Skip to main content

Hypocrisy Exposed by Mindless Bureaucracy in COVID-19 Responses and the Quality Adjusted Life Years Methodology


Life or death circumstances can bring out the best in people or the worst in people. They definitely expose the hypocrisy in people. The COVID-19 crisis has done this in spades. And we have an example playing out in Oklahoma right now with a bill that has gone to Governor Stitt for signature.

That bill, HB 2587, would require implementation of safeguards against state health agencies that would use purely economic calculations to justify withholding life-sustaining or quality-of-life-improving care from the old and profoundly disabled. It’s a response to a methodology called Quality Adjusted Life Years in which the cost of medication is compared to supposed benefit for patients. Since older people have fewer years to live, and might not even be apparently productive, this methodology would deny such individuals at least some medications.

Quality Adjusted Life Years is the sort of methodology described in the Obamacare Act that gave rise to the claim of some opponents that Obamacare created “death panels.” It is a fact that we spend a lot of money in this country, much of it through Medicare, using extraordinary measures to keep people near life’s end alive for a few more months. It’s the sort of thing family members insist on when they do not have to bear the cost of their decision to “save the life” of someone in their 90s (as one old, retired doctor says, “Ain’t nobody gettin’ out of this mess alive”). Some would argue such a methodology is necessary in order to counteract the incentives inherent in “free” health care, and they’re not entirely wrong to do so.

But this is where the hypocrisy comes in. COVID-19 mostly targets old people. In fact, recently it was reported that 28,000 people have died from the virus who lived and worked just in New York nursing homes alone. At the time the number was reported, it represented a third of all deaths in the United States. Meanwhile, just a few days ago, worldwide, no children (right, none) aged 0-9 had died from COVID-19. Only nine aged 0-17 (presumably, really 10-17) had died in New York.

When you consider the death rate, even among the aged, it is truly amazing that we have shut down WHOLE economies in an effort to save the lives of a tiny proportion of our population, most of them aged, unhealthy, and near the end of their lives. Those who argue for the shutdowns, and keeping them going for months, regardless of the economic cost, tend to be left-of-center in their political beliefs. It’s the left-of-center who also seem to be all for withholding medications to people near the end of their lives. On the one hand, they’re willing to trade lots of children’s lives (lost due to economic decline) to mostly save the lives of relatively few old people; on the other hand, they’re willing to do nothing to save the lives of old people when they’re told not to by a bureaucratic, mathematical calculation.

Meanwhile, right-of-center individuals like us have been rather upset that so little has been done to inform the public of who was truly at risk from COVID-19. Governor Cuomo forced nursing homes to take COVID-positive patients, almost intentionally seeding the most vulnerable with the virus. Many of our nation’s leaders have been acting as if everyone is equally at risk, blinding the general public to prudent actions to protect the truly COVID-19 vulnerable, and taking actions (shutting economies) that are truly deadly to the economically vulnerable. It’s as if lefty-leaning politicians have done all they can to kill as many people as possible while simultaneously claiming to save lives.

This is the truly scary thing about this Quality Adjusted Life Years methodology. It sounds like it’s putting cold, dispassionate, objective, and economically-derived mathematics in charge of decisions whether to administer expensive life-saving or life-enhancing drugs, but it’s really putting bureaucrats with who-knows-what sort of agendas in charge of life decisions.

Maybe we just have to live with the ridiculously expensive consequences of free health care for the sickest demographic group in our population in order to maintain our humanity and morality. Maybe instead of trying to counteract the incentives inherent in free health care with mathematical edicts from on high, we should enact different policies and stop giving away health care almost entirely for free in the first place. After all, it’s not really free. And after all, that’s the only way to put people – family and loved ones – who can best weigh the costs against the benefits and the right versus the wrong in charge of end-of-life decisions.

So as strange as it may sound coming from someone who is all about being responsible with taxpayers’ money, it might just be that leaders who hope to stand before God someday with anything like a clear conscience have little choice but to support bills like HB 2587.

Byron Schlomach is 1889 Institute Director and can be contacted at bschlomach@1889institute.org. 

 The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 1889 Institute.

Popular posts from this blog

The Truth About COVID-19: Better Than You Think

As the media turns its attention back to COVID-19, there is a renewed push to shut down the economy. Some states have even begun to scale back reopening plans for their economies; others continue to delay opening. It is essential to look past their catastrophizing and focus on the facts of COVID-19. One fact to consider: while testing has risen 23%, the rate of positive results has only risen 1.3 percentage points to 6.2%. Even as alarmists point to the rise in cases, they still admit that the boost in testing has played a role in the rise in the total number of known cases. Therefore, the total number of positive cases is not of much use in this case, as it only paints a partial picture. The rate of increase in total positive cases is a more meaningful measure, and it has barely increased. Even more important is who is getting infected. The data show that recent cases are primarily younger people. But that’s a good thing; these are precisely the people that are key to building herd ...
Read more

Even If Pandemic Models Were Right, Were Covid Lockdowns Wrong?

1889 has been quite critical of pandemic modeling that government officials have relied on for their Covid-19 response. We have also criticized shutdown orders in light of flaws in the models. But let’s assume for a moment that the worst predictions really would have come true if nothing was done. Even in those worst case scenarios, it’s fair to ask if our governments did the right thing. Were involuntary shutdowns justified, or would people have found a way to both limit the contagion and maintain some level of productivity? Was putting healthy citizens under house arrest acceptable even if they were willing to risk infection?   While large groups of people are often compared to herd animals, we are not sheep. We don’t behave like animals. We can, have, and will step up when our communities are in danger. When government and journalists give incomplete or false information, people will act irrationally. Depending on the situation, some will blindly follow the first aut...
Read more

A Reminder of the Ineffectiveness of Covid-19 Lockdowns

Since the beginning of this pandemic, the 1889 Institute has argued against lockdowns even as “experts” advocated for them. Now, months after the weeks-long lockdowns were supposed to end, there are still states in various levels of lockdown. State and local governments have devastated their economies with shutdowns in the name of public health. Yet some politicians, including presidential candidate Joe Biden, have stated a willingness to lockdown the economy again on a national scale to eliminate COVID-19, in a "virus first, economy later" approach. Even as some lawmakers in Oklahoma urge governor Stitt to take more extreme action, it is essential to remember that lockdowns are not very effective. A group of epidemiologists have released a declaration denoting the harmful effects of lockdowns. These include; lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings, and deteriorating mental health. These consequences are more ...
Read more

Top-Ten in Low Taxes, But Oklahoma Still Has Much Room for Improvement

In a comparison of states’ total taxes as well as spending in certain broad categories that the 1889 Institute has just published ( Oklahoma Government Revenues and Spending in Perspective – Update ), some interesting facts arise. Using federal data, we compared states by looking at the percentage of personal income collected in state and local government revenues. We also looked at the percentage of personal income spent in six broad spending categories: higher education, public education, public welfare, hospitals, highways, and corrections. The data shows that in 2017 Oklahoma’s state and local governments: Extract 13.2 percent of Oklahomans’ personal income in taxes and fees, moving Oklahoma into the Top Ten lowest-taxing states, ahead of Texas.   Spend 12.38 percent of personal income on the six featured spending areas (which include federal dollars), only a little below the national average of 12.7 percent. While 9th overall (least spent being first), Oklahoma is n...
Read more