TUESDAY, November 3, 2009 – U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, MI-08, said a new health care bill introduced by Democrat leaders in the House has stripped out his amendment that would have prevented the federal government from rationing health care.

“Rationing health care will put Americans at risk by delaying or denying care at the most crucial time in any illness or injury,” Rogers said. “Cancer care delayed, heart health care delayed, or any other health care need that goes unmet is a matter of life and death.

“American patients should not be forced into a UK-style health care system that rations care based on a government bureaucrat’s guidelines. Families will suffer and lives will be lost if the government sets up a cookie-cutter system that prevents doctors and patients from making decisions about individuals’ health care.”

Rogers sponsored a bipartisan measure during the Energy and Commerce Committee markup of the first version of the House bill, H.R. 3200. His amendment would ensure that new federal health boards wouldn’t lead to the type of health care rationing that occurs in the United Kingdom. Rogers’ amendment simply said none of the research conducted by new comparative effectiveness research boards and commissions could “be used by the federal government to ration or deny care.”

The amendment was adopted by a unanimous, bipartisan voice vote. When Democrat leaders introduced their new bill, H.R. 3962, last week, the amendment to prevent rationing had been stripped out, creating a huge new loophole for government rationing of health care.

“Under this new bill, the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) could use comparative effectiveness research to deny access to life-saving drugs or treatments solely on the basis of cost,” Rogers said. “This is exactly how the UK rations care. If new drugs or treatments are too expensive, the UK’s National Institute for Clinical Effectiveness (NICE) can ban access, even to patients who need it to survive.

“This is the only way government can control costs – by rationing or denying care.”

Rogers cited the example of a 44-year old UK woman with bone cancer who was denied access to a drug that could extend her life for seven years. NICE found the drug clinically effective, but too expensive. The drug was approved and widely available in other parts of Europe and the U.S.

Another example is a 46-year-old Canadian woman who was denied access to the only cancer drug that would keep her alive as she battled an inoperable form of colon cancer. The drug is a standard treatment in the U.S., but Canada denied treatment because bureaucrats wanted to see a more prolonged survival rate.

“Treatment decisions must be left up to a patient and their doctor, not bureaucrats,” Rogers said. “Comparative effectiveness research should be used as an information resource, not a coverage mandate. Denying treatment is a shameful way to treat Americans and it fails completely to improve the lives of those in need of medical care.”

Rogers is urging that leaders restore his bi-partisan proposal to prevent comparative effectiveness research from being used to ration health care.