AARP CEO Bill Novelli released the following statement in response to false reports regarding health care provisions in the economic recovery package:
"They're at it again. Opponents of health reform are now using scare tactics in a misguided attempt to stop progress in its tracks, blocking attempts to fix the broken health care system that is hurting American families and our economy.
"The latest attacks revolve around a smart policy in the economic recovery package that would fund 'comparative effectiveness research' -a wonky term that just means giving doctors and patients the ability to compare different kinds of treatments to find out which one works best for which patient.
"Opponents-like some drug companies and medical device makers-don't want this research. They fear it will cut the profits they make on ineffective drugs and equipment.
"But they won't tell you that this research could save your life by giving your doctors better information so they can prescribe the best treatments available to you.
"This research is a common sense idea that is, unfortunately, not happening now. Some estimates say that only about half of all therapies that patients receive have been backed up by head-to-head comparisons with alternatives.
"While our country spends more than trillion a year on health care, we spend less than 0.1 percent on evaluating how that care works compared to other options.
"AARP strongly opposes any attempts that would limit doctors and hospitals from providing the best possible care to their patients.
"And despite what opponents are saying, comparative effectiveness research funding was in the economic recovery package in both houses of Congress from the very beginning. That's because lawmakers understand the need to improve the quality and performance of our health system.
"The economic recovery bill before Congress will help stabilize our economy and take important steps toward reforming our health care system."
AARP is a nonprofit, nonpartisan membership organization that helps people 50+ have independence, choice and control in ways that are beneficial and affordable to them and society as a whole. AARP does not endorse candidates for public office or make contributions to either political campaigns or candidates. We produce AARP The Magazine, the definitive voice for 50+ Americans and the world's largest-circulation magazine with over 34.5 million readers; AARP Bulletin, the go-to news source for AARP's 40 million members and Americans 50+; AARP Segunda Juventud, the only bilingual U.S. publication dedicated exclusively to the 50+ Hispanic community; and our website, AARP.org. AARP Foundation is an affiliated charity that provides security, protection, and empowerment to older persons in need with support from thousands of volunteers, donors, and sponsors. We have staffed offices in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
http://www.aarp.org
maybe the problem is the way the media represents this.. It's being claimed as a way to eliminate meds/procedures that don't provide the best results for the majority of patients.. THAT is wrong. Sometimes we are in the minority?? no??The media? Fox News and Rush Limbaugh?
From MediaMatters.org
In the field of rheumatology, NICE has focused mainly on treatment with biologic agents—the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, human interleukin-1 receptor antagonists, anti-B-cell antibodies and CD4+ T-cell costimulation modulators. NICE has previously recommended the use of anti-TNF agents to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis, as well as rituximab for RA. It has not approved anakinra or abatacept for RA therapy on the basis of cost-effectiveness analyses."
I always question Media Matters. [QUOTE=Jan Lucinda]I always question Media Matters.[/QUOTE]Why the buzz? Comparative effectiveness is increasingly being viewed as a viable way to help drive down spiraling health care costs while continuing to provide quality care. Roughly 0 billion each year goes to health-care spending that can’t be shown to lead to better health outcomes, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. Last year legislation was introduced in Congress to establish an ambitious comparative effectiveness program created by the federal government, including establishing the Health Care Comparative Effectiveness Research Institute to review evidence and produce new information on how diseases, disorders, and other health conditions can be treated to achieve the best clinical outcome for patients. Lawmakers and the Obama Administration are pushing to include .1 billion in the economic stimulus package (approved today) for comparative effectiveness. Proponents say the Institute would work with experts and stakeholders to prioritize treatments for research–including surgical procedures, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and other measures. The research would be carried out by public and private organizations approved by the Institute’s board of directors, including doctors, patients, and pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. The results would then be made available to clinicians, patients, and the public.
Critics such as the Cato Institute contend such a government-created comparative effectiveness effort “will be a complete waste of time and money.” Cato says a better way to generate comparative-effectiveness information would be for Congress to eliminate government activities that it says suppress private production, including allowing workers and Medicare enrollees to control the money that purchases their health insurance. Such a laissez-faire approach would both increase comparative-effectiveness research and increase the likelihood that patients and providers would use it, according to Cato. This will all continue to play out in the months ahead and increasing scrutiny of the evidence behind medical interventions is always a good thing.
Essential Information
Congressional Budget Office on Comparative Effectiveness*
National Working Group on Evidence Based Healthcare, Johns Hopkins University
AARP: Comparative Effectiveness: What’s at Stake for Consumers?
—Bob Williams, strategic resource director, Consumers Union
There has been the instance where a particular knee surgery produced no better results than if the patient had done physical therapy and taken NSAIDS. With limited health care dollars, we can't afford to be wasteful.
nothing new there.. in 1992 I had double herniated my L5/S1 disc.... the ortho said I couldh ave surgery and be "here" (no pain and workable back) or do PT and be "here" (also no pain and workable back) ....... There have always been loads of surgery that is unwarranted and unnecessary but it happens and will continue to happen.
The results of the study are in line with those from a study published in 2002. But experts are divided about what effects the two studies will have.
Some say the new study just confirms what they already knew. Others say they hope that doctors who did not believe the 2002 study will be persuaded by this one to stop doing the operations.Does AARP Have A Conflict of Interest?
(4/25/07)- AARP announced that it would become more involved in the insurance market both as a health maintenance organization to Medicare recipients and several other products to people 50 to 64 years of age.
The products for people under 65 include a managed care plan, known as a preferred provider organization, and a high-deductible insurance policy that could be used with a health savings account (HSA). The various programs will not commence until 2008, but when they do come into operation it will make AARP the largest provider of private insurance to Medicare recipients.
The organization has 38 million members making it by far-and-away the largest senior citizen organization in this country. The new Medicare product will be marketed with the UnitedHealth Group, while policies for people under 65 will carry the AARP name and will be marketed by Aetna.
AARP makes about 0 million (39% of its total income) annually from insurance royalties. (Alonso-Zaldivar, LA Times, 06/08/05). Judith A. Stein, director of the Center for Medicare Advocacy, a nonprofit group that counsels people on Medicare said: "AARP will not be perceived as a truly independent advocate on Medicare if it's making hefty profits by selling insurance products that provide Medicare coverage… AARP's role in this market could give a big boost to the privatization of Medicare.
Up till now, AARP has opposed efforts to privatize Medicare and/or Social Security. Please see our item dated 2/10/06 for the business tie in between AARP and UnitedHealth.
(2/10/06)- We at therubins can not attest to the veracity of the figures contained in the January 26th article in the Wall St. Journal written by Sarah Lueck and Vanessa Fuhrman entitled, " New Medicare Benefit Sparks an Industry Land Grab", but they sure make for interesting numbers.
As many of us well remember, AARP was quite influential in getting the Medicare Prescription Drug law passed in 2003. When the organization threw its support behind the proposed legislation the Bush administration used this endorsement to help get the law passed. Many people "burned" their AARP membership cards in protest against this approval by the organization.
The article goes on to point out the relationship that has been carved out between AARP and UnitedHealthcare, which co-market one of the 10 nationwide plans that are available for beneficiaries to join. The article goes on to state that AARP has 36 million members UnitedHealthcare won, in open competition with other insurers, a 10-year contract to sell Medigap plans to AARP members in 1998.
The article goes on to state: "In 2004, UnitedHealth collected .5 billion in premiums from AARP-related products. Currently nearly three million people buy the AARP/UnitedHealth Medigap plans, making the duo the biggest Medigap vendor. The AARP based drug plan has generated at least 95% of UnitedHealth's overall Medicare drug enrollments so far."
"The partnership has been lucrative for AARP, too. In 2004 AARP earned 7 million in insurance-related royalties and an additional million from investment insurance premiums, in both cases mostly from Medigap. In total, 40% of the organizations 8 million in 2004 revenue came from various royalties and service provider fees. That compares to 4 million, or 26%, from membership dues.
(1/20/05)-The following is an email that we at therubins received on Sunday, January 16th. Herb Wild, the author of the email gave his approval to post the text on our site, and to use his name. We can not attest to the accuracy of what he writes. We would like to know if any other of our viewers have run into similar situations with AARP. If you have please email us. At the same time we would like to hear from any of our viewers who have had favorable dealings with AARP to tell us about these occurrences. If AARP has a rejoinder to Mr. Wild's email, we will of course print that response.
Email from Herb Wild dated Sunday January 16, 2005
I would like to inform you of an incident I had with AARP after joining and calling for an Auto Insurance quote. I am 63 years old and had held off since my first contact with AARP at age ( 25 ) " Just a little humor since my 26 year old daughter just got her first invitation to join AARP the other day ".
But back to the story ; I called the toll free number in the brochure sent by AARP for a quote and allegedly HUGE savings on my auto Insurance. I was connedted(sic) to the Hartford Insurance Company and gave the information needed. After about 15 minutes on the phone I got my quote for 3 vehicles which I was currently paying approximately 0.00 a half to insure.
The quote;
Now get this ; $ 1700.00 a Half !!!! I immediately made them aware that
I was currently paying less than half this amount for the exact same
coverage. To this they replied that since I was a Senior Citizen I had
to be qrouped in a different category of risk. Needless to say I did
not take the offer and immediately resigned myself to NOT renew my AARP
membership. ( I also notified AARP of this rip-off ).
No reply was forthcoming from them.
Now for the other half of the story. " Upon renewing my auto insurance through my agent I was told that they could get my a better rate through the " Hartford " . I told them to run the numbers ( which they did ) and the quote was approximately 0.00 less than I was currently paying for Insurance through Atlanta Casualty and 0.00 less than what I was quoted from an AARP authorized company that was suppose to save me mucho dinaro's ! Namely " The Hartford ".
I would caution anyone even thinking about joining AARP with the thought of massive savings because of their age and Senior title . In my opinion ( and everyone has one ) I would not join AARP and would actively advise anyone thinking of doing so to do their homework before spending a dime with this Organization.
Thanks
Herb Wild
(3/16/04)-In a letter to 16 major drug companies, AARP called on them to limit price increases for drugs to a pace that should not exceed the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The CPI is the basis for the annual increases in Social Security benefits. At the same time John C. Rother, policy director of AARP, said the organization had begun to monitor price changes for about 200 commonly prescribed drugs. AARP said it would periodically publicize its findings.
William D. Novelli, chief executive of AARP said that drug manufacturers should also "constrain the prices of new drugs". He also called on the manufacturers of drugs to use their influence to prevent undue markups throughout the distribution chain. We at therubins feel that this is a positive step that AARP is taking towards remedying all the unfavorable publicity that the organization has garnered lately in connection with the enactment of the prescription drug bill.
In fairness to AARP we have extracted some of the comments that appeared in their magazine which is distributed to all members entitled: "Conflict of Interest? AARP Could Lose Revenue Under New Drug Benefit in Medicare." The article stated: "AARP could be hurt financially rather than helped by the new law"." We could actually lose revenue when this legislation goes into effect, because fewer people will need medigap health policies and drug discounts that AARP makes available to members, says John Rother, AARP's director of policy."…."He also rejects accusations that AARP accepted contributions from drug companies and HMOs."
"AARP received royalties of 7 million from these endorsed providers last year, according to its annual report….AARP Services Inc. (ASI), the for-profit subsidiary that manages endorsed product and services, has a separate and independent stand and board of directors. From our perspective we do not interfere in AARP's public policy positions, says ASI president Dawn Sweeney, even if they do away with the need for AARP products."
AARP is the official name for the organization that we always knew as the American Association of Retired People. The new name became effective January 1,2000. AARP was founded in 1958, and was originally founded for individuals over 55 years of age. The age for eligibility was lowered to 50 in 1984. At last count it has 33 million members and the organization states that "more than a third" of the members are in the work force. Furthermore the organization stated that "We decided we needed a name that reflects the full diversity of our membership".
The organization and the IRS have settled a long pending tax dispute over AARP's tax-exempt status. Under the terms of the settlement AARP created a taxable subsidiary, AARP Services, Inc. to handle all of the income generating business for the organization. There are many critics of AARP who allege that because of the large amount of business generated by their insurance division a conflict of interest arises within the organization. The annual membership fee for AARP is now $ 12.50.
About 25% of their operating income of 5.8 million comes from the sale of activities related to its health insurance business. Can AARP be truly representative of its members in such issues as prescription drug coverage for Medicare beneficiaries when a good portion of its income is derived from the sale of health insurance? According to Steve Hahn, a spokesman for AARP, the main source of this income was royalties on Medicare supplement policies, and mail order drug sales. UnitedHealth Group, the nation's largest health insurance company, markets both of these under the AARP banner. AARP may set up a discount drug program card membership club, if Congress adopts this provision of the pending proposals.
The tax question goes back to a dispute between the IRS and AARP from the early eighties over the matter of business income generated by the then fully tax exempt organization. AARP paid the IRS 5 million to resolve the matter for the period of time from 1985-1993. AARP has paid in million a year since 1994 "in lieu of taxes" pending resolution of the dispute. In settling the matter it was agreed that million of the million paid in, would be refunded to AARP. In furtherance of the settlement the taxable subsidiary AARP Services Inc. was set up. It is headed by Steve Zaleznick, who was the association's general counsel from 1990 to 1997.
Under the terms of the settlement anyone using the association's logo in marketing their services or products would pay a royalty to the association which would be tax exempt. All other business related income would be taxable. Incidentally the association does sell its mailing list of members for a fee.
The question still remains however in that we feel that an organization that has a business interest in selling a product and making a profit to senior citizens may have a conflict of interest in supposedly defending the rights of these same seniors. What do you think?
FOR AN INFORMATIVE AND PERSONAL ARTICLE ON PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS WHEN SELECTING A NURSING HOME SEE OUR ARTICLE "Selecting a Nursing Home"
By Allan Rubin
Updated April 25, 2007