OPED: Medicare Advantage is Good for Our Community. Here’s Why.

Photo source: Philly Voice

The following oped was provided to Cajun Conservatism by Gwen Miller, a resident of St. Landry Parish:

Getting older isn’t what it used to be—and in a good way! Back when Medicare was founded, senior citizens weren’t expected to live as long or be as active as we are today. Fortunately, our health care coverage is keeping up with the times. Congress has worked in a bipartisan fashion to continually improve Medicare Advantage to bring innovative, private health plans to seniors. And it’s worked.

I became Medicare-eligible a year ago, and I decided Medicare Advantage would be best for me. I wanted “all in one” coverage, and I was impressed by the health plans in my area, some of which charge nothing in monthly premiums.

My plan incorporates everything I need to control my few minor health problems and to protect against more serious diseases from developing. I’m particularly pleased with the prescription drug coverage. In Medicare Advantage, this is built in, so I don’t pay extra for other insurance. The costs are very affordable, and I can get refills at nearly any pharmacy or via mail order. I’m saving money compared to what I was spending before I joined Medicare Advantage, a nice bonus when you’re stretching your retirement savings.

Volunteering in a nursing home has shaped my goals for aging. The facility where I help out offers high-quality care, but nothing can be just like home. Like most seniors, I want to remain an independent, contributing member of the Opelousas community. And I know things like genetics play their part but that I have to put in the work, too.

That’s why I’m glad Medicare Advantage is forward-thinking. Rather than dissuading seniors from using services, they encourage us to take advantage of our benefits—especially the free preventive and wellness care.

Need a checkup? It costs nothing. Is it time for a cholesterol or cancer screening? Get one at no charge. Want some guidance to manage diabetes, an autoimmune disorder, or other condition? Did you make a New Year’s resolution to quit smoking, eat healthier, or become more active? Medicare Advantage has free programs to help.

Free is good. Medicare Advantage plans remove the financial barriers that can otherwise cause seniors to avoid care. And their investment pays off. Medicare Advantage does a better job of keeping seniors out of the hospital, where none of us want to wind up anyway.

The impacts reach beyond seniors. I’m more involved in the community because of the benefits I enjoy with Medicare Advantage, and countless other seniors in our area say the same thing. Our churches, soup kitchens, libraries, garden clubs, tutoring programs—you name it, local charities and other organizations are more robust because Medicare Advantage supports retirees as we engage in activities we care about.

Elected leaders should, therefore, see Medicare Advantage as a top priority issue. Federal officials can support this program as a way to build a better Louisiana. And voters should be sure to check 2020 candidates’ records to make sure the lawmakers they back this fall are as dedicated to Medicare Advantage as we seniors are to Opelousas.

Medicare Advantage Is a Pillar of Success in Health Care

It’s not an exaggeration to say that health care determines the path to the White House. It’s an issue that’s been at the center of our last five elections dating back to at least 2010, and this year will be no exception. 

The reason is simple: Americans demand — and deserve — affordable, high-quality health care. Candidates naturally promise all of that and more, but their ideas about how to get there are radically different. 

But there’s one promising area where common ground still exists. Every year, leaders from across the political spectrum — including presidential candidates — come together to support the Medicare Advantage program.

Read more: Medicare Advantage Is a Pillar of Success in Health Care

Warren, Sanders and Medicare for All. What's real? What's not?

Medicare-for-all advocates, including two top Democratic presidential candidates, have a powerful adversary: large regional health systems that employ tens of thousands of local workers. 

Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont have proposed Medicare-for-all systems that could eliminate private health insurance and instead have the government take over paying for health care. 

Top executives at many health systems in the region said a shift to a so-called single-payer system that pays at the current rate of Medicare would lead to hospital closures, longer appointment wait times and a drastic cut in research and development funds.

Read more: Warren, Sanders and Medicare for All. What's real? What's not?

OPINION: Lower Health Care Costs Act

As congress looks to wrap up their year, healthcare packages are at the top of many legislators’ minds – including Speaker Pelosi.  In fact, the Lower Health Care Costs Act, is one of those bills that’s being pushed right now.  Though coming from a good place, this bill is misguided. It will make the lives of rural Louisianans much worse by taking away their access to emergency services. 

That’s why I’m so concerned about the narrow-minded approach many of our lawmakers seem to be taking in their effort to address surprise medical billing. In Louisiana, many people live in rural areas - often far away from the Level 1 trauma centers where lifesaving care takes place.  An airlift might seem excessive to some, but it’s the difference between life and death for rural Americans who are injured in an accident, having a heart attack, or experiencing complications in labor and delivery. Otherwise, those patients would have to drive hours to the hospital in situations where every minute counts. 

Air ambulance operators make nearly 5,000 lifesaving flights per year in our state. However, despite the fact that so many people need their services, these brave men and women risk being out of a job soon. Air ambulance bases across Louisiana are in danger of closing and in turn costing people lives and livelihoods.

Congress’ solution to this? Federal government price controls that end up allowing insurers to pay even less to these operators. Price controls are not conservative – especially in healthcare. The road to socialism is paved with small tweaks to our economy like this and I think I speak for most conservatives when I say, we don’t need any more socialism in our country’s healthcare. Obamacare was enough for a lifetime! We appreciate Senators Cassidy and Kennedy taking a close look at any surprise billing legislation and work to ensure a solution that preserves access to emergency care. 

OPINION: Protect Access is Key to Health Care

Access to affordable and reliable medical services is key to any conversation surrounding health care in 2019. With a rise of rural hospital closures, the care Louisianans rely on is moving further away from them each year.

Knowing that, is it concerning that Congress is considering legislation that could actually further limit access to quality, lifesaving services. The Lower Health Care Costs Act being considered in Washington does more harm than good when it comes to our health care system. 

At first glance, the Lower Health Care Costs Act addresses a critical problem: surprise billing. When a patient uses a service like an air ambulance, there are situations where insurers do not cover the costs, sometimes leaving patients with an unexpected, hefty medical bill. I think we can all agree that is a practice that should cease. 

Unfortunately, in an attempt to address this issue, the current proposal makes the challenge of providing rural health care worse. By setting a rate of reimbursement, the legislationdiscourages fair in-network agreement between insurers and air ambulance companies. Left without the funds needed to cover their operating costs, air ambulances would like close.  A patientmight avoid a bill, but they will also lose access the emergency health care they rely on in the direst situations.

This is not a tradeoff we should have to make. Let’s find a solution that protects patients from surprise bills and protects their access to quality health care.

Quin Bates - Retired Chemical Plant Manager

Steve Forbes: Pelosi's 'Medicare-for-all' strategy looks a lot like a big wooden horse

Photo source: Fox News

Medicare-for-all would wipe out the entire American insurance industry, taking with it all exchange plans and all employer and union-provided health care coverage. Half a million U.S. jobs would be eliminated.

But Pelosi, ultra-liberal that she is at heart, still craves "Medicare-for-all" as much as anyone. She just knows she’s going to have to be tricky to get it done.

Read more: Steve Forbes: Pelosi's 'Medicare-for-all' strategy looks a lot like a big wooden horse

Republican Party of Louisiana Calls for Federal Legislation with Baseball-Style Arbitrationto Stop Surprise Medical Billing

Unanimous Resolution Applauds Sen. Bill Cassidy’s Leadership to Introduce STOP Surprise Medical Bills Act

Baton Rouge, LA – Today, the Republican Party of Louisiana unanimously approved a resolution calling for the federal adoption of Independent Dispute Resolution (IDR), often referred to as baseball-styled arbitration, a free-market solution to stop the practice of surprise medical billing.

It also applauds U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) for his leadership in authoring the STOP Surprise Medical Bills Act and “encourages the entire Louisiana congressional delegation to continue fighting for a legislative solution that encourages free-market-solutions such as the IDR framework and not government rate setting via benchmarking.”

Surprise medical billing occurs when patients receive unexpected and excessive medical bills for health care services that they believed would be covered by their insurance companies.

“Surprise medical billing is driving up the cost of health care for everyone, and a free-market resolution like IDR is the only proven way to solve the problem without unintentionally making it even worse for patients. Some proposals out there – like government price-setting – would do exactly that by limiting patients’ ability to get care close to home from the doctors they trust,” said Louis Gurvich, Chairman of the Republican Party of Louisiana.

Authored by SCC member Lloyd Harsch, the resolution was unanimously approved by the party’s executive committee during today’s Republican State Central Committee meeting.

“The party chose to highlight this issue because it is a critical part of increasing transparency for patients and lowering the costs of healthcare for millions of Americans,” Gurvich added.

The full text of the resolution is available HERE.

Socialistic Drug Price Controls Should be Rejected

The only solution to lower prices for any product is a free market, where there is competition and market-based price negotiations, not government interference. Instead of adopting policies that countries with socialized healthcare systems use to keep costs down but destroy their pharmaceutical innovation, elected leaders in the U.S. should be looking to market solutions and quicker Food and Drug Administration approvals for both generic and innovative pharmaceuticals.

Read more: Socialistic Drug Price Controls Should be Rejected

Clay Higgins Shares Personal Experiences Regarding Obamacare

On a recent visit to Fox News, Congressman Clay Higgins from Louisiana’s 3rd Congressional District shared his personal experiences with the train wreck called Obamacare. Higgins described the decisions that that he and his family had to make regarding groceries or insurance during his time as a law enforcement official..

Democrats Falsely Take Credit for Republican AG Jeff Landry’s Sweeping Louisiana Healthcare Bill

Photo source: Twitter 

 “A Democratic campaign arm attempting to give John Bel Edwards credit for my Legislation, developed with Republican leaders, to protect pre-existing healthcare conditions without Obamacare,” Landry charged Tuesday. “A bill he attacked. THAT’S RICH. Thank you for recognizing the bipartisan support.”

Read more: Democrats Falsely Take Credit for Republican AG Jeff Landry’s Sweeping Louisiana Healthcare Bill

Or, Better Worded, Governor Signs Jeff Landry's Healthcare Bill Into Law

Trying their best to cover the backside of the liberal governor they love so much, Louisiana media has reported that “Honor Code” Edwards, who once called the healthcare bill recently passed by the legislature a “fig leaf” for Attorney General Landry, has signed that same bill into law.

After calling the bill a “fig leaf” aimed at saving Louisiana’s attorney general from embarrassment, Gov. John Bel Edwards quietly signed into a law a measure pushed by one of his political rivals that aims to eventually offer some protections to patients if the Affordable Care Act is overturned.

The bill was backed by Attorney General Jeff Landry, and authorizes the state’s insurance commissioner to study other state’s health care models to come up with a potential replacement for the ACA’s individual health exchange. It would only be necessary if the ACA is overturned--which is the goal of a lawsuit that Landry has joined.

Read more: After criticizing health insurance bill, Gov. Edwards signs measure pushed by Jeff Landry

CITIZENS FOR LOUISIANA JOB CREATORS: Senate Approves AG Landry's Healthcare Bill

Today, the Health & Welfare Senate Committee unanimously approved SB 173 - the Health Care Coverage for Louisiana Families Protection Act which provides protections for patients with pre-existing conditions should Obamacare be repealed. 

AG Landry has worked diligently with Insurance Commissioner Jim Donelon, Senate Health & Welfare Chairman Fred Mills, House Speaker Taylor Barras, and the entire committee to craft this legislation that addresses numerous concerns for health insurance recipients and those with pre-existing conditions. The win today is a huge step in the process for this important bill to become law.

Thanks to the Senate Health & Welfare Committee members Senators Regina Barrow, Gerald Boudreax, Norby Chabert, Dan Claitor, Yvonne Colomb Dorsey, Dale Erdey, Bob Hensgens, Jay Luneau, & Chairman Fred Mills for referring the bill out of committee!

And, THANK YOU AG Landry for standing up for everyone across Louisiana to ensure that health insurance coverage will not be in jeopardy for those with pre-existing conditions!

Sen. Kennedy Joins Legislation To Keep Health Care Costs Down and Protect Patients

Feb 14, 2019

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) today joined S.172,the Health Insurance Tax Relief Act of 2019, to keep health care costs down for families across Louisiana by delaying the implementation of the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Tax.  This punitive tax – if it is allowed to take effect -  would increase costs for everyone from senior citizens to small businesses.

Sen. Kennedy also joined S.283, which would increase access to osteoporosis screenings for Medicare patients.  Medicare reimbursement for these screenings has shrunk, resulting in an increase in hip fractures.

“Obamacare sucks, and the Health Insurance Tax really sucks.  It would create $16 billion in additional fees on health insurance and send premiums through the roof.  Health care is expensive enough without this ridiculous tax,” said Sen. Kennedy.  “It’s also ridiculous to discourage health screenings that literally save lives.  By testing for osteoporosis, we can prevent possibly fatal falls.”

Source:  Sen. Kennedy Joins Legislation To Keep Health Care Costs Down and Protect Patients

Socialized Medicine Requires Six Things — America Has None Of Them.

Photo source: Flickr

When Democrats complain about government inaction, they frequently point to European countries and bemoan why can't we just be more like them?!? Alas the Left enjoys looking at the results of socialized medicine in other developed nations, but they aren't very interested how they do it. The truth is a country can have socialized medicine, but they need the six things.

America currently has none of them.

Read more: Socialized Medicine Requires Six Things — America Has None Of Them.

LANDRY: Allowing Louisianans To Make Their Own Healthcare Choices

Opinion by Jeff Landry, Attorney General of Louisiana

Source: Parish News Acadiana

Recently, I participated in a national TV interview on CNN regarding an important lawsuit. I joined this lawsuit with 17 other Attorneys General and two Governors on the legality of the Affordable Care Act. It is an important topic.

Unfortunately, while our lawsuit is focused solely on the rule of law, the television producers used my time on air in a farcical attempt just to attack the strategy and get a soundbite. Though I anticipated some sky-is-falling hysteria that has become a staple of extremists when discussing the ACA, I felt strongly someone needed to get the truth to CNN’s flailing audience.

That truth is the Republican state officials who signed onto this suit are resolved in our efforts to fight unconstitutional policies, and we understand that the remains of the unconstitutional ACA need to be dismantled before their inevitable collapse does any further damage to families and businesses.

Rising costs, undesirable plans, and declining choices have been the status quo since the 2,300-page ACA was forced onto the American people. While a fortunate few in Louisiana may finally see, for the first time since 2011, less painful premium hikes – we know something different must be done to reduce the crippling financial burdens and to ensure our people can once again have the freedom to choose their own doctors.

But make no mistake about it: those involved in the lawsuit are not attacking sound law based on its policy failures. Policy decisions are for the Legislative Branch, which is something the Governor and his allies had to learn the hard way when I became Attorney General.

The ACA is unconstitutional. When the Supreme Court ruled on NFIB v. Sebelius – they found the individual mandate unlawful on its own, but legally permissible if attached to the federal government’s taxing authority. And since the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 has been signed into law, the tax penalty has been removed and the mandate now stands alone.

The hoops that the Supreme Court jumped through to uphold the individual mandate telegraphed the true extent of the ACA’s constitutional problems. Now that those hoops have been removed, the rule of law must prevail and the ACA must fall. This should be welcomed by all who cherish the Constitution and support our great republic.

If our lawsuit is successful and the ACA is removed from the books, states will be allowed to implement their own healthcare plans for their own citizens. Maine may be able to employ its previously preempted framework; Nebraska may realize the full potential of its direct primary care option for state workers; and most importantly, Louisiana – through our Legislature – would be free to enact rules and restrictions without fear of conflict pre-emption. In essence, Louisiana could use a system that works for Louisiana.

While I, like the overwhelming majority of my fellow Republicans, believe those with pre-existing conditions should be protected; I know that decision is up to our Legislature. If our lawsuit is successful, our own Legislature will craft future regulations and policies. Our own Louisiana House and Senate can work on better solutions to our healthcare problems, right here in our State. I stand ready to assist them.

As I have done since filing the lawsuit in February, I will continue discussions with our legislators. And as I have always done, I will keep fighting against government overreach and keep doing all that I legally can to make Louisiana an even better place to live, work, and raise our families.

Jeff Landry is the Attorney General of Louisiana. Originally from St. Martinsville, General Landry holds a Law Degree from Loyola University, he is a veteran of Desert Storm, and a former member of the United States House of Representatives.  www.agjefflandry.com

Source: Allowing Louisianans To Make Their Own Healthcare Choices

Fix The 340B Program

In recent weeks, the 340B program has resurfaced as a topic of interest for policymakers and patient advocates alike. As the Alliance for Integrity and Reform of 340B (AIR340B Coalition), we are encouraged that much of this interest is geared toward ensuring the sustainability of the program for the future and strengthening it to make sure it serves vulnerable or uninsured patients. However despite this recent increased interest in the program, it is still relatively unknown.

The 340B drug discount program was created to help certain health care safety-net providers that serve a large number of uninsured or otherwise vulnerable patients reduce prescription drug costs by requiring drug manufacturers to provide deep discounts on medicines. For example, the 340B drug discount program provides discounted drugs to community health centers, cancer hospitals, children’s hospitals, and clinics for Indian Health, HIV/AIDS, Black Lung, Hemophilia, and Tuberculosis.

Our Coalition’s diverse membership is indicative of our goal to make improvements that lead to better health outcomes for the neediest patient populations. The AIR340B Coalition is comprised of patient advocacy groups, clinical care providers, and biopharmaceutical innovators, and we believe in preserving the intent of the 340B program. When Congress created the program in 1992, it was relatively small and targeted only toward those entities that truly served the most needy patients. Few hospitals participated in the program at first and initially the clinics and hospitals that participated predominantly focused on serving vulnerable or uninsured patients who truly could not afford to access prescription medications.

Since then, poor oversight and lack of clear program rules have led to a rapid expansion of the program. It is not clear, however, that vulnerable or uninsured patients are the beneficiaries of this expansion. Today, DSH hospitals, which are only about 9 percent of 340B entities, represent 80 percent of sales associated with the 340B drug discount program, and they are rapidly expanding. One source of this expansion is the increased use of 340B discounts by hospital-acquired outpatient clinics. These clinics are often in wealthier areas than the 340B hospitals but, once acquired, are able to obtain 340B discounts, even though they do not share the hospital’s obligations to treat uninsured patients. Another concerning source of growth stems from a 2010 change to the program that vastly expanded the role of for-profit retail pharmacies in the 340B program. Hospitals are allowed to partner with an unlimited number of these pharmacies, which then share in 340B profits. A recent Office of the Inspector General study that scrutinized these arrangements found many of the hospitals required uninsured patients who filled their 340B prescriptions at retail pharmacies to pay full price for their medicines.

Recently, POLITICO looked at the top seven hospitals as ranked by U.S. News & World Report, of which more than half are 340B, and found that those hospitals’ charity care fell by 35 percent between 2013 and 2015 while their combined revenue increased by $4.5 billion. Further, more than one-third of 340B disproportionate share hospitals (DSH) provide charity care that represents less than 1 percent of their total patient costs.

We believe many covered entities are providing critical services to uninsured or vulnerable patients, but at the same time, studies show that there are a number of hospitals taking advantage of the program with little to no benefit to patients.

As a Coalition, we believe there are several ways the program could be fixed to ensure it meets its original intent. We suggest three key areas for change:

1. Define a 340B Eligible Patient: The 340B statute clearly states that covered entities are not permitted to provide 340B discounted drugs to individuals who are not their patients. Unfortunately, that has proved difficult to enforce at 340B hospitals due to a lack of clarity regarding the definition of a 340B eligible patient and hospitals’ complex operating structures.

2. Tighten Hospital Eligibility Standards and Curb Incentives for Consolidation: Tighter rules around which hospitals and patient eligibility are needed to ensure discounts are targeted to facilities truly serving the uninsured or vulnerable. Also changes are needed to curb the financial incentives driving 340B hospitals to acquire community-based physician practices, particularly given the substantial increase in health care costs associated with the site of care shifting from physician offices to hospital facilities in the last decade.

3. Restrict Contract Pharmacy Arrangements: Under current guidance, all covered entities are permitted to contract with multiple outside, for-profit retail pharmacies that share in the profits from the 340B program. New policies are needed to address the dramatic growth of contract pharmacy arrangements between 340B entities and for-profit, retail pharmacies.

We look forward to fixing the 340B program by working with Congress, the Administration and other stakeholders to ensure the program is sustainable and achieves its intended goal of helping the neediest patients access the care they need through federally-funded clinics and true safety net hospitals. If you are passionate about preserving and strengthening the 340B program, and want to learn more about the work that AIR340B is doing, please contact info@340breform.org.

Source: Fix the 340B Program

Bernie Sanders’ Bill Would Make Painkiller Epidemic Worse

Photo source: LA Times

Meghan Hynes has had to learn to work quickly in recent months.

She manages AAC Needle Exchange in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where she and her staff provide clean needles, packages of naloxone, a drug that reverses overdoses, and other needs for those addicted to hard drugs.

Sometimes, drug addicts receive their fresh needles and don’t even leave the office before locking themselves in the bathroom and shooting up. And as Hynes told NPR, some of them can’t make it to the door afterward.

“Recently we had a guy leave the bathroom, and all the color just drained from his face, like immediately, and he just turned blue, ”Hynes said[1]. “I’ve never seen anyone turn blue that fast. He was completely blue and he just fell down and was out—not breathing.”

When she bent down to try to pump his heart, she couldn’t. He had been hit with “wooden chest,” in which “your chest just seizes up,” Hynes said. “You literally have paralysis, and that’s obviously really dangerous, because if someone needs CPR, you can’t do it.”

The wooden chest spread, and soon the man also had lockjaw. His mouth would open but only a tiny bit, which meant Hynes could barely even help with rescue breathing.

Hynes did succeed, and the man did survive. But across the United States, junkies are dying because the drugs they’re buying on the street are not what they think they are.

Increasingly, they are laced—or even promiscuously mixed with—fentanyl, a painkiller 50-100 times more powerful than heroin. Police nationwide say people are buying what they think is heroin or oxycontin. But with fentanyl mixed in, the drugs are much more powerful than users anticipate, and many aren’t ready.

Hynes tells her clients to stick with dealers they know, and always use with a buddy because the overdoses come so quickly.

It is the fentanyl that caused the man in Hynes’ office to collapse instantly and for his chest to seize up and almost prevent his rescue.

And it is fentanyl that is changing the complexion of emergency room overdose treatment nationwide. Fentanyl deaths climbed more than 400 percent in Philadelphia from 2014 to 2015[2]. They climbed nearly 700 percent in the two years from 2014 to 2016. Four people died from fentanyl overdoses in Cincinnati in 2013. In 2014, the total was 124.

Bernie Sanders, the socialist senator from neighboring Vermont, which has had its own fentanyl problems, has proposed legislation that could cause the amount of this extremely dangerous drug to grow exponentially on America’s streets—all so he could fashion himself the enemy of drug manufacturers.

[See the other side of this argument, ‘Wrong: Cheap drugs from Canada won’t heighten opioid crisis,’ here][3]

Sanders’ legislation would make it legal for Americans to order prescription drugs from pharmacists outside the country. It is sold as a cost-cutting measure—on the theory competition from foreign pharmacies would bring down prices.

But most who have studied the issue say it brings little in the way of real savings, and what little savings does occur must be weighed against broad new challenges to the security of the supply chain for prescription drugs in the United States.

As Leona Aglukkaq, former health minister of Canada, has pointed out[4], a recent study by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration found 85 percent of the drugs supposedly imported from Canada did not in fact come from there, but rather 27 other countries.

Moreover, fentanyl is made in Mexico and China, and neither Canada nor the United States has the resources to make sure drugs exported from those nations match their labels.

Derek Arnson, former police chief in Nogales, Ariz., on the Mexican border, said Sanders’ bill would encourage a boom in fentanyl production drug cartel-plagued Mexico and thus “vastly increase the flow of illegal narcotics and counterfeit drugs laced with fentanyl into the United States.”

Moreover, drug companies won’t take this lying down—they can limit sales of drugs to countries, such as Canada, that would be likely to export drugs to the United States, and can respond by limiting the sale of drugs in certain countries known for exporting to the United States, such as Canada, creating shortages in those countries.

“The rising prices for drugs are not sustainable in this country, and there’s a major concern for affordability,” Joshua Sharfstein, a former deputy commissioner at the FDA now at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg for Public Health told theWashington Post[5]. “That’s why people are seriously considering these sorts of solutions.

“But I’d like to think we could have a more rational approach that doesn’t require what is, in effect, a massive workaround.”

An unintended consequence of Sen. Sanders’ idea is that some people will use this system to drive to Canada to fill “prescriptions” for fentanyl to mix with illegal drugs. When politicians pitch the cost savings for consumers of importing drugs from other countries, they tend to gloss over the serious consequences of a major policy change.

Brian McNicoll, former senior writer for The Heritage Foundation and director of communications for the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, is a conservative columnist based in Reston, Virginia.

Source: The American Conservative  

Boustany on Rate Hikes: “All Our Worst Fears About ObamaCare Are Coming True”

Dr. Charles Boustany issued the following statement after news reports surfaced showing millions of Americans who have signed up for health insurance plans under ObamaCare will likely experience double-digit rate hikes in November.

Boustany said: “All our worst fears about ObamaCare are coming true. The President said you could keep your plan and your doctor – that’s been rated ‘Lie of the Year.’ The President said rates would go down, but instead rates have gone up. Now rates are projected to spike again by November.

“As a doctor, I know working families in Louisiana just can’t afford ObamaCare. We need a Senator who doesn’t just talk about how terrible this law is. We need a Senator who can actually get something done about it. As Louisiana’s next U.S. Senator, I’ll make sure ObamaCare is a distant memory, and I’ll work on policies that will actually lower costs and increase access to high-quality care for Louisianians.”

Last month, UnitedHealth Group announced it was pulling out of the ObamaCare exchange in Louisiana after an internal review showed the company expects to lose more than $1 billion nationwide in the exchanges for 2015 and 2016. UnitedHealth represents 13% of Louisiana’s 214,000 enrollees in the ObamaCare exchanges.

Dr. Boustany is the author of the largest legislative defeat to ObamaCare to date. Boustany wrote the bill and built the coalition in Congress to repeal the CLASS Act – an $86 billion budget-cooking scheme in ObamaCare even former Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius admitted was “totally unsustainable.”

Read more: Obamacare's November surprise

Boustany Announces Iberia Parish Healthcare Grant

(Lafayette, LA) – Dr. Charles Boustany (R-Lafayette) announced that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has awarded a $3,546,420 Health Center Cluster Grant to the Iberia Comprehensive Community Health Center in New Iberia, Louisiana. The grant program provides funding for community health centers in rural and underserved areas.

Boustany said: “As a doctor, I know the health of Louisianans in rural communities depends on access to high-quality healthcare close to home. This grant supporting healthcare services in Iberia Parish will help improve outcomes for patients and improve public health in the surrounding areas.”

Win Against Planned Parenthood Yesterday in the US Senate

Photo source: Wikipedia

The Planned Parenthood provision to strip taxpayer funding from the House budget reconciliation bill survived hostile amendments yesterday to refund. Louisiana Family Forum sent an appeal to the U.S. House and Senate regarding this issue.

Louisiana Senators David Vitter and Bill Cassidy both voted to defund Planned Parenthood.

Per LFF, the following was achieved with this victory yesterday:

"It not only defunds Planned Parenthood, but it redirects that Federal money to women's health care organizations that provide far greater health benefits to women than Planned Parenthood ever provided, not just because they do not provide abortion, but rather because they offer far more services than Planned Parenthood does, and are more readily available then Planned Parenthood is."

We can only hope this is a sign of more good things to come in the pro-life movement.  Planned Parenthood's vision of the slaughter and sale of body parts is the exact reason why the taxpayers should not be funding this organization and why those resources should be focused elsewhere for women's health.