On Agust 24, 2009, the LA Times carried an AP report that Social Security payments (LA Times) for 2010 (and maybe 2011) won't be increased because there is no inflation, leading to a decrease in net Social Security checks because the drug benefit premiums will rise. Sounds reasonable: no inflation, no COLA, no increase in those monthly deposits to Social Security beneficiaries.
But wait - There's more! See what the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has to say about inflation , when it comes to the government's ability to "charge" for inflation.
"HHS Issues Rules Adjusting Penalties under the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Rule for Inflation (Penalty Inflation)
"As required by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Inflation Adjustment Act), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued both a direct final rule and a proposed rule today adjusting for inflation the maximum civil money penalty amount for violations of the confidentiality provisions of the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act. These confidentiality provisions are enforced by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR).
"The Inflation Adjustment Act requires HHS to adjust for inflation the Patient Safety Act’s civil money penalty amount at least once every four years, beginning from the Patient Safety Act’s date of enactment, which was July 29, 2005. These rules adjust the maximum civil money penalty amount for a violation of the confidentiality provisions of the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act from $10,000 to $11,000.
"The public has 30 days to comment on these rules. If no adverse comments are received, the direct final rule will go into effect 90 days after publication, and the proposed rule with be withdrawn. If, however, adverse comments are received during the comment period, the direct final rule will be withdrawn. For more information, visit the OCR web site at http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/."
While there may be a perfectly sensible reason for the penalty inflation adjustment (such as a catch-up to the time that there was inflation 4 years ago), it seems incongruous to deny Social Security beneficiaries a COLA while now imposing a COLA equivalent on government-levied penalties.
Showing posts with label Drug. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Drug. Show all posts
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
FDA Seeks Funding for Inspecting Foreign Products
The New York Times caption at page A13, May 14, 2008, provocatively reads "F.D.A. Chief Writes Congress for Money." The F.D.A. request may provide insight into Congress' willingness to solve serious American health system problems.
Contaminated human food, drugs (most recently heparin), and other related health products (including pet food) from foreign sources have become a major threat to Americans' health. The article notes that the request for $275 million went to Senator Arlen Spector, who had previously written to FDA Commissioner von Eschenbach asking how much money the F.D.A required to protect the public health, and outlined a spending plan which included opening new foreign offices, increasing inspections and constructing new databases to follow drug hazards.
Perhaps Congress will obtain a verifying Congressional Budget Office estimate of the actual amount the F.D.A. needs to do its job (meeting the agenda which Congress has set for it) since, even with von Eschenbach's apparent assertion of independence from Administration budget priorities, it is not clear how much of an infusion is necessary on an ongoing basis. Perhaps, too, Congress will appropriately fund the F.D.A. on a regular basis rather than provide it with legislative mandates which cannot be carried out because of inadequate and politically cynical Congressional funding.
The resolution of this issue will affect the health safety of Americans. Once the spotlight of the 2008 national election has been turned-off, we should keep on eye on our Representatives' and Senators' votes and monitor the new Administration spendable funding for the F.D.A.. In an environment of financial crisis, Congress and political leadership, like old dogs, may prefer their old tricks.
Contaminated human food, drugs (most recently heparin), and other related health products (including pet food) from foreign sources have become a major threat to Americans' health. The article notes that the request for $275 million went to Senator Arlen Spector, who had previously written to FDA Commissioner von Eschenbach asking how much money the F.D.A required to protect the public health, and outlined a spending plan which included opening new foreign offices, increasing inspections and constructing new databases to follow drug hazards.
Perhaps Congress will obtain a verifying Congressional Budget Office estimate of the actual amount the F.D.A. needs to do its job (meeting the agenda which Congress has set for it) since, even with von Eschenbach's apparent assertion of independence from Administration budget priorities, it is not clear how much of an infusion is necessary on an ongoing basis. Perhaps, too, Congress will appropriately fund the F.D.A. on a regular basis rather than provide it with legislative mandates which cannot be carried out because of inadequate and politically cynical Congressional funding.
The resolution of this issue will affect the health safety of Americans. Once the spotlight of the 2008 national election has been turned-off, we should keep on eye on our Representatives' and Senators' votes and monitor the new Administration spendable funding for the F.D.A.. In an environment of financial crisis, Congress and political leadership, like old dogs, may prefer their old tricks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
