Â鶹ŮÓÅ

Americans spend a fortune on end-of-life care -- including on aggressive treatments with little prospect of success and every prospect of making patients' last months miserable. Choosing to forgo such interventions would save money, which rightly arouses suspicion that economy is the motive. It shouldn't be. Rethinking end-of-life care should be about improving quality-of-life care. That would be desirable even if it made health care more expensive. (7/12)

Why has the cry of death panels not been as widespread this time? Perhaps because most politicians recognize that encouraging physicians to discuss end-of-life planning with patients is a good idea. It empowers patients to take control of important decisions. Without prompting from their physician, patients may be reluctant to initiate discussion of such a sensitive subject or may even be unaware that there are decisions to discuss. But when patients do engage in advance planning, wrenching decisions can be avoided later on, sparing many families from emotional turmoil. (Robert I. Field, 7/13)

Throughout its history Medicare has always been a dynamic program. Unfortunately, today it seems the only time Congress talks about Medicare is to cut benefits, shift costs or find ways to take money from the program to fund other federal priorities. Last year's vote to extend the Medicare sequester cuts to cover a reversal of cost-of-living cuts to veterans' pension benefits was followed just last month by a proposal to use Medicare to pay for part of the training assistance for workers who lose jobs due to the trade deal. Using Medicare to fund unrelated programs is a relatively new yet growing trend that Congress must stop. Medicare isn't Washington's ATM. (Max Richtman, 7/13)

In January, [Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia M.] Burwell set goals for Medicare: By the end of 2016, 30 percent of payments are to be based on value, and 50 percent by the end of 2018. To get there, we won't be able to rely exclusively on voluntary programs, in which providers choose whether or not to shift to value-based payment. Instead, Burwell needs to use her statutory authority to introduce mandatory, and preferably national, programs. Hip and knee replacements are a great place to start. (Peter R. Orszag, 7/9)

More funding for NIH is all to the good, but other provisions of the [21st Century Cures Act] could easily compromise the health of Americans that use prescription medications or devices. Lobbyists for the pharmaceutical and device companies responsible for drafting the bill promoted it to Congress as a necessary step for speeding the approval of new products. But the record shows that approvals of new drugs and devices in the U.S. are already efficient and swift. (Daniel R. Hoffman, 7/13)