Tag Archives: HR 3200

$3,000 increase in health insurance premiums from Obamacare

Remember the POS promising that Obamacare would cut your health insurance premiums by $2,500?

That’s a lie.

Joel Pollak reports for Breitbart, Sept. 25, 2012, that a new Kaiser Family Foundation study cited by Investor’s Business Daily. found that, instead of decreasing, the cost of health insurance has risen by $3,000 — more than 50% higher than the POS promised it would be–and the costs are expected to continue to rise as Obamacare is impemented.

Furthermore, the data show that the rise in family premium costs, largely attributable to the costs of complying with Obamacare, has outpaced the rise in costs in the previous four years of George W. Bush.

Health insurance companies are required to provide additional coverage for so-called “children” up to age 26, among other changes. That coverage is described by Obama as “free,” but in fact the costs are borne by other patients.

Obamacare also does nothing to change the underlying incentives driving the rising costs of health care, and in fact makes them worse by adding mandates and reducing patients’ choices.

Over the next four years, if Obama is re-elected and Obamacare is not repealed, the federal government will have to apply cost controls, resulting in the rationing of health care by bureaucrats and/or hospitals. 

That is why the Obama administration placed such a heavy emphasis on the Independent Payment Advisory Board –and why vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) has spent so much time attacking it.

The Orwellian-named Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) is a 15-member federal agency created in 2010 by sections 3403 and 10320 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) which has the explicit task of achieving specified savings in Medicare “without affecting coverage or quality.” (LOL)

The members of the IPAB Death Panel are appointed by the President POS, theoretically “subject to Senate confirmation.” They get paid $165,300 per year.

The video below is a good reminder of all that is wrong with Obamacare (h/t FOTM’s Ken):

The pdf of HR 3200 noted at the end of the video is no longer valid. Here’s the updated link to the pdf: http://candicemiller.house.gov/pdf/hr3200.pdf

~Eowyn

Does Obamacare mandate microchip implants?

Two commenters on Fellowship of the Minds claim that Obamacare, aka the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, contains a requirement that all Americans be implanted with a microchip, thereby raising the specter of Revelation‘s 666 Mark of the Beast.

The best way to resolve questions like this is to go to the primary source document.

The short answer to the question of whether there is a microchip implant requirement in Obamacare is “No”.

Here’s the long answer.

The first version of Obamacare is the House of Representatives’ proposed bill, H.R. 3200, which does have a reference to implanted devices in the the section on “National Medical Device Registry.” But it isn’t what you think it is. Instead, the implants refer to such implanted medical devices as cardiac pacemakers.

The section on “National Medical Device Registry” appears again in the final “reconciliation” version of the Obamacare bill — the 2310-page HR 4872, specifically Subdivision C: Subtitle C “National Medical Device Registry”, on pages 2056-2063:

Subtitle C—National Medical Device Registry
SEC. 2521. NATIONAL MEDICAL DEVICE REGISTRY.
(a) REGISTRY.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 519 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360i) is amended—
(A) by redesignating subsection (g) as sub5 section (h); and
(B) by inserting after subsection (f) the following:
‘‘National Medical Device Registry” (g)(1) The Secretary shall establish a national medical device registry (in this subsection referred to as the ‘registry’) to facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and outcomes data on each device that—(A) is or has been used in or on a patient; and (B) is— (i) a class III device; or (ii) a class II device that is implantable, life-supporting, or life-sustaining.
(2) In developing the registry, the Secretary shall, in consultation with the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the head of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, determine the best methods for—
(A) including in the registry, in a manner consistent with subsection (f), appropriate information to identify each device described in paragraph (1) by type, model, and serial number or other unique identifier;
(B) validating methods for analyzing patient safety and outcomes data from multiple sources and for linking such data with the information included in the registry as described in subparagraph (A), including, to the extent feasible, use of—
(i) data provided to the Secretary under other provisions of this chapter; and (ii) information from public and private sources identified under paragraph (3);
(C) integrating the activities described in this subsection with—
(i) activities under paragraph (3) of section 505(k) (relating to active postmarket risk identification); (ii) activities under paragraph (4) of section 505(k) (relating to advanced analysis of drug safety data); and ‘(iii) other postmarket device surveillance activities of the Secretary authorized by this chapter; and (B) is—(i) a class III device; or (ii) a class II device that is implantable, life-supporting, or life-sustaining. (2) In developing the registry, the Secretary shall, in consultation with the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the head of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, determine the best methods for—(A) including in the registry, in a manner consistent with subsection (f), appropriate information to identify each device described in paragraph (1) by type, model, and serial number or other unique identifier; (B) validating methods for analyzing patient safety and outcomes data from multiple sources and for linking such data with the information included in the registry as described in subparagraph (A), including, to the extent feasible, use of—(i) data provided to the Secretary under other provisions of this chapter; and (ii) information from public and private sources identified under paragraph (3); (C) integrating the activities described in this subsection with—(i) activities under paragraph (3) of section 505(k) (relating to active postmarket risk identification); (ii) activities under paragraph (4) of section 505(k) (relating to advanced analysis of drug safety data); and (iii) other postmarket device surveillance activities of the Secretary authorized by this chapter; and (D) providing public access to the data and analysis collected or developed through the registry in a manner and form that protects patient privacy and proprietary information and is comprehensive, useful, and not misleading to patients, physicians, and scientists. ‘(3)(A) To facilitate analyses of postmarket safety and patient outcomes for devices described in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall, in collaboration with public, academic, and private entities, develop methods to—(i) obtain access to disparate sources of patient safety and outcomes data, including—(I) Federal health-related electronic data (such as data from the Medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act or from the health systems of the Department of Veterans Affairs); (II) private sector health-related electronic data (such as pharmaceutical purchase data and health insurance claims data); and (III) other data as the Secretary deems necessary to permit postmarket assessment of device safety and effectiveness; and (ii) link data obtained under clause (i) with information in the registry. (B) In this paragraph, the term ‘data’ refers to information respecting a device described in paragraph (1), including claims data, patient survey data, standardized analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of data from disparate data environments, electronic health records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the Secretary.

(4) Not later than 36 months after the date of the enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations for establishment and operation of the registry under paragraph (1).

(A)(i) in the case of devices that are described in paragraph (1) and sold on or after the date of the enactment of this subsection, shall require manufacturers of such devices to submit information to the registry, including, for each such device, the type, model, and serial number or, if required under subsection (f), other unique device identifier; and (ii) in the case of devices that are described in paragraph (1) and sold before such date, may require manufacturers of such devices to submit such information to the registry, if deemed necessary by the Secretary to protect the public health;
(B) shall establish procedures—(i) to permit linkage of information submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) with patient safety and outcomes data obtained under paragraph (3); and (ii) to permit analyses of linked data;
(C) may require device manufacturers to submit such other information as is necessary to facilitate postmarket assessments of device safety and effectiveness and notification of device risks;
(D) shall establish requirements for regular and timely reports to the Secretary, which shall be included in the registry, concerning adverse event trends, adverse event patterns, incidence and prevalence of adverse events, and other information the Secretary determines appropriate, which may include data on comparative safety and outcomes trends; and
(E) shall establish procedures to permit public access to the information in the registry in a manner and form that protects patient privacy and proprietary information and is comprehensive, useful, and not misleading to patients, physicians, and scientists.
(5) To carry out this subsection, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2010 and 2011.’’.

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall establish and begin implementation of the registry under section 519(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as added by paragraph (1), by not later than the date that is 36 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, without regard to whether or not final regulations to establish and operate the registry have been promulgated by such date.

(3) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 303(f)(1)(B)(ii) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 333(f)(1)(B)(ii)) is amended by striking ‘‘519(g)’’ and inserting ‘‘519(h)’’.
(b) ELECTRONIC EXCHANGE AND USE IN CERTIFIED ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS OF UNIQUE DEVICE IDENTIFIERS.—
(1) RECOMMENDATIONS.—The HIT Policy Committee established under section 3002 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300jj–12) shall recommend to the head of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria for the electronic exchange and use in certified electronic health records of a unique device identifier for each device described in section 519(g)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as added by subsection (a).
(2) STANDARDS, IMPLEMENTATION CRITERIA, AND CERTIFICATION CRITERIA.—The Secretary of the Health Human Services, acting through the head of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, shall adopt standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria for the electronic exchange and use in certified electronic health records of a unique device identifier for each device described in paragraph (1), if such an identifier is required by section 519(f) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act U.S.C. 360i(f)) for the device.

In its final version — the actual 974-page Obamacare law — even that “National Medical Device Registry” section is deleted.

I did a search for the words “microchip,” “implant,” “medical device,” and “registry” in the law, and found nothing. You can verify this for yourself by going to the PDF version of the law: “Compilation of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of the 111th Congress, as amended through May 1, 2010 and including Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Health-Related Portions of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.” Click here.

To conclude, there is no microchip implant requirement in Obamacare. We have more than enough reasons to object to Obamacare without conjuring up fantasies.

~Eowyn