Snag in health care law could cost children's hospitals millions - Polidicks

[url=http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/health/articles/2010/11/25/snag_in_health_care_law_could_cost_childrens_hospitals_millions/]Source[/url] [quote]Partisan tensions on Capitol Hill are delaying efforts to fix an error in the federal health care law that could cost Children’s Hospital Boston and others like it millions of dollars in added drug costs. Correcting the error would require changing just 47 words in the 1,880-page law, a task that a previous Congress might have accomplished in an afternoon. Instead, with Republicans fighting to repeal the health care bill rather than fix it and Democrats loath to acknowledge its flaws, months have passed with no resolution, and prospects for one in the lame-duck session are limited. “We’re using expensive drugs for really sick kids,’’ said Joshua Greenberg, vice president of government relations at Children’s Hospital. “What children’s hospitals are saying to the Senate is: This needs to be fixed, and it needs to be fixed this session.’’ The error was a simple and unintentional omission in the final, frenetic days of drafting the landmark legislation and reconciling House and Senate versions. Con gressional staff intended to allow children’s hospitals continued access to the portion of a federal program that offers below-market prices on 347 specific medicines for rare, life-threatening conditions. But that language was accidentally altered. “It was a drafting error,’’ said a congressional aide familiar with the writing of the bill but not authorized to speak publicly. “Everybody on every side of the issue thinks it should be fixed.’’ Senator Scott Brown, Republican of Massachusetts, has filed a standalone bill as a remedy, while Senator John F. Kerry has helped persuade top Democrats to make the change through an amendment to a bill addressing broader tax policies. The bill Kerry is supporting is expected to come up in the next few weeks, but advocates are worried that time is short in the session and Congress has several other high-profile items to grapple with. “We don’t care what vehicle it’s included in, we just need it enacted immediately,’’ said James Kaufman, the vice president for policy at the National Children’s Hospital Association. If these efforts fail, Children’s Hospital Boston officials say they will be forced to find a new way to fund the drugs for poor children with rare diseases, such as neurological disorders and severe juvenile arthritis. That would be expensive. The Boston hospital, one of nearly 30 across the country with this problem, estimates the mistake will cost between $1.5 million and $3 million annually. Nationally, the problem costs children’s hospitals about $100 million annually, according to Kaufman. Individual patients are unlikely to see an increase in the cost of care, unless they are uninsured and paying out of pocket. But hospitals could end up deciding not to offer certain types of coverage if it becomes too expensive, or could cut costs in other areas. And because the health care bill was passed earlier this year, some manufacturers are now going back to hospitals with steep retroactive bills. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a trade group representing the industry, declined to comment. Soon after the error was discovered, the House swiftly passed legislation to correct the language, with little controversy and bipartisan support. But getting the fix through the Senate has proved to be much harder. About a month after the health care bill was passed in March, officials from Children’s Hospital Boston approached Kerry’s office and asked for help in fixing it. Kerry and several other Senate Democrats tried to attach the correction to a bill that would extend a series of individual and business tax measures that expired this year, including items such as a research and development tax credit. Republicans, however, opposed the tax legislation. At that point, hospital representatives started looking for help across the aisle. “We were directed, as everyone is these days, to get Republican support. You have to show bipartisan support,’’ said Greenberg, of Children’s Hospital Boston. “This is where Senator Brown stuck his neck out a little bit.’’ Brown was able to get seven other Republicans to sign onto his bill. But no Democrat so far has joined, making it unlikely to pass in a Democratic-controlled Senate. Brown’s spokeswoman, Gail Gitcho, did not respond to requests for comment. When he introduced the legislation in late September, Brown said, “There is no cause for delay . . . Our nation’s children deserve that we come together and protect their access to medicines that will save their lives.’’ Brown opposes the health care bill as a whole but has also attempted to work across party lines to make targeted changes to the law. “There’s no justification for delaying this tweak when lifesaving medicine for rare children’s diseases is at stake,’’ Kerry said in a statement. “This is just a gut-level right or wrong where Washington needs to do the right thing.’’ Kerry has recently been working with Senator Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, and Senator Al Franken, a Minnesota Democrat, to drum up support for the fix. The trio is circulating a letter addressed to Harry Reid, Senate majority leader, asking him to bring up the issue soon. Kerry said the best way to fix the error is through an amendment to current legislation, such as the tax extenders bill. In an attempt to gain some GOP support, Democrats have reduced the scope of the overall tax bill. “There’s broad consensus,’’ Kerry said of the children’s hospitals fix. “I’m very hopeful that there’s still time.’’[/quote]

If you read it through before passing it along in the first place, this wouldn't of happened.

Excellent, another reason why this law is shit and both Obama(for passing the law in the first pace) and the GOP(for not allowing corrections to be made) can go fuck themselves and die.

should've gone for proper UHC then

[QUOTE=Triumph Forks;26301971]should've gone for proper UHC then[/QUOTE] This times 100.

[QUOTE=Triumph Forks;26301971]should've gone for proper UHC then[/QUOTE] Yeah right, we don't have the money and the middle class is taxed enough already.

[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy18;26302040]Yeah right, we don't have the money and the middle class is taxed enough already.[/QUOTE] Hey so let's tax the rich

[QUOTE=Habsburg;26302066]Hey so let's tax the rich[/QUOTE] We already take almost half their paycheck already so no

[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy18;26302096]We already take almost half their paycheck already so no[/QUOTE] Half of a billion is still a lot to live off of.

[QUOTE=Habsburg;26302124]Half of a billion is still a lot to live off of.[/QUOTE] Rich doesn't just include a billion, it includes everyone making 250,000 or more (top tax bracket)

[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy18;26302096]We already take almost half their paycheck already so no[/QUOTE] taking half of 50 million dollars is a lot different than taking half of 40,000 dollars. ps source plz.

[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy18;26302147]Rich doesn't just include a billion, it includes everyone making 250,000 or more (top tax bracket)[/QUOTE] Make a new tax bracket.

[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy18;26302147]Rich doesn't just include a billion, it includes everyone making 250,000 or more (top tax bracket)[/QUOTE] I know that. I was just using that as an example. [editline]25th November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;26302194]Make a new tax bracket.[/QUOTE] Yeah that sounds like a good plan.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;26302194]Make a new tax bracket.[/QUOTE] Yeah it's high time we have a 1Mil tax bracket taxed like 45%

[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy18;26302214]Yeah it's high time we have a 1Mil tax bracket taxed like 45%[/QUOTE] And a 100mil tax bracket that taxed 75% And a 1bil tax bracket that taxed 90% Then change the lowest bracket to zero and still make a profit while helping the poor

Holy shit you got unbanned

[QUOTE=yawmwen;26301953]Excellent, another reason why this law is shit and both Obama(for passing the law in the first pace) and the GOP(for not allowing corrections to be made) can go fuck themselves and die.[/QUOTE] We tried man. To veto it.

[quote] The error was a simple and unintentional omission in the final, frenetic days of drafting the landmark legislation and reconciling House and Senate versions. Con gressional staff intended to allow children’s hospitals continued access to the portion of a federal program that offers below-market prices on 347 specific medicines for rare, life-threatening conditions. But that language was accidentally altered.[/quote] Oh, so the real problem was Pharmaceutical companies continuing to make millions in profit at the expense of kids.

[QUOTE=Bllasae;26302576]We tried man. To veto it.[/QUOTE] You realize the bill contains some really good things, like the part where you can't be denied based on pre-existing conditions, right?

Childrens Hospital? I love that show!

[QUOTE=Zeke129;26303271]You realize the bill contains some really good things, like the part where you can't be denied based on pre-existing conditions, right?[/QUOTE] It's outweighed by the fact that you are forced to buy health insurance from a private company. It's basically the government force feeding big businesses dicks down the throats of the people, especially the poor.

I wonder if there will be any intelligent presidents throughout my time. :sigh:

[QUOTE=Roof;26303721]I wonder if there will be any intelligent presidents throughout my time. :sigh:[/QUOTE] All our presidents have been incredibly intelligent, if only because they knew how to work the system and get elected.

Could people stop exploiting loopholes to their favor? If they would quit this, we would have less shit like this.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;26303657]It's outweighed by the fact that you are forced to buy health insurance from a private company. It's basically the government force feeding big businesses dicks down the throats of the people, especially the poor.[/QUOTE] Doesn't Uncle Sam help pay for it if you can't do it on your own?

[QUOTE=Habsburg;26303887]Doesn't Uncle Sam help pay for it if you can't do it on your own?[/QUOTE] Short answer: No Long answer: I guess they give you tax credits or some stupid shit if you can't afford it, which is completely useless.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;26302312]And a 100mil tax bracket that taxed 75% And a 1bil tax bracket that taxed 90% Then change the lowest bracket to zero and still make a profit while helping the poor[/QUOTE] And then all the rich either leave (like they've done in many states), or hide their money in shell companies...

[QUOTE=Ridge;26304019]And then all the rich either leave (like they've done in many states), or hide their money in shell companies...[/QUOTE] The rich already hide their money because they don't feel like paying the meager tax rates they are given now, at least my way would squeeze a bit more money out.

[QUOTE=Ridge;26304019]And then all the rich either leave (like they've done in many states)[/QUOTE] Where would they go? Dubai?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;26303657]It's outweighed by the fact that you are forced to buy health insurance from a private company. It's basically the government force feeding big businesses dicks down the throats of the people, especially the poor.[/QUOTE] And yet for some reason, the Republicans hate it.