Call To See How I Can Help You 781-433-8665

Blog

Well, the scare tactics work in the short term (updated!).

Posted by Sasha Golden | Aug 14, 2009 | 0 Comments

The same folks who rammed the Schiavo legislation through in 2005 have tanked the proposal to have Medicare pay for a voluntary conversation about end-of-life options, now claiming that government shouldn't be involved in end-of-life decision making. Chuck Grassley, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee said yesterday

“I think the best thing to do is if you want people to think about the end of life, number one, Jesus Christ is the place to start, and after that, in the physical life, as opposed to your eternal life, it ought to be done within the family and considered a religious and ethical issue and not something that politicians deal with,” he said.

This afternoon, the Senate Finance Committee has announced that Medicare funding to discuss advance directives will not be included in any package. However, the sharp-eyed Amy Sullivan notes at Time's Swampland blog that

Remember the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, the one that passed with the votes of 204 GOP House members and 42 GOP Senators? Anyone want to guess what it provided funding for? Did you say counseling for end-of-life issues and care? Ding ding ding!!

Let's go to the bill text, shall we? “The covered services are: evaluating the beneficiary's need for pain and symptom management, including the individual's need for hospice care; counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options, and advising the beneficiary regarding advanced care planning.” The only difference between the 2003 provision and the infamous Section 1233 that threatens the very future and moral sanctity of the Republic is that the first applied only to terminally ill patients. Section 1233 would expand funding so that people could voluntarily receive counseling before they become terminally ill.

And guess who voted for this measure? Yup — Senator Grassley.

Setting aside my feelings about this truly magnificent degree of hypocrisy for the moment, I will try to look on the bright side — seldom in my fifteen years of practice have I heard so much conversation at the national level about living wills, health care proxies and advanced directives. If the shouting encourages more people to contact attorneys to make sure that they have legally appropriate documents in place, perhaps something good will come out of it. I hope some people have learned that if they don't have advance directives and a health care proxy in place, the default position for doctors is to do everything to keep someone alive, no matter what. And perhaps if the issue has become so politically toxic that it must be removed, some good things will be enacted into law.

Maybe this issue will be revisited in the next legislative session, when the flame-throwing has died down.

About the Author

Sasha Golden

Alexandra “Sasha” Golden received her undergraduate and law degrees from Boston College, and has been practicing law in Massachusetts since 1994. Attorney Golden is a long-standing member of the Massachusetts chapter of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA) and of the Probate and So...

Comments

There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

Contact Golden Law Center Today

Golden Law Center is committed to answering your questions about elder law and estate planning issues in Massachusettes.

I'll gladly discuss your case with you at your convenience. Contact us today to schedule an appointment.

Disclaimer: The materials appearing on this website are provided for informational use only and are in no way intended to constitute legal advice or the opinions of this law firm or any of its attorneys. You should never hire an attorney without first meeting with the lawyer, reviewing her qualifications, and carefully reading the fee agreement. The use of the material on this website does not create an attorney-client relationship, and you should not rely upon the information provided here without seeking the advice of an attorney. We also cannot guarantee that the materials appearing on this website are not guaranteed to be correct, complete, or up-to-date since the law is always changing.

This website must be labeled “advertising” according to the rules of professional responsibility established by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. This website may not meet the applicable laws or ethical rules in other states. Golden Law Center does not wish to represent persons living in those states who seek our representation as a result of viewing this website.

Links that may appear on this site are intended to provide additional sources of information and are not to be construed as being endorsements by the Golden Law Center or indications of affiliation. We do not imply that we are legally authorized to use any trade name, registered trademark, symbol, logo, or seal that may be reflected in any of these links.

Menu