Sister Carol Keehan, president and CEO of the Catholic Health Association, came under fire from some quarters when she vocally supported this year’s congressional reform of the health-care delivery system.
Now Sister Carol, a member of the Daughters of Charity, is being criticized for her support of Dr. Donald Berwick, a professor at Harvard Medical School who received a recess appointment from President Obama to be administrator of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Sister Carol spoke to Register correspondent Joan Frawley Desmond about her support of the Berwick appointment.
Why did you choose to issue a statement of public support for Dr. Donald Berwick?
Dr. Berwick’s whole professional life has been focused around quality care. He developed the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, a nonprofit organization, with the goal of saving 100,000 lives from medical errors. He was one of the prophets, one of the first people who said, “We’ve got to do a better job on quality of care and consistency of quality of care.”
I happen to believe that quality care is not only the best care, but less expensive as well. If you prevent an infection in a patient, you make their hospitalization shorter, less dangerous and less expensive. If you manage a pregnancy so that the mother does not deliver early and she delivers a healthy baby that never needs to go into the ICU, you have given great care, protected the baby and mother; that family can take the baby home, and you’ve saved a ton of money. When I say that I support what he’s doing, that’s what I’m talking about.
Dr. Berwick has been criticized for advocating the rationing of health care. Have you received any feedback from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops or your members since you issued your statement supporting his appointment?
One or two blogs that don’t like anything I say or do have responded.
Judging by press reports and public statements, Dr. Berwick strongly prefers the British health system and believes that the private sector doesn’t really belong in health care. What are your concerns about government-run health-care systems like the British system?
Dr. Berwick said something nice about the British system, but he didn’t sound like he was in love with it.
I don’t have excessive concerns about the record of government-run systems, but I am concerned about the regulations that will be developed now in this country. We all want to give input so that regulations will drive quality care and fairness.
A recent study issued by the Commonwealth Fund reported that the United States comes in last of all the industrialized nations in quality of care and outcome, with twice the GDP. The British system may not fit our psyche, but it fits their psyche, and they get good outcomes.
British-style systems include health-care rationing, and that worries the pro-life movement and many other Americans. For example, patients in wheelchairs are deemed less qualified to receive certain services in Britain.
The danger of a rationing approach would be to lose sight of the dignity of human beings. Some of the rhetoric and fear-mongering has gotten wonderful people concerned. But a man whose whole career is championing the principle that everyone deserves quality of care is not in danger of doing that.
Restructuring our health-care system, to some extent, needs to be a partnership of providers, payers and patients. As long as all those voices are at the table, we have the ability to keep the focus where it should be. Each group has something important to give to the discussion. We need to listen to voices who say, “Be careful — you don’t want to imply that someone isn’t qualified to get care because of age and infirmity.”
But we know that today there is overuse of diagnostic modalities, and they don’t bring any benefit to the patient. So we want to be certain that patients are getting quality of care. If we use quality data to make decisions, we have to ask: Does it have any potential to help the patient? Will it make them uncomfortable? Does the patient want that?
I don’t worry about us rationing — deciding that you can’t have a hip replacement or dialysis. But if we just talk about how health care has gotten too expensive, and we indiscriminately cut costs and reimbursement, then we affect the quality of care. We undermine the infrastructure of our system if we don’t have checks and balances.
As Dr. Berwick moves forward, and regulations are formulated, what role do you hope to play in the discussion? What special concerns do you want to bring to the table, from the standpoint of your members?
As they build the regulations, they should structure patient-care systems that reward quality, not volume. They should look early on to the most vulnerable who have nothing, and work quickly to get them into the system. Some of the most vulnerable have health problems that are not insurable. They will build a structure whereby these patients will be able to buy health insurance.
They’re also working on preventing insurance companies from denying children because of pre-existing conditions. This is why we supported health-care reform.
What about addressing concerns of specific interest to your membership — conscience protections, for example?
We will be alert regarding any conscience issues. But I don’t foresee them. We anticipate that the commitment of the president, the leader of the House and of the Senate to no federal funding of abortion will be kept.
But, from the pro-life perspective, we hope that those people — the patient who cannot afford to be pregnant — will be covered early and well.
Many Catholics — bishops and pro-life activists — are still angry about your vocal support for the health-reform bill.
We spent untold hours with Congress, the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services to make sure there would be no federal funding of abortion and there would be safeguards to validate that. Once we were convinced of that, and that we could help people who were pregnant and 32 million of the uninsured, we were conscience-bound to support it.
Where do things stand between you and the USCCB?
We are in constant dialogue with the USCCB, with Cardinal George, and with other bishops. There is no freezing out.
So you would say the reconciliation process has moved forward?
I can move forward, but others will have to speak for themselves. I have enormous respect for the bishops of this country, and many are close personal friends, even in the midst of this disagreement.
Joan Frawley Desmond writes from Washington.
Note from Joan Frawley Desmond. After this interview was conducted, breaking news led me to e-mail Sister Carol, now traveling in Haiti, and ask her a follow-up question: Are you aware of reports alleging that the Department of Health and Human Services is providing $160 million to the state of Pennsylvania to establish a new high-risk insurance pool program that would cover any legal abortion in the state? What does this say about the staying power of President Obama’s executive order?
She did not comment, but referred me to a statement by HHS spokeswoman Jenny Backus on the HHS website:
Statement on the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan Policy
As is the case with FEHB plans currently, and with the Affordable Care Act and the President’s related Executive Order more generally, in Pennsylvania and in all other states abortions will not be covered in the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) except in the cases of rape or incest, or where the life of the woman would be endangered.
Our policy is the same for both state and federally-run PCIP programs. We will reiterate this policy in guidance to those running the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan at both the state and federal levels. The contracts to operate the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan include a requirement to follow all federal laws and guidance.
Tim Drake: Register Radio: Sister Carol Keehan & Men's Ministry
Tom Hoopes: Courage and Conviction: The Obama Difference
Comments
Post a Comment
I’m certain that Sister Carol Keehan, and others who are of Boomer-age, do not need to worry about rationing. It’s the rest of us, who have been paying into their Medicare and Social Security for years, and our children, who will have to face a system which has gone bust and will be subject to rationing. Sister Carol Keehan will have by then, presumably, will have gone on to her eternal reward.
Keehan supported the ‘Patient Care Act’ (forgive me for abbreviating it, but I am tired of typing the whole thing out) despite the fact that the USCCB did not. The failure to include language protecting the unborn was the sticking point for everyone - except her. The CHA board is a ‘who’s who’ of Obama administration supporters - supposedly Catholics. She supported Daschle and Sabelius.
All despite the fact that the CCC - and our Bishops - have spoken out strongly against abortion and political actions that support abortion.
I understand that she didn’t take a vow of poverty - obviously. But don’t Sisters of Charity take some obedience vow?
Keehan is yet another example of the failure of the Church in America to educate our religious…and weed out the ones that are not suitable for their office. Being Catholic requires a willingness to be obedient to the Magisterium.
Abortion is an ‘inimical evil’. We cannot as Catholics support policies that promote abortion. We cannot support politicians that support abortion. The USCCB is circumspect in the language it uses to avoid risking the Church’s tax exempt status. But there message is pretty clear.
And the Catechism is even moreso. I am frustrated when I encounter lay Catholics who don’t understand our Catechism. I am enraged when I encounter religious - like Keehan - who seem to be ignorant of it as well.
She doesn’t see problems with rationing? She will. And when it does, will she show some integrity?
Not likely, judging from past performance
Here’s a key article about Sister Carol ...
http://catholickey.blogspot.com/2009/08/sr-carol-keehan-catholic-healths-856093.html
Holy cow, Concerned Catholic. No wonder SHE isn’t worried about rationing!
“We spent untold hours with Congress, the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services to make sure there would be no federal funding of abortion and there would be safeguards to validate that. Once we were convinced of that, and that we could help people who were pregnant and 32 million of the uninsured, we were conscience-bound to support it.”
Untold hours getting assurances from known habitual liars that a medical procedure which would not only push forward an agenda already in place but also cut costs by removing “potential” patients from the healthcare system preventatively? Taking that rather dubious assurance in the form of a powerless executive order half-heartedly promised to calm the consciences of spineless politicians? Openly opposing the bishops and their legitimate authority by grasping at the pseudo-authority vested in a modern woman religious by virtue of her pantsuit? Supporting a bill that, even without abortion funding, would still gravely violate not only common sense and the freedom of the market, but also the principle of subsidiarity, the consciences of millions of doctors and pharmacists, and the good of American society? They feel conscience-bound to support this?
Did this woman even read the bill? Why does she think Obama has chosen a radical pro abortionist - even to late term abortons - like Sebelius to run his HHS? The bill gives Sebelius tremendous powers and there are known loopholes in the bill which do, in fact, allow funding for some abortions. The picture says it all: Keehan sold out the lives of babies and her own soul for a pen from Obama. I don’t care how she spins it - she defied the Bishops and the teachings of the Church for what? She is acting and speaking in defiance of the teachings of the Church so she is no longer in union with the Church and therefore is not Catholic except in a generic sense. I wish women and organizations like Sheehan would just officially remove the title ‘Catholic’...why do they cling to it? Does it give them a sense of authenticity? of power? The time is coming when the lines will be drawn…Archibishop Burke will have more to say on this…meanwhile, we have to pray for Sheehan and those like her, including those ‘Catholic’ Nuns who publicly support abortion…
The Obama Administration is the most pro-abortion in history, with enthusiastic endorsement from Planned Parenthood and NARAL, among others. The President’s promises to exclude abortion from his semi-nationalized health care system, whether enshrined in Executive Orders or not, are empty—and everyone, Democrats, Republicans, Pro-Abortion activists, Anti-Abortion activists, the pundits, the press—knows it. This Sister is either being disingenuous or is an utter fool. Take your pick.
Sister Carol with all due respect does not represent the church I belong to. If you’re that liberal try another denomination to forward your agenda. Remember You can’t fool Our Lord, you remember Him, right?
We should all thank Joan Desmond for this wonderful interview. It is fascinating to hear how glib this sister has become in justifying her role as the dupe and apologetic moutpiece for these people. Carol seems to really believes what she says. She certainly weaseled her way through her interview with Raymond Arroyo months ago during the debate surrounding the healthcare bill. Now, she seems even better trained at the talking points. Sad to say she is probably accurate in recounting her healthy status with Cardinal George and the so-called US Catholic Council of Bishops. This Catholic “votes” with his prayers and his money. None of it goes to these people when there is much more good to be done by much better people than these. When I am judged, I fear for myself and certainly for them.
The Catholic Health Association has strayed far from the principles of the Church. I agree with Phil above - the sister is either disingenuous or a fool.
“the patient who can not afford to be pregnant” ??? From a Catholic nun? Who exactly is her God? What do you mean “help them early”
Sister’s appearances on EWTN’s WorldOver clearly indicated where her heart was during the Healthcare process - Federal Funding. However, her role, seems to me, to be in serious conflict with her order and her spirtual life as a nun. Her comments supporting Dr Berwick are troublesome in that they pay no regard to his public comments regarding his views of the British Healthcare system and to rationing (you know with eyes wide open). Any government system will have to ration because there isn’t enough money to cover everything and everyones needs. At least in our current system, you can buy additional healthcare, if you can afford it or find the money somewhere. In the British system, you are expressly forbidden to buy additional care. That’s where Berwick and the Obama administration will take Obamacare if we let them. People like Sister K and the President of Notre Dame should be removed by their order from their current position - both for their spiritual sake and for the good of the Church.
By the way, thanks to “Posted by Concerned Catholic on Thursday, Jul 15, 2010 11:07 AM (EST):Here’s a key article about Sister Carol ...
http://catholickey.blogspot.com/2009/08/sr-carol-keehan-catholic-healths-856093.html “. I didn’t know that of Sister K nor did it come out on the EWTN Worldover spot.
Sr Carol can be appreciated for her strong opinions, but she should realise that she belongs to Christ and His Church and so her vows of poverty, chastity and obedience should be kept. If she lives a simple life like that of late Mother Teresa, she will abide by the teachings of the Church. Subjects like sex, abortion etc can be interpreted in many ways by individuals But the Catholics believe that they have a body authorized to give the right interpretation ie the teaching magesterium. If we disobey that how can we say we are catholics ?
Let’s look at her faith in Obama and his health care plan.
The promise: There would be no federal funding for abortion.
The reward: She received a pen that was used to sign the bill.
The reality: We just had the first of many abortions paid by the new “health care”.
Perhaps her faith would be better grounded if she looked at which master she is serving?
Your highlighting the quote “I don’t worry about us rationing” takes the statement out of context. She obviously does not support rationing, but supports equal access to health care for all people, especially those who cannot afford it under the current system.
Otherwise, I appreciate the Register reaching out to her instead of demonizing her as many bloggers have done.
It appears that the good, ah-hem, “sister” was wrong about Obama’s abortions:
http://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/MessageTopic.asp?p=20352339&Pg=1
Who runs the Catholic Health Association? Is it a personal fief of Sister Carol? How is it that she speaks for the association? Has the board met and discussed and voted on the matter? Have members of the Association voted on the matter?
Who is on the board?
And let’s not forgot, funding or no funding for abortion, that any abortion, even one purporting to be justified because of rape, incest, or even threats to the mother’s life, is EVIL. By the way, as a family physician who practices obstetrics, there is NO threat to the mother’s life which justifies deliberate killing of the infant. You carry the baby as far as you can and then deliver him or her early if you have to, to do the best to help BOTH people, infant and mother. Let’s not forget that this “funding” debate is a small current political issue which I pray will be far surpassed by a movement away from all abortion.
It seems like the Board share her perspectives, unfortunately. The Church really needs to rein in the dissidents and restore some order the the Catholic Church in America. Being Catholic is not about a lot of choices - it’s about one choice. Will I be faithful to the Magisterium? After that, our choices are limited by our willingness to obey the teachings of the Church.
As to the comment about ‘appreciating’ Keehan for her ‘strong opinions…respectfully speaking, nonsense. There is nothing to appreciate about a member of a religious order of the Catholic Church who advocates policies, procedures, and politics that are anathema to our Faith.
http://catholic-citizen.com/?p=229 for more on her….
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.