It made headlines two days ago, and has generated a lot of ink.
Susan G. Komen, the well-recognized cancer advocacy organization, is discontinuing all of its contractual arrangements with Planned Parenthood. This is huge news in a few ways. It is a big blow for PP who will lose a great deal of steady funding, and it weakens the reasons for Komen to deny that abortions, especially if a woman does not deliver a child in the next several years, are a significant risk factor for breast cancer.
If enough of the “medical establishment” gets fractured on the loose conspiracy to deny the ABC link, then this problem will have to be re-addressed. It was “formally debunked,” or whatever, several years ago by a couple high-level analyses, but this depended upon selective interpretation, and several studies from beyond the control of the anglophile world have emerged like unruly teenagers.
I should post those soon just so there is yet another source out there highlighting this ridiculous cult we liberals follow blindly.
So, ABC, plus the loss of funding.
There are a bunch of theories explaining why Komen made the cut. PP is all out there, of course, making things look OK: their story is Komen has given in to oppressive conservative politics. If true, PP must really be scared. Komen is not quite the John Birch society.
Komen’s official word is that they have refined policies, and they won’t contract with organizations that are under investigation of funny business. The congressional drive to have PP, overall, investigated for billing fraud has gotten rolling, so PP must be cut, by policy.
Of course, PP ignores this stated reason, whether genuine or not, in all communications.
Fraud: there is a lot in the interweb. But the clear stuff is a matter of local or regional PPs having funny billing. Long story short, they get a discount charity rate on a pack of birth control pills, prescribe those to a client with Medicaid coverage, then bill the government for the full price.
This is SOP. This is the money-laundering loop. PP supporters in congress fight to build in service delivery and billing opportunities into legislation, such as health care reform, and these seem innocuous enough. All along, the legislators know PP will be a prominent provider. So, PP has built-in sustainability. Then, when PP receives this revenue, somehow it moves from here to there, over to their political arm, and gets contributed to the campaign coffers.
So, a die-hard legislator has a built-in chunk of re-election funds.
PP is VERY quick and strategic with campaign funds. Boss Rickards, in an interview lately, ?NPR? noted how abortion access was threatened in Mississississippi, and how it required PPs from all ove the country to rally support.
True enough, I had read this story last fall – fighting the personhood amendment in Missippi showed many checks of several thousand each coming from diverse points on the map into Missippippi. Do you think for a minute that these donations were spontaneous, or do you think that Cecile sent out a memo to diverse points and noted where to shoot a check, and from what fund?
People, this was coordinated. The diverse PPs act independendently, but also coordinated. Officially via the national org, and casually via some system of giving directives to the various state and local PP entities.
PP of LA, SF, and others, have gotten in trouble and this billing fraud is not an allegation or rumor. Certain PPs have already gotten in trouble. Now, the issue has just risen to federal attention directed at the whole org. Oh – it hit a small newspaper in Texas that PP of El Paso was under investigation for some accounting funny business, and they just closed up shop – suspiciously looking like cutting off the leg to escape death.
How is Komen tied in? A lot may be revealed. But there is aleading way they have been tied in some breast cancer health funny business. There is a federal program that states can access, like Medicaid is a fed program states can access. This has several acronyms for differnt parts, but is basically called “BCCS.” If you google that, you can figure this out. Basically, this provides money for low income women without health ins to get a mammography – oh, excuse me – let me use a generic, vague, good-sounding term that gives a huge wiggle room — “breast cancer screening.”
Breast cancer screening might include mammography, which includes a mammography: getting an x-ray. This requires the special x-ray machine, a technician, a big outlet to plug in this big plug, radioactive material that shoots out x-rays, shielding to keep the x-rays from going all over th place, x-ray film or digital film, and a radiologist somwhere to spend a few minutes reading the x-ray.
There is another recognized, legitimate, billable way to screen for breast ca: basically, all this requires is just a bit more than what two teens in the back of a car need: willingness and a pair of hands, plus training and a “diary” upon which to document this. THis is the “clinical breast exam.” It more properly could be called the manual breast exam, but that sounds a little too much like – well – the back seat of a teenager’s car.
When PP funding cuts was the big rallying cry last yr, we liberals received marching orders to claim the PP cuts were taking away mammographies. WE help pink signs, and there are fotos out there on the interweb, so this point cannot be disputed. turns out, we were misled: PP does almost zero or zero mammographies. To get BCCS money, they either do CBE and bill for that, or they do a visit, and subcontract the mammography to some place down the street.
This was exposed, and we received a memo to change our tune to the whole cervical cancer meme. We obeyed. This abrupt change in chant went unnoticed. MSM is hesitant to pursue this, and the conservasphere is not savvy enough to folllow the clinical picture. Surprising if those folks are supposed to be businessmen and all. Well, i have been in business, and i see this as obvious.
Komen connection? Jill Stanek’s website, I think, had a post or info about someone figuring this out, and calling a Komen to ask for a referral to a local BCCS provider for breast cancer screening. Komen directed the caller to PP. PP did the subcontract thing. The caller followed up and noted this to Komen. Komen acted ignorant, but said they would look into it. Basically, you callled Komen to find a location for a mammography, and Komen directed you elsewhere – to their contract buddies. The caller followed up, and Someone said they would look into it. A retest of this a couple weeks later showed that Komen did not change referral strategy.
Komen, and BCCS, is supposed to be about getting low income uninsured women access to mammography despite barriers. Yet Komen intentionally put this pass-through middleman barrier in the way. Why? to show a little love. To let PP either get the clinical exam portion of the whole mammogram service, or to just deliver the CBE and satisfy the poor woman that she had been screened.
Is this OK? Hey, they are po folks and should be happy we elitist liberals are giving them a shaggy second rate hand-out. The alternative – the conservatives – aren’t giving them nothing. So keep voting for us so you can at least get table scraps.
I believe that a congressional investigation of PP would / will detect the BCCS funding stream. An obvious accounting strategy would be to see what the billing was for, and see how the clients ended up there, and see if the govt got what it paid for.
This would or will show Komen upstream, making the referrals. Komen vetted and vouched PP as BCCS providers, and directed women there for the pass-through. If congress does not like this barrier arrangement, it might not look good. Additionally, if there were any more clear mis-direction, and it could be pinned on Komen that they knew clients were being mislead to think the PP would provide mammography, congress will be unhappy.
Googling BCCS shows a lot of noise, but not much music. They happen to not really serve a great portion of women in need. No one has been able to show it saves us taxpayers money by catching the breast cancer early so we don’t have to pay for that woman’s more expensive care if when detected at a more advanced state. I will try to google soon to pull a little of this story up and post it.
But as I consider why Komen would make such a bold move, this fed funding funny business seems like a liability if something funny were going on.
I have seen writing these last couple of days that Komen and others have been trying to deny or downplay the “BPE”-breast cancer link. I know nothing about that, but there is always google. Komen will turn from pink to shades of red if they get caught twice playing with the truth.
There are other orgs that do the same thing as Komen: for BC, they advocate, fund research, and do support things. You can find these groups on the interweb, or ask a local university with cancer research how you can give a tax-deductable donation for breast cancer research.
We have done that the last few years where friends have asked us to support their Komen three-day walk. I would feel dumb claiming I was not donating because of Komen-PP links – so I hav felt like I had to back up my feelings with a donation elsewhere, or it would just sound like a good excuse to get out of paying. “Tipping is so bourgeouis – I don’t tip.”
I donated to Komen yesterday mainly so they see a blip of positive response from me and others. I don’t need this to give, and give willingly. By the statistics, we give way more than the average american, even though we are average money-wise. Maybe not mitt Romney’s 15%, but surely not Obama’s paltry .5%.
So, on top of our heart-felt giving, I have added another donation to help make the political point to Komen that we have been paying attention to this for years, and we care abt breast cancer, and we will act accordingly.
In the meantime, Komen, keep your books clean. Your stock-in-trade is reputation.