between patients and doctors.’ Kyl and McConnell introduced a bill today that would bar the federal government from using ‘comparative effectiveness research’ — which, Kyl charged in a news conference timed to coincide with Obama’s AMA speech in Chicago, would lead to rationing of care. [Politico, 6/15/09]

Chairman of PhRMA Supports Comparative Effectiveness Research: “It’s Become A Market Requirement.” Discussing the $1.1 billion available for comparative effectiveness research through stimulus funds, the Wall Street Journal Health Blog wrote that, “the [pharmaceutical] industry is on-board with the concept and some companies are already doing studies to figure out which drugs lead to the best patient outcomes, according to David Brennan, chief executive of AstraZeneca who was just elected chairman …the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America… ‘While it’s not a regulatory requirement, it’s become a market requirement,’ he told the Health Blog, referring to companies conducting studies comparing their new drugs with others already on the market, ‘In the real world, if you haven’t done it, someone else will.” [Wall Street Journal Health Blog, 4/6/09]