Government Health|June 14, 2012 1:36 PM

‘Death panel’ myth persists

Study shows one-third of Americans still believe false claim

The U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C. The justices are expected to rule on the Affordable Health Care Act this month. Courtesy of Daderot/Wikimedia Commons

Listen to the radio broadcast version:
Audio MP3

As the Supreme Court is about to rule on the constitutionality of the health care law, one-third of Americans are worrying about a part of the legislation that isn’t there.

A Kaiser Family Foundation’s tracking poll [pdf] found in March that 36 percent of respondents erroneously believe that the law “would allow a government panel to make decisions about end-of-life care for people on Medicare.” Another 20 percent said they are not sure whether it does.

The foundation, a nonpartisan organization that provides health policy analysis, reports the “prevalence of these misconceptions is essentially the same it was at the end of 2010.”

The death panel myth that won’t die made national headlines in 2009 when former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin used the term “death panel” on her Facebook page. Her assertion falsely claimed the government would be able to decide whether people like her parents or baby with Down Syndrome were worthy of healthcare. Various conservative lawmakers, broadcasters and pundits have since repeated and extended the claim.

In Colorado, though, none of the state’s four Republicans in Congress say the law provides for a board of bureaucrats who would decide who will live or die.

And Dr. Mark Earnest of the University of Colorado School of Medicine says flatly, “No, it’s not true.”

Earnest said the belief originated in a proposal to add to the health care law a provision to pay Medicare physicians for counseling people on end-of-life decision-making.

The myth persists because “it taps into a basic fear that people have of somehow government taking away their choices, and this fear of rationing,” he said.

Numerous journalists around the country have debunked the myth that the law includes any provision for government control of who will live and who will die. In 2009, the Tampa Bay Times-sponsored news fact-checking watchdog organization Politifact called the “death panel” story its “Lie of the Year”.

Both Politifact and Fackcheck.org, a project sponsored by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, continue to report on variations on the theme, and continue to find the claims false.

Among Colorado’s Congressional Republicans, Rep. Mike Coffman, who represents a district south of Denver, distances himself from the concept most clearly. “Neither myself nor my office have ever used the term ‘death panels,’” he told Colorado Public News.

When constituents ask about the topic, Coffman says he sends a letter to provide background.

“Many people expressed concern over the inclusion of so-called “death panels” in the Democrat sponsored healthcare reform bill,” the letter says. The language “that caused this anxiety would have authorized Medicare to pay doctors for counseling patients regarding end of life care, if the patient so wishes.” The letter goes on to say that the provision was removed from the bill, reinstated in a regulation and then eliminated again.

Before the bill passed, Republican Rep. Doug Lamborn of Colorado Springs was quoted in The Gazette as telling a crowd in Pueblo that such counseling might cause people to “feel pressure to maybe forgo treatment that they would otherwise be able to have to save the country money, or something like that.”

Today, some conservatives who are seeking justification for the term “death panels” cite the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) created by the health care law as the problem. The purpose of the IPAB is to recommend cuts to keep Medicare spending in line.

In an email this week, Lamborn’s spokeswoman told Colorado Public News that references to “death panels” refer to the IPAB. However, the email went on to note correctly the board will not make end-of-life decisions for people. It “will not have the direct ability to approve or disapprove of specific medical care for individuals,” the Lamborn email said.

Based on their official websites and past statements, Colorado GOP Reps. Scott Tipton and Cory Gardner dislike the board but don’t claim it will decide life-and-death issues. Neither responded to questions over two days.

Gardner, who represents northeastern Colorado, says on his website the board is “devastating for seniors,” but provides no explanation.

Tipton comes closest to propagating the false “death panel” claim, indicating on his website that IPAB will “make critical health care decisions for patients, jeopardize seniors’ access to care and put federal bureaucrats in the middle of doctor-patient relationships.”

Tipton, who represents a swath of Colorado from Pueblo to the Western Slope, was quoted in the Pueblo Chieftain last August saying a federal panel will decide whether seniors get hip replacements and other surgeries.

In fact, the law explicitly states IPAB proposals to Congress “shall not include any recommendation to ration health care.”

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act is scheduled to be handed down this month.

2 Comments

  • avatar

    VA, Obamacare, media may not believe the “death panel” exists, but the devil is in the details. I printed the questionaire that VA prepared, then scrapped after veterans complained. I retired in 1 Nov 1976, after 26 years 18 days HONORABLE service Age 82 now. I prepared Living Will and Durable Power of Attorney when Colorado Supreme Court ruled individuals had a “right to die” and make own choices. Had 3 cardio-versions in past 2 years, and received good care. Some tests such as PSA have been removed from list of tests during annual blood analysis. With a full test, and analysis of blood, I feel I have better comparison of any problems developing, or how body is changing as I age. I have no faith in touchy-feely questions periodically, with doctor saying “You are doing okay, Frank”, “will see you in 3,6,12 months”. And my care has been changed since 1976, with Medicare and Tricare for Life (2001) being changed, not because my doctor decided that, but unknown made decisions. They do not know me, and are making decisions based on numbers, cost, or some other way. If Ann Imse does not believe “death panel” exists, why was there media concern that a perfectly good heart was wasted on Vice President Dick Cheney. He was only 71, and had waited over a year for transplant.

  • avatar

    First, I apologize for the delay in posting your comment. It was caught in our spam filter.
    Your concerns are important. The fact that you made a Living Will and Durable Power of Attorney indicates you have put time into making sure your family knows your wishes. There is nothing in the health care law that overrides that.
    The story was meant to reassure people that they don’t have to worry about death panels in the law that has just been upheld by the Supreme Court.
    That doesn’t mean there are not other limits on your care. There are is a shortage of transplant organs, and there is a system of allocating those. Some people who could live with a transplant do die as a result. The answer is getting more people to sign up to allow their organs to be harvested after death, to help more people live.
    I’m sure you know that there comes a point in life where surgery is more dangerous than the problem, and it all depends on the health of the person. I believe Medicare leaves that decision up to you. If you know differently, please ask the people involved to tell us.
    Lack of insurance means some people die of cancer that could be treated.
    Some insurance policies deny payment for care that is critical to health. That’s private companies, not the health care law.
    I looked up the VA checklist you mention, which was meant to help people make decisions like those you defined in your Living Will. I can see how some people could object to some of the questions. But it was a checklist for the individual, not one to be shared with the VA.
    Bottom line: yes, keep your eyes open for limits. But don’t be more worried today than you were before the court’s decision.

string(357) "
  • Ann Imse
  • Cara DeGette
  • Carol McKinley
  • "