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

Cronyism: Feature, Not a Bug, for Used Car Dealer Licensing

Used car dealers in Oklahoma are governed by the Oklahoma Used Motor Vehicle and Parts Commission (UMPV). Like most licensing boards, it is made up of industry insiders. The UMVP's stated mission is to protect consumers from harm, but its structure and history indicate that its primary concern might be protecting licensed dealers from competition. This, of course, is the prime directive of all licensing boards. My recent paper deals with the licensing of used car dealers.   The person hit hardest by this is the hobbyist, especially in times of economic turmoil.   Imagine someone stuck at home due to coronavirus. We'll call him Frank. He can’t work due to the economic shutdown. Unfortunately, Frank’s lack of work does not mean he no longer has to put food on the table for his family. Fortunately for him, he is able to find a good deal on a used car that needs a little work. Frank has all the tools and garage space necessary to fix up the car and isn't violating any quar...
Read more

I Abstain: Why I Refuse to Vote in Judicial Retention Elections

Over a million Oklahomans voted in the recent November 3rd election. For most, the presidential race between Joe Biden and Donald Trump is what drove them to the polls. However, some were likely confused when they reached the bottom portion of their ballot marked “Judicial Retention Elections.” What are judicial retention elections? Every two years, certain judges are placed on the ballot for a simple yes/no retention vote. These elections stem from Oklahoma’s   judicial selection method , and ask voters whether they want to keep, or retain, certain judges. Elections are staggered so judges only face retention every six years. Many claim that the merit selection method is a more sophisticated, apolitical judicial selection method than the federal model or the partisan election model, but in reality it is   much worse   than either of the two. In essence, the retention vote was a patronizing attempt to make “merit” selection more palatable to   voters back in the...
Read more

The High Duty of Elected Officials and Ways They Fall Short

With an election just completed (the alleged voting, anyway), a legislative session coming up, constant talk of spending to offset the impacts of COVID-19, and elected officials trying to mandate our way out of a disease, the duty of elected officials in their official positions is worth considering. The 1889 Institute recently published a booklet for state lawmakers that discusses various issues and possible solutions. Included in that booklet is a short discussion of the central duty of elected officials, which is expanded here. What is the central, over-arching duty of an individual after having been elected to public office? Public oaths of office give a strong hint, and the Oklahoma Constitution is a good place to start. Article XV includes the oath of office, which states that an Oklahoma public official swears to “support, obey, and defend” the constitutions of the nation and the state, that the official will not take bribes, and that the official will discharge duties as best...
Read more