Feds May Reimburse Medicare 'End-of-Life Discussions'

There's a looming possibility that an "End of Life" discussion between you and your doctor may be a "separate" Medicare billing pretty soon (if not already).

There's talk of doctors getting paid a fee under a new billing code.

Apparently this has been an issue in the past as to whether or not it would part of a regular visit.

Difficult to understand.

But one story is tying the possibility that this could be part of a way to "talk" people out of future treatment options that might be life extending.

Lots of psychology involved (for doctors and patients) with these kinds of "decisions".

The New York Times reports that "Medicare may begin covering end-of-life discussions next year if it approves a recent request from the American Medical Association," which is "the country’s largest association of physicians and medical students" and creates "billing codes for medical services, codes used by doctors, hospitals and insurers."

According to the Times, the group "recently created codes for end-of-life conversations and submitted them to Medicare" and The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is expected to make a decision in the fall that could "profoundly affect the American way of dying."

As the Times notes, "end-of-life planning remains controversial," especially after Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's "'death panel' label killed efforts to include it" in Obamacare. The Obama administration tried to sneak in a provision in a 2010 regulation before it "had Medicare rescind that portion of the regulation" after intense political pressure.

Feds May Reimburse Medicare 'End-of-Life Discussions' After Mocking Palin's 'Death Panels'


Could this be an indication of a way to lower Medicare costs?

Well, at least they are suggesting that we get a say in the end of life treatment. More likely the death panels will decide what treatment you can have and how long you get to live.

a reply to: xuenchen

I hope if this ever gets enacted (Roll tape of "I'm just a bill, a bill on Capitol Hill....) it MUST be approached by the patient and NOT the physician. Could You imagine getting a call at dinner time.. "Hi Phil this is Dr. Ghuntnya, I'd like to discuss Your pending death... ••• I figured if political robo-calls can penetrate the "Do Not Call List" a Dr. with His/Her hand out certainly could, especially seeing they're both employed by the same Kabal...

If this does pass I'm going to find an out of work Dr., the kind that before would've worked at a "Pill Mill", and have them do phone consults telling each person "The What" that they're going to die, and for an extra few $$$ the Dr. can provide "The Why"...

namaste

And before we know it

voluntary euthanasia

will be covered by medicare with free funeral thrown in.

a reply to: xuenchen

With the advent of Obamacare, government will look to save any amount of money anywhere they can find.

If that means giving grandma a pill versus replacing a hip or performing surgery, it will be done.

*sigh*

So many people have commented on how executing criminals and war/killing is wrong.

But offing grandma or abortion is somehow morally superior.

It's a sad world we are living in.

originally posted by: grandmakdw
And before we know it

voluntary euthanasia

will be covered by medicare with free funeral thrown in.

That's frightening !!

But maybe they offer a package "in style"...

a reply to: xuenchen

As it's stated it seems OK to me. People should discuss these types of things with their doctors.That said if it's just a backdoor way to get us to euthanasia it's another matter. Personally I'm not against voluntary euthanasia but it's not something doctors or heaven forbid death panels need to be deciding.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: xuenchen

With the advent of Obamacare, government will look to save any amount of money anywhere they can find.

If that means giving grandma a pill versus replacing a hip or performing surgery, it will be done.

*sigh*

So many people have commented on how executing criminals and war/killing is wrong.

But offing grandma or abortion is somehow morally superior.

It's a sad world we are living in.

Yep, it is way cheaper to talk grandma into voluntary euthanasia
than to pay social security
or for life extending health care.

Once people are on Social Security, the government will see them as expendable and
expensive leeches on society.

Obama made it clear he already does when he said he'd refuse life saving treatment for the elderly when he was running for office.

Mark my word, it will happen within the next 12 years.

I'm actually in the middle of end of life scenario's with two family members. One has/had great medical insurance their whole lives.
One did not.
The one that did not have good insurance is already being given MUCH less options for extended health care.
Simple economics.
It's already been happening for a while. Poor people do not get the same health care options as people with money.
This is really nothing new.
Assisted end of life based on wealth to "let's cut our losses, and since they're old and sick, let's cut their options as a doctor with financial incentives?"
OHHHH we mean to get PAID to get involved in the options.
That's kinda new.
.

originally posted by: Metallicus
Well, at least they are suggesting that we get a say in the end of life treatment. More likely the death panels will decide what treatment you can have and how long you get to live.

Actually by making it billable they are encouraging Doctors to discuss it. It's a way to discourage more expensive treatments that may both prolong life and add to the quality. Accept your fate rather than work to fix it.

Our medical system kills people daily. Its called denial of service.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: xuenchen

With the advent of Obamacare, government will look to save any amount of money anywhere they can find.

If that means giving grandma a pill versus replacing a hip or performing surgery, it will be done.

*sigh*

So many people have commented on how executing criminals and war/killing is wrong.

But offing grandma or abortion is somehow morally superior.

It's a sad world we are living in.

a reply to: grandmakdw

I take it you're opposed to doctor assisted suicide? I mean, I think that's a whole other argument than the OP, but...how could anyone be opposed to something like that?

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: grandmakdw

I take it you're opposed to doctor assisted suicide? I mean, I think that's a whole other argument than the OP, but...how could anyone be opposed to something like that?

That's not what I said.

I was implying that the elderly will be routinely talked into "voluntary" euthanasia.

That is what I foresee coming within 15-20 years.

It will in my opinion become commonplace for the medical community to be encouraged to encourage the elderly to voluntarily euthanize themselves and even offer incentives to the elderly to do so, like offer a free funeral for those who choose euthanasia before becoming seriously ill.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Do you really believe that? You don't think that this is all much, much more benign? I mean, the studies have been done; 70% of people don't even talk about end-of-life management and planning. We have a serious problem when it comes to death. We don't make plans and leave all of our problems at the feet of our bereaving survivors. Why is that? I'll tell you why. Because of the OP. Whenever it's brought up it's 'euthanasia,' it's the government trying to secretly kill off the elderly.

End-of-life discussion is hard. It's difficult. The sooner we face that fact that we don't live forever, the sooner we can put nonsense like above, behind us.

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: grandmakdw

Do you really believe that? You don't think that this is all much, much more benign? I mean, the studies have been done; 70% of people don't even talk about end-of-life management and planning. We have a serious problem when it comes to death. We don't make plans and leave all of our problems at the feet of our bereaving survivors. Why is that? I'll tell you why. Because of the OP. Whenever it's brought up it's 'euthanasia,' it's the government trying to secretly kill off the elderly.

End-of-life discussion is hard. It's difficult. The sooner we face that fact that we don't live forever, the sooner we can put nonsense like above, behind us.

Actually, yes I do believe that.

Why? Because we are in the middle of an underpopulation bust which is slowly enveloping the entire world. All of the first world countries have a negative birth rate, most countries have a rate that is barely above replacement, like Mexico who if their birth rate drops 0.1% more will have a negative birth rate. Countries with high birth rates also have extremely high mortality rates.

What is happening is that very soon there will not be enough young people to pay for those on social security and medicare. The elderly will become a deep burden on all the systems of the industrialized world and one solution to the coming problem is voluntary euthanasia. It will be far cheaper for governments to give incentives to voluntarily euthanize than to pay social security and medicare.

This is why the US has an open border for children right now, stealing children from other countries to try and keep the US afloat because native born Americans are not having children at a replacement rate, causing a severe age imbalance that can lead to economic collapse or extreme hardship for the productive young americans.

Some scientists are predicting the population bust to be so severe that if humans continue on their current trajectory, they will be extinct within 500 years.

a reply to: grandmakdw

I have to ask where you're getting your information from. No country in the world has a negative birth rate. There's a few countries with a negative natural growth rate, that just indicates a decline in future population. As for Mexico, they have 3 times the natural growth rate that the United States does.

List of countries by natural increase

The population will continue to increase. Maybe a few decades from now we'll start to decrease, but it will be our choice. I'll likely be dead before it happens, not because I'm old, but because it's so far off. I think your concern is a few decades too soon and you should concern yourself with the immediate future for now. Or at least, not let it influence your decisions in the short term.

How long before the government starts taking a page out of Britain's book and starts chasing you down if they get wind that you might engage in some medical tourism? Can't have you running away to prolong your life, after all. It might cost us too much when you come back still alive!

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: grandmakdw

I have to ask where you're getting your information from. No country in the world has a negative birth rate. There's a few countries with a negative natural growth rate, that just indicates a decline in future population. As for Mexico, they have 3 times the natural growth rate that the United States does.

List of countries by natural increase

The population will continue to increase. Maybe a few decades from now we'll start to decrease, but it will be our choice. I'll likely be dead before it happens, not because I'm old, but because it's so far off. I think your concern is a few decades too soon and you should concern yourself with the immediate future for now. Or at least, not let it influence your decisions in the short term.

I spent an entire thread on just this matter. Wikipedia is not a good sources.

Go to this site: www.cia.gov...

and know that replacement rate is 2.1%, or 2.09 children per female or less is below replacement.

Well over 100 countries on this list for 2013 are currently below replacement rate in births.




Dear, don't challenge someone with Wikipedia as your source, as it is frequently wrong.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Did you read my source? It directly uses cia.gov as the primary source, Wikipedia or not. Way to attack the source and not the data.

Again, we're still decades away from a decline in population. Arguing that what's being implemented this year is bad now because of a problem that we don't even have yet isn't productive.

I genuinely don't believe that end-of-life planning is bad because the government is trying to euthanize people. I think...I believe...the government may just be trying to help people. I know, it's a crazy idea.

a reply to: links234

The problem becomes unintended consequences.

Obamacare was a noble idea, but now more people are uninsured then before it started and the average family pays a great deal more for insurance than before it was enacted. Unintended consequences.

Michele O was trying to stop obesity with her lunch program. Now the children who rely on the lunch program for their only meal of the day are starving because food stamps have been cut at the same time to save money in the federal budget. Unintended consequences.

Welfare was instituted to help women and children and made it illegal for a family with a father in the house to receive welfare, now millions upon millions have been raised fatherless with all the societal consequences (in a fatherless home children are more likely to - not will - but more likely to do drugs, have casual sex quite young, engage in criminal activity) Unintended consequences.

Let's look at an example with a positive outcome:
the government first recommended people stop smoking when they found out the consequences
then the government put an age restriction on buying cigarettes
then the government put warning labels on cigarette packages
then the government made it illegal to smoke indoors
then the government made it illegal to smoke in certain outdoor areas

What started as a recommendation ended up in deeper and deeper restrictions and legislation

That's what happens when the government gets involved in things a rapid slide into intrusive "we know what is best for you because it is best for all of us"

Any doctor can right now, without medicare paying a dime, discuss end of life care, it is not illegal, it can be billed as a regular visit,
why
hmmmm
why
make it a special line item
if not to promote it?
why promote it?