A few days ago, noting some of the provisions in one of the pending health care bills, I asked, Is Your Health Care Culturally Incompetent?.
Now, looking at the 1018 page bill just passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee on a 31-28 vote, I have one question: Was it written by anthropologists?
I ask this because of the bill’s pervasive concern with “culturally and linguistically appropriate services” (page 91), “EFFECTIVE CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY APPROPRIATE COMMUNICATION” (page 106), “DEMONSTRATION TO PROMOTE ACCESS FOR MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES WITH LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY BY PROVIDING REIMBURSEMENT FOR CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY APPROPRIATE SERVICES,” (page 405), concern with “the effect of delivering culturally and linguistically appropriate services on beneficiary access to care, utilization of services, efficiency and cost-effectiveness of health care delivery, patient satisfaction, and select health outcomes” (page 415), with the “COORDINATION OF DIVERSITY AND CULTURAL COMPETENCY PROGRAMS” (page 914), with “CULTURAL AND LINGUISTIC COMPETENCY TRAINING FOR HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS” (page 915).
Pausing for a moment on this coordination of diversity and cultural competency programs, be reassured that in giving grants to meet this goal,
the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following:
(1) Addressing, or partnering with an entity with experience addressing, the cultural and linguistic competency needs of the population to be served through the grant or contract….
Can anyone say, “ACORN Enrichment Provision”? There are several of these.
If anything, there is even more concern with providing services to those with “limited English proficiency” (a phrase that occurs 35 times throughout the bill) than those facing cultural competency challenges.
Indeed, given the emphasis on “cultural competency,” linguistic appropriateness, and those with limited English proficiency, it strikes me as only mildly hyperbolic to suspect that the government bureaucrat standing between doctor and patient in the future will be accompanied by an “on-site interpreter” (page 401).
UPDATE [5 August 2009]
Hans Bader has much more on the “Acorn Enrichment Provisions,” etc., here. Read the whole thing. So does Mickey Kaus [Aug. 3, 11:03PM].
Article 1 Section 8 of The Constitution of The United States of America states the specific powers of Congress. There are 22 powers relegated to Congress and permitted by the Constitution as set forth by our Founding Fathers. No where within Article 1 Section 8 do the powers include the constitutional right to legislate on any bill related to healthcare. What Congress is trying to do is legislate on an Un-Constitutional Health Care Bill. Any law they pass on health care is Un-Constitutional and can be repealed. Congress owes us an apology because they are violating their oath to defend the Constitution.
I notice you got Kaus’ attention with this one.
Maybe you could focus some attention on another provision in the bill. Check out page 65, section 154. The REINSURANCE provision.
It provides $10 billion for “eligible” health plans. But only RETIREE plans. Is this provision aimed at unions? I ask that because how many NON-union private companies provide health care for retirees…as young as 55 yrs old??? Maybe there are a few private plans for high ranking execs, but not for the rank and file.
Someone needs to ask: “WHO will get this $10 billion?!”