Why both parties should embrace ObamaCare’s state exchanges

(The Week, July 18, 2012)

By Bill Frist, M.D.

Largely lost in the fight over ObamaCare is a worthy provision that lets states develop insurance systems that are right for them — but they must act soon.

When the new health care reform law was being debated in 2009 and 2010, everyone talked about “death panels.” When challenged in court, everyone debated the individual mandate. After last month’s Supreme Court decision, the conversation has now switched to Medicaid. During all of this, however, we have largely ignored what is perhaps the most innovative, market-driven, and ultimately constructive part of the law: State exchanges.

Originally a Republican idea, the state insurance exchanges mandated under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will offer a menu of private insurance plans to pick and choose from, all with a required set of minimum benefits, to those without employer-sponsored health insurance. These exchanges are expected to bring health insurance to an additional 16 million Americans. Unlike the Medicaid expansion, these Americans will gain private insurance, and can choose the plan that’s right for them.

The exchanges should facilitate competition among private insurers as they design new benefit packages and cut prices to stay ahead of the game. While I’m slow to favor a mandate, these exchanges will offer those who can benefit from insurance a broad array of tailored options and varying prices that should help them find it. Helping more Americans find and compare the private insurance they need and can afford should be an easy principle both political parties agree on.

As a doctor, I strongly believe that people without health insurance die sooner. Sure, they can eventually go to an emergency room. But it is often too late. They wait longer to get a breast lump checked out. They wait until their nagging cough turns into a fulminant pneumonia. They skip preventive care and then show up to the ER with severe, costly, late-stage symptoms that are harder and more expensive to treat.

State exchanges are the solution. They represent the federalist ideal of states as “laboratories for democracy.” We are seeing 50 states each designing a model that is right for them, empowered to take into account their individual cultures, politics, economies, and demographics. While much planning has yet to be done, we are already seeing a huge range in state models. I love the diversity and the innovation.

Helping more Americans find and compare the private insurance they need and can afford should be an easy principle both political parties agree on.

Want a more conservative, small-business focused exchange that bans abortion coverage in all its plans? Try Utah and its state exchange, originally founded under Gov. Jon Huntsman. Think that President Obama missed a huge opportunity to steer the nation towards a single payer system? Try Vermont, which plans to ultimately transform its state exchange into a single payer system, Green Mountain Care, that will offer coverage to all state residents. With soaring health care costs one of, if not the most, dangerous threats to America’s greatness, a new round of national health care experimentation is exactly what we need.

But the clock is ticking. While the exchanges must be fully operational by January 1, 2014, they are also required to submit a blueprint for approval by mid-November of this year, which will indicate if they plan to run their own exchange or will participate in a federal-state partnership. While almost all of the states have at least planned for an exchange, roughly half took a wait-and-see approach as they awaited the Supreme Court ruling. This means that in the coming weeks we will see a frenzy of state activity and legislation as governors rush to meet this deadline. Enacting some sort of exchange establishment legislation is expected to be crucial to receiving federal approval for a state-run exchange. And though some GOP governors refuse to set up an exchange of their own, I see little advantage for states to default to the federally designed, one-size-fits-all exchange when they can design and run their own.

The silver lining is that with much planning left to do, there is still time to get involved and design the exchange in your state. I urge everyone — citizens, small businesses, health industry stakeholders, churches, large employers — to actively participate in shaping your exchange so that it reflects your state’s values, economy, and common sense. Then, starting in 2014, we can see a variety of big ideas and small tweaks all working together to show our nation what works and what doesn’t.

Simply put, state exchanges represent a distinctly American opportunity to improve our local communities and at the same time help our nation avert a major crisis. Let’s take the plunge.

Dr. William H. Frist is a nationally acclaimed heart transplant surgeon, former U.S. Senate Majority Leader, the chairman of Hope Through Healing Hands and Tennessee SCORE, professor of surgery, and author of six books. Learn more about his work at BillFrist.com.

This article was originally featured in The Hill http://theweek.com/article/index/230655/why-both-parties-should-embrace-obamacares-state-exchanges

Helping Haiti Build Back Better

(The Washington Times, July 13, 2012)

As a board member of the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund, I traveled to Haiti last month to check on the post-earthquake progress being made through the fund’s projects. What I saw confirms that developmental aid can have a greater impact than the humanitarian aid most people know.

Moments after the massive earthquake shook Haiti, more than 200,000 people died and nearly $8 billion worth of damage was done. Homes, businesses, schools and hospitals crumbled, all in a country already experiencing 70 percent unemployment. As a surgeon, I joined a volunteer medical response team from Samaritan’s Purse, and in the days following the quake, we helped care for hundreds of injured patients.

To lead the U.S. response, President Obama asked former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush to raise money to help Haiti build its own sustainable path forward. The fund began making targeted investments, using a variety of tools to help Haiti “build back better.”

The problem with most disaster aid is that it’s temporary. For instance, flooding a developing country with free food and medicine can drive the small farmer or pharmacist out of business, further hurting the economy and leaving residents with less. Aid can be more effective if helpers buy food locally and work through local clinics to support, not undermine, local capacity.

This is why the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund embraced a new model that focuses on promoting economic growth and spurring job creation.

Economic growth generates lasting change, attracts investment, supports entrepreneurs and empowers citizens, providing them with tools to determine their own destiny. After billions of charitable dollars and donor aid are spent, the success — and sustainability — of Haitian reconstruction will depend on one key thing: a vibrant, inclusive private sector.

The fund recognized that economic growth calls for new development tools to facilitate access to capital. A simple grant can encourage dependency on free money — an untenable position in the long term. Alternatively, a program-related investment — a loan or equity investment — is a tool that brings about self-reliance and leads to sustainable growth. These tools come with contractual complexities and nonpayment risks, and the typical nongovernmental organization or development agency thus shies away. But the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund embraces this risk. In doing so, we are teaching a new pattern of development, catalyzing private support over public by a ratio of almost 4-1, and expanding the ability to use these funds. When these investments succeed, we reinvest the money for social and economic good. This is a cycle of smart investing.

In my visit to Haiti, I saw the power of these investment tools. One example is the Artisan Business Network (ABN), which the fund helped create with a combination of grants and loans to the artisan sector. The ABN connects more than 900 Haitian artisans, centralizing and guaranteeing product development, packaging, quality control and distribution to open doors to international markets.

When I visited the ABN hub in Port-au-Prince, I was picking out earrings for my two nieces alongside New York buyers selecting products for a bulk order. Already, the collaboration has seen large orders from retailers, including Macy’s and Anthropologie. Now other organizations are looking at the ABN as a scalable model. By combining grants and loans, we ultimately provided a hand up, not a handout, all while celebrating the culture and dignity of the Haitian people.

In addition, the fund makes equity investments, as we did for the Royal Oasis Hotel, which I visited. Under construction when the earthquake hit, the hotel faced a severe financing gap. The fund stepped in, providing equity that catalyzed contributions from other investors.

To date, Oasis has created more than 600 construction jobs and will sustain 300 permanent jobs. Equally important, its economic and human impact will ripple through the community, helping surrounding businesses, from shops on Oasis’ first floor to restaurants, airlines, tour guides and more. Indeed, it’s estimated that for every job created in the hotel, three indirect jobs will be supported in the surrounding community.

For the Oasis project, the fund did what the presidents wanted — it made a strategic investment, served as a catalyst and paved the way for others. The Oasis is more than a symbol of what it means to build back better — it will send the message that Haiti is truly open for business.

From health care to mobile media, we have started to think differently about how to achieve the best outcomes, improving the quality of life at home and abroad. It’s time we looked equally hard at aid and development, challenging the old ways of doing business, experimenting with new tools and models, and aiming to create self-sustaining economies and entrepreneurs. In that regard, a good place to look for such innovative development is the investments made by the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund.

William H. Frist is a former heart and lung transplant surgeon and served as the U.S. Senate majority leader from 2003 to 2007.

This article was originally featured in The Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/13/helping-haiti-build-back-better/

 

The Crucial Need to Hold Students to a Higher Standard

(The Weekposted on July 3, 2012)

By Bill Frist, M.D.

Far too many U.S. teens leave high school unprepared for college — not to mention the job market

Over the last few months, hundreds of thousands of high school seniors have walked across a stage and received a diploma, an important moment that should be applauded.

Unfortunately, for many of those students, that diploma represents a false promise.

Recent data from the ACT, Inc. shows that only 25 percent of high school students who take the test are college-ready in all subject areas. In my home state of Tennessee, the situation is even bleaker. All students in Tennessee take the ACT test, but only 15 percent meet college readiness benchmarks in English, math, reading, and science. While more than 80 percent of our students say they want to attain at least a two-year degree, far too few are graduating with the skills they need to thrive after high school. Even some high school valedictorians are taking remedial courses in college. Too many students are completely unprepared for the future.

Even some high school valedictorians are taking remedial courses in college.

These hard truths are particularly worrisome because college readiness and a postsecondary credential are critical to longterm success. In 2010, the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce found that almost two-thirds of all job openings in the United States by 2018 will require some form of postsecondary education — including technical certificates and Associate’s, Bachelor’s, and advanced degrees. Last year, the unemployment rate for Americans without a high school diploma was 14.1 percent. For those with a Bachelor’s degree, it was 4.9 percent.

Recognizing the need for more highly skilled graduates, 46 states and the District of Columbia have developed and adopted a common set of learning standards in English and math to better prepare their students for the future. These standards, called the Common Core State Standards, orient instruction around critical thinking and problem solving, requiring students to demonstrate a deep understanding of concepts and then apply them to new situations.

A student, for example, would no longer be required to simply memorize the formula for volume. Instead, they would need to use their conceptual understanding of volume to build different containers with the same volume. This approach differs from current standards and teaching practices, which too often place an emphasis on rote memorization over deeper understanding.

State leaders developed the Common Core standards to ensure that every student graduates high school prepared for college and the workforce, regardless of the state in which they live. Previously, each state had developed its own standards, leading to 50 different sets of expectations for student learning. The Common Core State Standards represent a way for states to work together to raise the rigor of what is taught in the classroom and ensure our students can compete with their peers.

Why are these new standards so important?

First, they are internationally-benchmarked and based on evidence and research about what it takes to be prepared for first-year college courses and entry level jobs leading to careers. I often hear from business leaders that they lack job applicants with the necessary critical thinking and teamwork skills needed to succeed in the workplace. These business leaders are hungry for the shift to the Common Core.

Second, the standards are clear, focused, and rigorous. In Tennessee, there are currently 113 different standards in third-grade math. When the state shifts to the Common Core standards, there will be 25. This change allows teachers time and flexibility to teach and explore critical topics, instead of having to cover hundreds of different standards to prepare students for a test. In addition, students will be exposed to fundamental concepts in earlier grades, building on those concepts each subsequent year.

Finally, the standards allow for economies of scale and the ability to share and compare across state lines. Teachers in states that have adopted the Common Core can share effective practices and materials and collaborate more easily. States are now working together to develop common assessments instead of having uneven measures of student readiness.

Contrary to the heated rhetoric of some voices, the Common Core does not represent a “federal takeover” of education. These standards are not a national curriculum, but a state-inspired and carefully crafted set of standards — of goals, really — to equip our students with the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in a global economy. Casting the Common Core as anything else is not only irresponsible — it is just plain wrong.

Decisions in public education are best made at the state and local level, and they will continue to be in states that have adopted the Common Core standards. Governors and state commissioners of education led the development of the standards through the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. States and local school districts will continue to determine their own curriculum and textbooks.

The Common Core standards are not a silver bullet or a panacea. Our country faces significant challenges in improving public education and in ensuring that all students graduate from high school prepared for college and the workforce. But as high school students graduate across the country, we must remember the sobering truth that far too many of them graduate unprepared for the road ahead. And that is something we all have a responsibility to reverse.

Thankfully, when we expect more through higher academic standards, students achieve more. And our expectations are on the rise.

This article was originally featured in The Week http://theweek.com/article/index/230125/the-crucial-need-to-hold-students-to-a-higher-standard

The world needs more health-care workers — millions more

(The Week, Posted on June 19, 2012)

By Bill Frist, M.D.

The most impressive part of any hospital or health clinic is the caring, skilled employees who prevent and treat illness. But the workforce we have is not enough.

 

As I visit health programs in far off corners of the world and right here at home, the most impressive part of any hospital or clinic is the health workers themselves — the hands behind the health care that is provided to mothers and newborns, to children and the elderly, to teens and adults to prevent and treat illness.

Health workers heal. It’s as simple as that. And in this country, and around the world, there are not enough of them. Doctors are included in that shortage, but it doesn’t stop there. Recent estimates suggest the world is short some 4 million to 5 million community health workers, midwives, pharmacists, lab technicians, nurses, and doctors. Fifty-seven countries have severe health workforce shortages — meaning there are less than 23 clinicians per 10,000 people.

And health workers, particularly in developing countries, are scarcest in the poorest communities and neighborhoods — both rural and urban — where poverty, poor sanitation, and disease conspire to take the lives of children and adults through preventable killers like pneumonia, diarrhea, pregnancy complications, and tuberculosis.

Fifty-seven countries have severe health workforce shortages.

Later this week I am heading back to Haiti with the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund to review past investments in sustainable human health capital. Haiti is in dire need of indigenous health workers who are from and remain committed to their local communities. Long-term health and economic results can only be achieved by partnering with Haitians to build health training and service programs that they own and that they populate.

In targeted areas around the world, training armies of much-needed health workers has become a smart, key goal of U.S. foreign assistance. We are helping train new midwives, community health workers, lab technicians, and nurses through partnering programs supported by the U.S. Agency for International Development, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. These new health workers are serving in communities hardest hit by infectious diseases and the complications from pregnancy and childbirth.

And it works! Countries that have made a concerted effort to increase the numbers and skills of their health workforces have shown tremendous progress: Malawi has trained more than 10,000 health surveillance assistants in the past 20 years, and in the same period child mortality dropped almost 60 percent. In India, turning normal community members into lay health workers to support healthier newborn care practices reduced newborn deaths by over 50 percent.

Training community-level health workers does not have to be expensive — people who can provide the most basic levels of treatment for sick children and promote healthy practices can be trained for as little as $300. More-skilled community health workers and midwives cost roughly 10 times that amount to train. These workers provide the lifesaving interventions needed to address most of the leading causes of death of newborns and children — all with no need for huge medical school bills. It’s basic health care, but it is lifesaving.

Highlighting the humble service of health workers around the world is the subject of a campaign launched by Save the Children, with whom I have traveled to countries like Bangladesh and Mozambique to witness these health workers going about their daily tasks. The care is effective and affordable. In fact, I think we in the U.S. have a lot to learn from these community health workers delivering local care. Take a look at some of the powerful stories at www.goodgoes.org, where you glimpse the simple and affordable care provided by people who go the extra mile on behalf of others.

No matter what diseases and conditions are threatening, and what new technologies for treatment might come along, we can say for sure that progress will depend on an expanded army of health workers, properly trained and placed, with the right skills and supplies, intent on delivering the best quality health care possible.

As we look at America’s international assistance around the world, surely one of the best examples of success can be seen in the faces of these committed community servants.

 

This article was originally featured in The Week http://theweek.com/article/index/229433/the-world-needs-more-health-care-workers-mdash-millions-more

America must invest in research universities — or get left behind

(The Week, June 5, 2012)

By Bill Frist, M.D.

Gone are the days when Bell Labs was the nation’s prime innovator. Today, we must rely on universities — and those universities need our help

Innovation gave birth to Microsoft, FedEx, Xerox, Starbucks, Apple, and thousands more businesses that have powered America’s growth, making us the largest economy in the world. But today, against the backdrop of slow growth and high unemployment, we are increasingly being challenged around the world by nations threatening our innovation edge. We were not always the most innovative nation in the world, nor will we necessarily be in the future. To remain on top, we need to take smart action. The fight of the future will be over jobs, and America’s deadliest weapon is innovation.

And yet, the U.S. is continually falling further behind in K-12 education and being overtaken in new patent applications. The last several decades have seen a shift away from the private sector in performance of basic research, the wellspring for innovation.

Research universities form the sturdy backbone of American innovation.

That’s where our research universities come in. These institutions form the sturdy backbone of American innovation. They provide the crucible for ideas and talent. These universities are powerful partners for businesses. The days are gone when most basic research was conducted in the Bell Labs of the country. This vital element of discovery and knowledge has increasingly shifted to our research universities

My own field of medicine has been revolutionized over my professional career with advances generated directly out of these research universities. Nuclear isotopes, MRI and CAT scans, and artificial organ assist devices have originated from these institutions. Today, their cutting-edge work in robotics and limb replacement gives new hope to returning veterans. But before the 1980s we were not the world leader in biomedical leadership. It took active policy to get us there, and it will take active policy and support to keep us there.

Research universities make us safer. Imagine the fight against terrorists without facial recognition, detection technologies that sensitively trace bomb-making materials, satellite surveillance, secure communications, and tracking capabilities. It’s a scary thought.

Not only do these institutions innovate with vital technologies, they also produce the engine of new growth: The talented men and women who execute new ideas and build new enterprises. They create the jobs that give dignity to and foster well-being for individuals, and that grow the economic pie that ensures our global standing around the world.

Traditionally, the American government has been strongly supportive of research universities, bolstering their development with deliberate, forward-looking policies. The government push began 150 years ago with the Morrill Act, which established land-grant colleges and universities, and then continued with the development of the strong post-World War II government-university research partnerships.

But these institutions are at risk of stagnating, and that is the scariest thought of all. Next week, on June 14, the National Research Council will release a report entitled “Research Universities and the Future of America: Ten Breakthrough Actions Vital to Our Nation’s Prosperity and Security.” This report will present the actions that state and federal governments and universities themselves must undertake to ensure American pre-eminence in innovation.

We need to get the ecosystem right. We need quicker, more nimble polices that can adapt to changing situations instead of monolithic, one-size-fits-all regulation. We need stronger incentives for business and industry to partner with research institutions, which will result in new jobs, and more importantly, American jobs. We also need universities that are leaner, streamlined, and more efficient.

Next week’s report, a follow-up to the seminal “Rising Above the Gathering Storm,” will contain crucial guidance for policymakers, business leaders, and academics. Let’s all take time to listen. The well-being of America will depend in part on how we respond to this too commonly overlooked challenge.

Dr. William H. Frist is a nationally acclaimed heart transplant surgeon, former U.S. Senate Majority Leader, the chairman of Hope Through Healing Hands and Tennessee SCORE, professor of surgery, and author of six books. Learn more about his work at BillFrist.com.

 

This article was originally featured in The Week http://theweek.com/article/index/228787/america-must-invest-in-research-universities-mdash-or-get-left-behind

How to wean America from its dangerous food addiction

(The Week, posted on May 22, 2012 )

By Bill Frist, M.D.

The nation’s obesity epidemic is as much about brain chemistry as it is poor diet and laziness — a fact we must realize if we’re going to treat obesity effectively

In ancient history, eating was for survival. Food was tough to come by and we consumed what we needed. Food was a necessity. In today’s America, it is an addiction.

Much of the conventional wisdom about obesity, including what your doctor has probably told you, is wrong. My fellow doctors, for the past four decades, have preached a “calories in — calories out” approach, suggesting that weight loss must be achieved by restricting calories or expending more energy. That approach is failing… miserably.

Contemporary medical research, most of which has not yet made it to mainstream understanding, suggests we should focus on two other more promising areas: Food addiction and diet. Consider it an “it’s what you eat” approach that takes into account human biology and the response to certain food types.

According to the research of Nicole Avena of Princeton University, eating sugar triggers a dopamine-mediated response in the same part of the brain that is similarly targeted by cocaine, nicotine, and other highly addictive substances. Originally, this “reward center” evolved to reinforce behaviors, such as food and sex, that maximize species survival.

To combat this epidemic, we may have to start with the brain, not the stomach.

Sugar, however, seems to hijack the same neural and biochemical connections in the brain. The intense cravings for sugar may be explained by the intensity of dopamine secretion in the brain when we consume sugar and high-fructose corn syrup, both of which are staples of the common American diet. Consistent eating of sugary and processed food literally rewires our brain. In 2011, 28 studies, from animal investigations to clinical studies of compulsive eaters, all point toward unhealthy foods as being addictive.

So why do we get fat? It’s not a simple matter of calories consumed and calories expended. It’s probably wiser to think of obesity as a result of a hormonal imbalance, with the dominant obesity hormone being insulin.

Insulin secretion is stimulated by eating easily digestible, carbohydrate-rich foods: Refined carbohydrates (including flour and cereal grains, starchy vegetables such as potatoes, and sugars) and high-fructose corn syrup. Eating more of these makes us fat, hungrier, and even more sedentary.

Why does all this matter? First, your kids are going to live a life with more disease and will die younger than they should. This does not have to be the case, but we can only reverse course if we act. With a third of adolescents in the U.S. overweight, and adolescent diabetes and prediabetes skyrocketing from 9 percent in 2000 to 23 percent in 2008, we are on the path to an explosion in heart disease, high blood pressure, and cancer.

Second, healthcare spending is driving you and the country bankrupt. Obesity, a problem which didn’t really exist even 40 years ago, today accounts for almost a fifth of our nation’s health spending, which amounts to more than $150 billion every year. That is an annual tax of $1,400 on every household, and it continues to escalate.

The good news is that the obesity problem is solvable. It is reversible, if we act smartly, both individually by our own life choices and collectively through wiser, more active public policy.

What can we do?

1. Focus on the root causes of why people crave food, often hungering for the unhealthiest options, and not just deal with the aftereffects. Studies show that exercise alone does not lead to weight loss (but it is very healthy for you!), replacing lost calories with increased appetite. It’s what you eat that you should concentrate on. Weight loss regimens succeed long-term when they get rid of the fattening carbohydrates in your diet.

2. Think out of the box. If the increasingly strong hypothesis that sugar is addictive is correct, we need to treat it as such. An addiction demands attention to replacement foods, development of new classes of anti-craving and relapsing medicines, and possibly even more intense use of 12-step programs for therapy.

3. Public policy tools and tactics that affect advertising, availability, and cost (including taxation) have been effective in fighting alcohol and tobacco addiction. Our society instinctively rejects policy that suggests “food police.” In the future, however, expect these tools to be considered much more aggressively since obesity stands as an even greater public health threat than tobacco.

We cannot afford to ignore obesity. But let’s be open to changing our approach. To combat this epidemic, we may have to start with the brain, not the stomach.

 

This article was originally featured in The Week http://theweek.com/article/index/228248/how-to-wean-america-from-its-dangerous-food-addiction

How Facebook is reinventing organ donation

(The Week, Posted on May 8, 2012)

By Bill Frist, M.D.

Thousands of Americans die each year waiting for heart, lung, and kidney transplants that never materialize. Mark Zuckerberg is intent on changing that
What do you use Facebook for? To keep up with friends, share pictures of your kids, or pass around the latest silly video? What if I told you that you can now use Facebook to save lives?

As of last week you can do just that.

Facebook has introduced a new “status update” that allows you to proudly share with all your friends your intent to be an organ donor. Not already registered as a donor with your state? No problem. With a few clicks, Facebook ushers you to the appropriate registry, where you can quickly make it official. With a permanent and prominent display on your Facebook site, you are telling your friends that you intend to give unselfishly to others, so that they may live a healthier life. Your personal commitment just might encourage each of your (on average, 190) friends to consider doing the same.

This small tool is no mere novelty; it will save lives.

This very second, more than 113,000 suffering people in the U.S. are waiting for a donated organ. Imagine a small child tied to a dialysis machine, a young mom whose liver is failing from a virus, or a 40-year-old uncle who, without a transplant, will die within six months from a failing heart. Last year, more than 6,600 people died before an organ became available. With better public awareness, most would be alive today.

This small tool is no mere novelty; it will save lives.

The potential supply of hearts exceeds the demand, so long as we increase the number of people willing to donate in the event of an untimely death. Last year alone almost 3,000 people died under conditions that made them suitable for organ donation but had not signed up to be organ donors.

Facebook’s bold initiative captures the power of social media in a forum where people tend to be more receptive to new or unfamiliar ideas suggested by their friends. It will help remove the stigma and mystery surrounding organ donation. It will improve the health of Americans. And yes, it will save lives.

This impact is real to me. As a surgeon, I made daily rounds for years on heart and lung patients who died waiting. For every 100 patients we transplanted, as many as 30 others would die before a heart became available.

My intimate experiences with these heart-wrenching realities inspired me to try and educate the public about how each of us can make a difference. In the late 1980s I wrote a book, Transplant, to demystify the whole process of transplantation so that everyone would at least consider becoming an organ donor. I even went so far as to put an organ donor card on the jacket of the book, to be cut out and signed by the reader. That was the old way of reaching the public. Over a two-year period, I may have reached 30,000 or so with the message.

Last week’s initiative by the Facebook team reached millions in the course of a few days. And that message will live organically as one’s “status” is displayed continually for years to come.

What has the effect been thus far? Since the kickoff on May 1, tens of thousands have registered as donors, flooding state registries with more sign-ups than they have ever seen.

In the 23 states that Donate Life America has data for, there was a 1,570 percent increase in sign-ups. In California alone, 1,239 people chose to become organ donors on May 1; normally the average is 70 per day. Texas typically gets an average of 60 new registrations per day. Following the Facebook organ donor launch, the number was over 1,000.

Thus far, more than 100,000 people are sharing that they are organ donors on their Facebook timeline, meaning that all their friends and family now know that information as well. That will prompt conversations about organ donation and how each of us can potentially make a miracle happen for others.

In my own state of Tennessee, only 35 percent of those 18 or over are registered to be organ donors, mainly through driver’s license registration. With the additional firepower of social networking introduced by Facebook, this could quickly reach 50 percent, literally giving life to hundreds of waiting Tennesseans each year.

If you are one of the 900 million people around the world who use Facebook or one of the nearly half of all Americans who have a Facebook profile, take a moment to update your timeline with your intent to be an organ donor. It will only take a moment. Like, post, comment, and most importantly, share. While you do so, you ought to feel quite good about yourself. You’re saving someone’s life.

Then you can go back to watching silly animal videos.

 

This article was originally featured in The Week http://theweek.com/article/index/227684/how-facebook-is-reinventing-organ-donation

5 reasons deficit hawks should lay off global health initiatives

(The Week, April 24, 2012)

By Bill Frist, M.D.

America’s national debt is ballooning at a worryingly rapid pace. But some programs ought to be spared the chopping block.

Government spending is about to get chopped — no matter who wins the next presidential election. President Obama and his GOP challenger Mitt Romney have both prioritized deficit reduction, which, of course, is a worthy goal. However, not all cuts are created equal. And many surveys put global health at the top of the list of things to slash. That’s a mistake, and here’s why.

1. Global health initiatives save lives abroad
Investments in global health pay off a lot more quickly and dramatically that you might think. PEPFAR, initiated by President George W. Bush and strongly embraced and expanded by Obama, was the largest direct investment any country has made in defeating a single virus (HIV) or disease. Our taxpayers’ leadership has provided 7.2 million people with access to lifesaving, anti-retroviral therapy for HIV/AIDS, 8.6 million with treatment for tuberculosis, and more than 260 million — mostly kids — with anti-malarial resources. This U.S.-led historic initiative to prevent and fight disease has directly saved millions of lives, put kids back in school, and helped rescue entire societies from collapse over the past eight years.

Lifting others up no matter where they live is part of what makes us American.

Saving lives and societies leads to better and stronger relationships for trade, enterprise, and foreign investments. It enables economic growth, democracy, accountability, and transparency in these countries.

2.Global health initiatives protect U.S. families
Deadly microbes know no borders. They are just one plane ride away. HIV did not exist in the U.S. when I was a surgical trainee in 1981. But since then, it has killed more than 600,000 individuals here (and 25 million globally) and infects another 54,000 U.S. citizens each year. It arrived here from Haiti, migrating there from Africa.

Imagine the devastation avoided if we had identified HIV and our National Institutes of Health had figured out how to treat the virus a decade before it arrived on our shores. Our current global surveillance and engagement system might have done just that.

3.Global health initiatives enhance national security
A hopeful people are a people who shun terrorism. And nothing destroys hope more than a society without a future, hollowed out by diseases that decimate middle-aged civil servants, police, doctors, and teachers. A bleak and nonproductive future for an individual sets the stage for societal discontent and chaos.

Our investments in public health reverse these tragedies, and fuel the smart power of health diplomacy. Kaiser Family Foundation surveys have repeatedly revealed that more than half the public thinks U.S. spending on health in developing countries is helpful for U.S. diplomacy (59 percent) and for improving America’s image in the countries receiving aid (56 percent).

4.Global health initiatives are a bargain
Treating HIV costs a tenth of what it did a decade ago, and the costs continue to plummet. Globally, of the 8 million children under 5 years old who will die this year, half could be treated and cured with a low-cost intervention. Pneumonia, the number one killer of young children in the world, is easily treated for less than a dollar! And the No. 2 killer, diarrhea, can be prevented by increasing access to clean water. The price? For $20, we can provide clean water to a family for 20 years. For $14, we can fully vaccinate a child.

5.Global health initiatives are simply the right thing to do
I was born in Nashville by the luck of the draw. It could just as well have been South Africa, where life expectancy is only 49 years. We are all the same. Lifting others up no matter where they live is part of what makes us American. It’s what we do. Americans overwhelmingly say the U.S. should spend money on improving health for people in developing countries “because it’s the right thing to do.” Nearly half (46 percent) say this is the most important reason for the U.S. to invest in global health.

Yes, out of control entitlement spending and a deep recession have put everything on the chopping block. But let’s be smart about where we cut and where we don’t.

 

This article was originally featured in The Week http://theweek.com/article/index/227117/5-reasons-deficit-hawks-should-lay-off-global-health-initiatives

How the U.S. Can Find and Train More Great Teachers

(The Week, April 10, 2012)

By Bill Frist, M.D.

Consider Laura. When she entered the third grade, she couldn’t understand the stories all her friends enjoyed. She was even too embarrassed to read aloud. Why? She could only read at a first grade level.

Laura’s hardly alone — but that’s small comfort. A recent study from the Annie E. Casey Foundation found that one in six children who are not reading proficiently by the third grade does not graduate from high school on time. In other words, Laura’s abilities in third grade may very well determine her future.

By the time Laura finished third grade, however, she loved to read and was prepared for the fourth grade. How did she catch up? She had a highly effective teacher.

There are no silver bullets in the education reform movement, but one area we cannot afford to overlook is expanding the pool of talented teachers. Popular reform efforts tend to focus on supporting current teachers and improving the standards they teach. But to maximize Laura’s chances, and those of our country, we need to start even earlier.

Our lack of teacher accountability is akin to a drug company producing medicines without measuring if the pills actually cure disease.

Research shows that the No. 1 school-based factor in improving student achievement is a great teacher. Of course, other factors are important as well: High standards, strong school and district leadership, and parent and community involvement, to name a few. But great teaching is the lever that most dramatically changes the trajectory of a child’s future.

To foster great teaching, first we need to know what makes a great teacher. And the good news is, we’re making headway in better understanding teacher effectiveness. Many states are implementing new systems to evaluate teachers, designed to give them feedback on how they are doing and a clear picture of what they can improve on. These evaluation methods replace antiquated approaches in which teachers received feedback only once every few years — feedback that had little connection to what students were learning or to the day-to-day operations of a classroom.

But evaluations alone are of little use without providing the support for a teacher to improve. Thus, many of these new evaluation systems are being connected with professional learning to help teachers continuously improve, as is done in many other industries. Weaknesses identified through these new evaluations are addressed with ongoing, collaborative support, as teachers work in teams to improve their instruction.

Many school districts have also begun to reward teachers for effective teaching, paying them more if they are able to substantially improve student performance. Laura’s teacher, for instance, might see a bonus at the end of the year for the kind of dramatic achievement she brought forth in her students. This replaces the traditional and still-common system in which all teachers with similar education and years of service are paid the same, regardless of how effective they are at actually teaching. The concept of performance-based pay is not new, only new to teaching.

Identifying and rewarding great teaching is critical, but the reform movement is failing to tackle a third important area — focusing on the start of the teacher pipeline and growing the pool of better-prepared teachers before they enter the classroom. U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said last year that “unfortunately, we all know that the quality of teacher preparation programs is very uneven in the U.S. In fact, a staggering 62 percent of all new teachers — almost two-thirds — report they felt unprepared for the realities of their classroom.” Let’s better prepare our teachers before they enter the classroom by raising the quality of programs that train teachers to teach.

Here are three ways.

We must first enhance accountability in teacher preparation programs by tracking the success and effectiveness of candidates once they begin teaching. Most programs have no idea how their products, the teachers, actually fare in educating students over the ensuing years. This would be like a drug company producing medicines without measuring if the pills actually cure disease.

Second, we must align the curricula of teacher prep programs with the most current, innovative, and proven policies, so that teachers are prepared to teach effectively from the moment they first step into the classroom. There will always be on-the-job training, but our teachers should not have to start over from square one weeks after they themselves graduate.

Preparation should include the use of new teacher evaluation systems which highlight what effective teaching looks like, training on the use of data to improve classroom instruction, and robust preparation to teach the new Common Core State Standards, the state-led higher academic standards being implemented today in 45 states and the District of Columbia.

Third, it’s time to fully open the door to alternative teacher training programs, like Teach for America, that are able to recruit, train, and inspire effective teachers in a short period of time. More collaboration between alternative programs and traditional programs would allow for the sharing and replication of best practices across all teacher training programs.

Yes, all this takes time, and won’t be easy. But the time is ripe for systemic change to identify, prepare, support, and reward great teachers. Research suggests the results will be dramatic for kids. All must participate in this work — teachers and principals, backed up with a lot of backbone from policymakers. But remember: Catching up students like Laura and better preparing millions of other students for college and a career is worth the work.


Dr. William H. Frist is a nationally acclaimed heart transplant surgeon, former U.S. Senate Majority Leader, the chairman of Hope Through Healing Hands and Tennessee SCORE, professor of surgery, and author of six books.

 

This article was originally featured in The Week http://theweek.com/article/index/226586/how-the-us-can-find-and-train-more-great-teachers

Premium Support is the Only Way to Fix America’s Medicare Mess

(The Week, March 27, 2012)

By Bill Frist, M.D.

To save Medicare — and rein in our national debt — we must transform the entitlement program into a defined-contribution system

Nothing is scarier than losing your health.

A close second, however, is getting sick and not being able to afford the care you need. For seniors, Medicare has been the entitlement program that for 47 years has dependably provided health security and peace of mind.

But today, demographics are shifting. Fewer workers are contributing to the pay-as-you-go system that by 2030 will cover double the number of beneficiaries it does now. Those reaching 65 this year, on average, will take out in services more than twice what they paid in over their lifetime. That is simply unsustainable. Medicare cannot last as currently configured.

Absent real changes, Medicare will be unable to meet the needs of seniors in the future.

And looming behind all this is our nation’s debt, skyrocketing on autopilot from $15 trillion today to $22 trillion in eight years. The higher the debt, the slower our economy grows, and the fewer jobs are created. Though a lot of people think Social Security is the culprit, it is not. As a percentage of GDP, it is our two government health programs, Medicare and Medicaid, which, left unchecked, will disproportionately balloon over the next 50 years.

For these reasons, the single most important reform that our next president must address is Medicare modernization.

Absent real changes, Medicare will be unable to meet the needs of seniors in the future.

This week marks the two-year anniversary of the President Obama’s health reform initiative. But that law did little to reform Medicare. Instead, it primarily addressed an entirely different issue, increasing access and expanding Medicaid so that one out of every four Americans will be on Medicaid in 36 months. Structurally, President Obama did not change Medicare at all.

If demographics, determined years in advance, define the impending bankruptcy of Medicare, why haven’t our elected leaders acted? Well, in fact, both President Clinton and President Obama, under mandates by Congress, appointed high-profile presidential commissions to address the issue of entitlement reform and Medicare modernization.

The irony is that both bipartisan commissions, one in 1998 and the other in 2010, demonstrated majority support for the exact same type of fundamental reform for Medicare, a plan that maximized security for our seniors, choice for the individual, and longterm sustainability of the program.

It’s called premium support. Here is how it would work:

When you become eligible for Medicare at 65, you choose a health plan from a menu of integrated private plans that all cover the basic benefit package provided under traditional Medicare today. They can vary in depth and scope of additional coverage. Or you can choose to keep traditional Medicare instead of choosing one of the more modern plans. It’s your choice. All the plans and the exchange system through which they are selected are regulated by the federal government to guarantee security, fairness, and accountability for the individual and a level playing field for the plans.

Your premium for the coverage will be paid partly by the government (known as a defined contribution or premium support). For example, hypothetically, this year the government might pay $8,000, and you pony up a supplementary sum — the total would depend on the additional benefits of the plan you selected. Your personal contribution would be means-tested, with more aggressive subsidies paid for those without resources to afford the basic coverage. The premium support level would be adjusted by income, geography, and health status. You would be able to afford it.

Is such a transformation of Medicare risky? Not really.

The government has a whole lot of experience successfully managing such an exchange, transparently ensuring its equity and value. It has been doing so with the FEHBP (Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan) for the past 52 years. This system has insured all federal employees, currently covering 9 million people, including me when I was a senator — making it the largest employer-sponsored group health insurance program in the world.

The advantages of premium support are many.

Each senior is empowered with a choice of comprehensive plans, similar to what each member of Congress enjoys. Plans can rapidly adopt improved innovations in benefits and coverage rather than wait years for Washington to pass another law. And increased price transparency demanded by active consumers interested in making a value-based choice of plans will empower 50 million Americans to powerfully participate in reducing waste, continually squeezing the fat out of the system.

Premium support would reduce total spending by stimulating price competition among plans (just as has been observed with the Medicare prescription drug coverage structure created in 2003). Beneficiaries become more cost conscious in choosing a plan that best suits their needs.

No longer would doctor and hospital reimbursement be determined by Washington-based price fixing (and arbitrary, blunt, across-the-board cuts) but rather, by value to beneficiaries. No longer will federal centralized pricing of 155,000 service codes based on episodic and unpredictable review be necessary. A side benefit would be a reduction in the costly and distorting power of lobbyists and Washington-based special interests who thrive on managing this centralized price setting to their advantage.

Premium support makes Medicare sustainable longterm, and goes a long way toward reversing the debt and entitlement problems that threaten America’s future.

And what are the naysayers worried about? First, they say providing seniors with more choice is just too confusing. But seniors can keep what they have in traditional Medicare if they want. Second, they argue premium support simply shifts costs and does nothing to reduce the overall price of care. But aligning reimbursement with value and quality rather than quantity will minimize this shift.

The premium support concept is neither novel nor new. Initially proposed in a bipartisan spirit by two congressmen in 1983, endorsed by two prominent health policy economists in 1994, supported by a majority of both of the last two presidential commissions, and more recently proposed by members of both political parties in Congress, premium support is the leading solution to achieve Medicare modernization for seniors and fiscal solvency for our country.


Dr. William H. Frist is a nationally acclaimed heart transplant surgeon, former U.S. Senate Majority Leader, the chairman of Hope Through Healing Hands and Tennessee SCORE, professor of surgery, and author of six books.

 

This article was originally featured in The Week http://theweek.com/article/index/226065/premium-support-is-the-only-way-to-fix-americas-medicare-mess

How the Supreme Court’s ‘ObamaCare’ ruling will affect you

(The Week, March 13, 2012)

By Bill Frist, M.D.

The nation’s highest court is about to judge the president’s signature legislative achievement — and it’s not just politicians who are invested in the outcome.

Is the new health care law constitutional? You might think it doesn’t matter — or at least, that it doesn’t matter to you. But the fact is, the Supreme Court’s decision on President Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA) will almost certainly affect you directly.

How, exactly? For one thing, the court’s decision could play a key role in determining our next president and possibly your next congressman. If you are poor, the ruling may decide whether or not you have coverage. If you are not poor, it will impact how much you pay for health care. If you own a small business, it might determine if you must purchase health insurance for your employees. And if you work for a large business, it may determine whether you still receive your insurance from your employer. If you’re a doctor, it will likely affect your reimbursement. If you’re a patient, it will determine your benefits.

On March 26, 27, and 28, the Supreme Court will hear extensive oral arguments on the constitutionality of the ACA. This is the culmination of 26 states filing suits in federal district courts and opinions from seven federal appellate courts. A final written opinion likely will be delivered in June, 18 months before the individual mandate kicks in and just five months before the presidential election.

If the individual mandate is ultimately deemed constitutional, then for the first time in our history, you will have to purchase a product to live in America.

The ACA is a highly charged law that, according to the latestRealClearPoliticsaverage, is viewed unfavorably by half of Americans. The law essentially does two massive, controversial things: (1) Mandates that individuals purchase health insurance coverage, and (2) expands Medicaid by 16 million enrollees. This expansion means almost one in four Americans will be on Medicaid, the government program originally intended for our poorest citizens. If you don’t purchase insurance, you will pay a fine of $695 per adult and $347 per child.

Together, these provisions will reduce the uninsured by 32 million, but will still leave an estimated 23 million individuals uninsured in 2020.

The focus of the Supreme Court opinion will be on the constitutionality of these two issues, though two additional items will also be considered. One is whether the entire law falls if a part of it, such as the mandate, is ruled unconstitutional, and the other is whether the court has jurisdiction to rule at all now, since the law has yet to go fully into effect.

There is already plenty of discussion on the legal merits of the case, particularly as it regards the taxing power and the Commerce Clause. But what are the very real implications of the upcoming ruling? Here is what to look for:

1. If the court upholds the individual mandate, it will take effect 18 months later — unless Congress acts to repeal or postpone it (which won’t happen as long as Obama is in the White House). If the individual mandate is ultimately deemed constitutional, then for the first time in our history, you will have to purchase a product to live in America.

2. If the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional, the court will then decide whether to let the rest of the law stand, including the expansion of Medicaid and the largely popular individual insurance reforms. If the rest is left intact, the Congressional Budget Office projects that 16 million of the 32 million Americans expected to gain insurance under the law would be ineligible for the new coverage and that non-group, individual premiums might increase 15 to 20 percent. It would then be up to each state to decide whether or not to adopt the individual mandate.

3. If the court decides that the Medicaid expansion is constitutional, it will take effect in 2014 — unless Congress acts to postpone, repeal, or not fund it. But if the expansion is left intact, with almost a quarter of all Americans covered by Medicaid, the program would grow to include a portion of the middle class.

4. If Medicaid expansion is overruled, coverage will remain at current, varying state levels, and an estimated 16 million low-income individuals will not be able to take advantage of the new Medicaid coverage that would have begun in 2014.

5. Politically, if the new law is judged constitutional, Democrats will celebrate the judicial affirmation of the spirit and substance of the historic reform, illustrating President Obama’s leadership. Republicans would fan the existing flames of unpopularity among the majority of Americans, citing federal government overreach, rallying around an election call for repeal as they did in 2010. If any part is unconstitutional, the bases of both parties will be emboldened to make health reform the defining issue, after the economy, in the elections in November.

This one is worth following. It will be a game-changer. And not just for the politicians and pundits in Washington. It’s a game-changer for you, too.


 

Dr. William H. Frist is a nationally acclaimed heart transplant surgeon, former U.S. Senate Majority Leader, the chairman of Hope Through Healing Hands and Tennessee SCORE, professor of surgery, and author of six books. Learn more about his work at BillFrist.com.

 

This article was originally featured in The Week http://theweek.com/article/index/225477/how-the-supreme-courts-obamacare-ruling-will-affect-you

3 ways to fix America’s child poverty problem

(The Week, February 28, 2012)

By Bill Frist, M.D.

One in five American children suffers through extreme financial hardship. It doesn’t have to be that way

Americans hear a lot about decline. Declines in manufacturing, fading productivity, plummeting home values, spiralling deficits, and sadly, dwindling faith in the American dream.

Let me tell you where I see the worst decline — but also our nation’s best hope.

One in five kids in America lives in poverty. That’s 20 percent of America’s future left behind. Left to drop out of high school, suffer through shorter lives, commit crimes, have a child in their teens — and then perpetuate this cycle with their own children.

With better education, kids live longer, earn more, wait longer to have a child, and are less likely to commit a crime.

It doesn’t have to be like this. Imagine an America with 20 percent fewer high school dropouts, 20 percent fewer teen pregnancies, and a 20 percent reduction in chronic health problems like diabetes and hypertension. Picture an America with a workforce that is 20 percent more productive and packed with 20 percent more qualified job applicants. Dream of an America with 20 percent more middle-class citizens. We would be a country poised to soar.

So how do we get there?

The fastest route out of poverty lies with education. With better education, kids live longer, earn more, wait longer to have a child, and are less likely to commit a crime. More importantly, these benefits pass on to their children, snapping the cruel cycle of poverty.

Poverty, especially during formative early years, can be an enormous hurdle for a child’s development. At U.S. schools where less than 10 percent of the student body is impoverished, reading scores rank first in the world. Yet these same scores for U.S. schools where 75 percent or more of the student body is impoverished rank 45th.

In a country with a failing K-12 school system, is it really possible to improve education for impoverished children? Yes, and here are three ways: Providing a boost for kids, lending a hand to parents, and pulling together crumbling neighborhoods.

First, we must start young, much younger than you might think. Most poor children are already behind on their first day of school. At age 4, poor children are 18 months behind developmentally, and without access to early education, kids are 25 percent more likely to drop out of high school.

Communities must target vigorous pre-K education and daycare programs for the one in five kids whose parents simply can’t afford them. Soft skills such as sharing, negotiation, reason, and concentration are instilled between finger-painting and building with blocks. The critical ingredient of high expectations is introduced. These are not luxury goods. They are essential in making communities more prosperous. When states think about job training, they should begin with pre-K education.

 

This article was originally featured in The Week http://theweek.com/article/index/224906/3-ways-to-fix-americas-child-poverty-problem

What Childhood Poverty Means

(Huffington Post, February 3, 2012)

By Bill Frist, M.D.

This post is part of a series on childhood poverty in the United States in partnership with Save the Children and Julianne Moore. Moore leads the organization’s Valentine’s Day campaign, through which cards are sold to support the fight against poverty in the U.S. To learn more or to purchase the cards, click here.

More than one in five American children lives in poverty. In my home state Tennessee it is an astounding one in four.

And it’s only getting worse. Less than four years ago, the national number was one in six children. Childhood poverty has increased 18% since 2000, as 2.5 million more children live in poverty today. But those are just cold, hard numbers. It’s what happens to kids who happen to be born into poverty that matters.

Childhood poverty does not just mean a family of four makes below $23,050 a year (it’s estimated that a family needs over twice that income to actually meet basic needs). No, childhood poverty limits access to the simplest, most basic things such as healthy foods, books, the Internet, and a secure place to play, exercise, or even sleep.

It means poor children,nearly half of whom are overweight, grow up with worse health..

It means at the age of four, poor children are already 18 months behind developmentally.

It means without early education programs, poorer children struggle and are 25% more likely to drop out of high school.

It means they are more likely to become teen parents, commit a violent crime, and be unemployed as adults.

It is a sad fact that at birth, one in five Americans today is well behind in the pursuit of happiness. The evidence increasingly points to the fact that once a child falls behind in the crucial early years, they may never catch up.

As a doctor, I focus on the devastating, long-lasting impact poverty has on a child’s health. Simply put, on average, the lower on the “socio-economic ladder” a child falls, the shorter life he will live. Americans in the lowest income category are more than three times more likely to die before the age of 65 than those in the highest income bracket.

For a child, a healthy body, a strong heart, normal development, and progressive learning all require adequate and balanced nutrition. But poor families too often don’t have access to nearby, affordable healthy foods. This stands as a major reason that debilitating chronic conditions like obesity and diabetes disproportionately afflict these impoverished youths.

“Food deserts” are those all too frequent regions of a city or rural areas, wherever poverty may exist, where affordable, healthy, fresh and nutritious foods are nowhere to be found. A 2011 Food Trust Report found that nearly one million Tennesseans, including 200,000 children, live in communities underserved by healthy food-providing supermarkets.

Across America 23.5 million live in areas that lack stores selling affordable, nutritious food. Without access to healthy foods, the cheap, fried, over-processed foods that accelerate the path to obesity become the mainstay diet. And the cause of early death.

This can be fixed. And an effective way to do so is for enterprising grocery retailers to partner with others in the private sector.

For example, just this year the Partnership for a Healthier America secured commitments from seven leading grocery companies to build new stores in areas where they’re needed most. All told, these commitments will bring fresh, affordable foods to ten million people!

Calhoun Enterprises alone will be building ten new stores in Alabama and Tennessee, creating 500 new jobs while figuratively bringing water to these deserts. And forward-thinking companies are increasingly learning that such “social partnering” not only helps the health and welfare of millions of Americans, but it also improves their own bottom lines.

And our government can also be a lot smarter. For many impoverished children, the majority of their meals, breakfast, lunch and even an afternoon snack, come from their schools. In 2010, almost half of all Tennessee students received government-subsidized school lunches. However, for longer life and better learning, we as tax-paying parents and citizens must insist on trading out pizza and tater tots for more whole grains, fresh fruit and vegetables.

Tennessee has recently started on this process. In June of last year, Tennessee, along with Kentucky and Illinois, joined a USDA pilot program for the “Community Eligibility Option,” allowing kids in low-income areas to skip the applications and red tape and receive the benefits of a free, healthy breakfast and lunch at their schools.

Nationally, last month the Obama administration overhauled the school lunch program for the first time in 15 years. Overall the menu will include items with less sodium, more whole grains and a greater selection of fruits and vegetables. Don’t worry, pizza will still be on the menu, but made with better ingredients.

Partnerships that focus on health and nutrition between the public and private sector, and between faith-based and secular nonprofits, will help lift children from the dire consequences of poverty.

America is the wealthiest nation in the world. The most technologically advanced. The most generous and accepting. We are the fastest car on the fastest track. We cannot afford to leave more than a fifth of our children behind.

To see the full article on the Huffington Post, please click here

Looking Back On The Portrait Unveiling

Norman Shumway was smart. Peering over the open chest cavity — a flabby and worthless heart just lifted out and my mentor knowingly guiding my then novice hands as we sewed in a healthy heart — he would say: “Remember … whatever you’re doing at a moment’s time, you never own it.  You are… always… just renting.”

Thank you, Mr. President, for your generous remarks, and for taking time to be with the Frist family and so many of your loyal admirers and friends.  Your dad and mother, my parents, Laura and Karyn, my siblings and yours – I feel a certain interlocking kinship in our families.

(((And Mr. President, someday there might be a baby George Bush Frist.  You see … – if you hadn’t run for re-election, my son Harrison and then unknown to him, Houston-born Ashley Huff would never have met, both volunteering to work on your campaign.  Married 6 years later, we all thank you for bringing them together.)))

Mr. President, we all admire the grace you display in your post-presidential years. I see it personally while on the ground in Haiti where you, working with President Clinton, are bringing jobs and a future to thousands of Haitians since the earthquake. You demonstrate you don’t have to live in Washington to continue to make extraordinary contributions.

To my colleagues Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, the leadership era that this portrait represents was shaped by the two of you more than any other of our colleagues.

To Harry — you are our Leader, our boxer and fighter. As leaders of our parties, our points of views at times diverged, but you were always – always — forthright with me each and every step of the way.  Your convictions stand tall.

To Mitch, we essentially lived together each day in the Senate — the bond, the absolute trust, the agonizing hours of decision-making in the Majority Leader’s office.   You were born to continue the tradition of the Senate stalwart, your fellow Kentuckian Henry Clay.

And to all my other Senate colleagues – past and present — may your presence here today be a moment of repose and reflection.  Your dedicated work is the pulse of our democracy.  Your commitment and too often lonely hours away from family and friends provide the melody that makes America stronger and more robust.

And to have Dr. Ogilvie and Doris with us today is a special treat.  Each and every day the nation’s business would not commence until we absorbed the guiding wisdom shared through that strong, resonating Scottish voice.

Lloyd, your presence here today reminds us all that Senate relationships continue after formal service.    Imagine, long after we both left the Senate, a gloriously yellow-orange sun rising at daybreak over the ocean, with Karyn and me standing on the beach our feet in crashing waves — witnessing Dr. Ogilvie baptizing our adult nephew.
Senate relationships are organic. They live forever.

And to those closest to me …To Karyn and Bryan and Jonathan and Harrison, we began this journey as a family in 1993. Karyn, you never asked to go on that trip but once begun, you never looked back and your faith never wavered.
Growing up with a dad in politics of course isn’t easy, but Harrison, Jonathan and Bryan you have given your parents the greatest gift of all — by growing and maturing during our Washington years into thriving, grown men, living lives of value and service.

To my 4 older siblings — Dottie, Mary, Bobby and Tommy – all of whom are here today.  I, like you, think of our father and mother, and the pride that they must feel with all five of us together, healthy and living out their dreams for us.

To be in this historic Chamber, the center of so many of the great Senate debates is humbling. My Majority Leader office and desk were directly across the hall from here.  Throughout the day I would listen to the voices of hundreds of people from around the world visit and pay respect to this room. But what I recall most are the special times here, late at night with no one around.  After closing down the Senate, I would wander into this quiet chamber to listen to the booming voices of the giants in American history, leading the country though turbulent times.

And to my staff, who gave of their time and talent to tirelessly work with me to serve their country, in the tradition of those who served in this Chamber, you have my profound thanks and admiration.  You are the bedrock of the Senate, and each of you has played a unique role in history.

And there are so many here who have been both friends and counselors — Karyn and I are blessed to know you, and your generosity has made this day and all that it presents possible.

(Shane) 
Karyn, the boys and I have looked forward to this day for many months.  We’ve had a wonderful time working with Michael Shane Neal on this portrait.  Shane knows our entire family personally. He is not only one of the great portrait artists of our time; he is a warm and caring individual, who loves and appreciates American history and the Senate.  Eight years ago I asked him to stand as I introduced him for yet another portrait in the Capitol.  Shane, to you and Melanie and Mattie and Lily Kate, thank you.

One leaves the Senate hoping to have contributed just a little something extra to the institution. I am proud of working with my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, under the leadership of President Bush, and before that President Clinton. As leader we passed together prescription drugs and historic global health legislation.

But what I hope Karyn and I also left with the Senate is a mere hint of return to the original “citizen legislator” philosophy … where one comes to the Senate from a regular job, spends a period of time –“renting the time” in office, in the words of Dr. Shumway — never owning it – and then returns to a productive career outside of politics … to live under the laws that we pass.

We have moved too far away from the noncareer politician.
What you probably didn’t know is that it was the period of this Old Senate Chamber — 1810 until 1859 — that more doctors served in the Senate than other period in history.  During that half century, 17 doctors were elected to the Senate.  Contrast that to the 50 year period during which I was elected: only one doctor was elected – and that was me.

I do hope that our two terms in the Senate – made possible by the support of so many friends with us today – our voluntarily coming and voluntarily leaving, our embodiment of that simple but foundational philosophy of “citizen-legislator,” inspires others to just “rent some time” — but not own — the public service to others.

In closing … There is one individual who was not able to travel and be with us today – one who also has had the distinct privilege of representing the great Volunteer state and ultimately also serving as Majority Leader.  That is Senator Howard Baker. It was he who pointed out to me that the Senate “greats” as Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and John C. Calhoun, were not career politicians; they typically served several non-connected terms returning to their nonpublic lives in between.  Clay, for instance, served as a senator on four separate occasions between 1806 and 1852.

Howard Baker is the epitome of what it takes to lead the Senate.  To Senator Baker, we love you and thank you from the bottom of our hearts for the early encouragement to run for the Senate and great gift of friendship you have shared with me, Karyn and the boys.

… Thank you all for sharing this special day which respects the greatest and most unique institution called the United States Senate.

God bless you all, and God bless America.

 

Meeting With GE Foundation in Cambodia

I had a wonderful meeting today in Pnom Penh with Dararith Lim, health executive for General Electric who oversees the GE Healthymagination initiative for the underserved in Cambodia. I have been on the advisory board for the Healthymagination initiative for the past couple of years, exploring the opportunities that American technology, initiative, and business can change the health landscape around the world. Dararith updated me on Healthymagination and the tremendous efforts that are being made in three phases to hospitals, urban and rural, which are serving the underserved across the country. Imaging equipment and monitors coupled with introduction to quality and training is a perfect example of what Healthymagination efforts are about. It is a nice marriage of GE exec Bob Corcoran’s work with the GE Foundation reaching out to improve the care for the poor by educating and inspiring Cambodian doctors.

GE Foundation has donated several million dollars’ worth of ultrasound, monitors, ventilators, etc. to a wide range of hospitals throughout the country. The Ministry of Health Secretary has asked the group to serve as an advisor in the creation of a public-private partnership relationship.”

Tour of the new URS-designed Caterpillar plant

I sit on the board of the giant engineering company URS, so today Karyn, Bryan and I toured the new URS-designed Caterpillar plant in Suzhou, China. Very impressive. 72,000 sq./m, LEED Gold certified factory of front-loaders (and corporate office). Took only 14 months to complete. URS recently acquired Scott Wilson, a London-based, global engineering firm. URS has been in Hong Kong doing business for 58 years and active in mainland China since the mid-1980’s, completing 5,000+ projects along the way. Currently they have 1,035 people working across 12 offices in the country.

This extensive in-country experience has provided URS with a number of advantages including a working knowledge of local design codes and the regulatory environment. They have expertise with healthcare facility design and construction at a global level and also at the local level of Hong Kong and mainland China, and have cultured multi-lingual and cultural project managers to see the projects to completion. At this moment, URS is undertaking a variety of diverse projects, from sewerage treatment plants in Dongjiao to rebuilding an earthquake-damaged hospital in Sichuan.

Refugees International Gala

05.07.10

This past evening, I attended to the 31st Annual Refugees International Gala at the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium with many former Senate colleagues and advocates for those displaced by crisis or conflict. At the gala, I was honored to receive the McCall-Pierpaoli Humanitarian Award, which was named in the honor and memory of Penny and David McCall and Yvette Pierpaoli who died during a Refugees International (RI) mission to Albania in 1999. Refugees International was founded in 1979 and advocates to end refugee crises. For more information about this great organization and their work, please visit, http://www.refugeesinternational.org.
Ambassador Richard Holbrooke presented the award and spoke very kindly of my work in Africa, and helping to create and implement the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). He also spoke about David and Penny McCall, who he served on the RI board with. He talked about how instead of staying home and donating money, they chose to travel to Albania to test a newly designed radio receiver that could be used to help reunite exhausted and traumatized Kosovar refugee families. A fierce snowstorm hit the rugged mountain area where they were traveling, and they tragically lost their lives, along with Yvette Pierpaoli. Ambassador Holbrooke also spoke about Yvette, who was an RI staff member and legendary advocate for refugees who inspired John Le Carre’s bestseller, The Constant Gardener. Yvette undertook many aid missions to countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, and she continues to serve as an inspiration.
The evening reminded me how much more work we have to do to help those suffering, and I was glad to run into so many people interested in global health and humanitarian aid. The Capitol Hill publication The Hill posted a brief article about the events of the evening. To read the article and see some pictures from the Gala, please click here

Nashville Flooding and What You Can Do

The numbers from the flooding in Nashville continue to astound. Twenty-one people have died in Tennessee and thousands of people have been driven from their homes. The pictures that are continuing to come in show the level of devastation in Middle Tennessee, and many families are just now being able to get back and see the damage sustained to their homes. Nashville institutions like the Grand Ole Opry House, Broadway and the Opryland hotel have sustained heavy damage. The Obama Administration has declared Cheatham, Davidson, Dyer, Hickman, Montgomery, and Williamson counties federal disaster areas, and it will take months and lots of hard work to repair the areas damaged.

However, with the barrage of bad news, I find it very uplifting to see people from all over the area coming together to help those in need. With every picture of devastation, you see three pictures of neighbors, first responders and families pitching in to rescue people in need and lend a hand to those who have lost so much. This truly captures the essence of the Volunteer State. Our leaders have also done a fantastic job including Mayor Karl Dean and Governor Phil Bredesen.

I continue to have people come up to me and ask, “how can I help?” I have been directing people to the Community Foundation of Middle Tennessee. They have been working in partnership with Davidson County’s Office of Emergency Management for the Metro Nashville Disaster Response Fund. According to the CMFT, grants from the fund will support relief and restoration in the Davidson County area. For more information, you can visit http://www.cfmt.org/floodrelief

Chapters of the Red Cross have been operating shelters all across Middle Tennessee to help those suffering from loss. For more information about the Red Cross’ work, please visit http://www.nashvilleredcross.org.

SCORE Joins Highlands Town Hall Debate 2010

COOKEVILLE — The Highlands, Nashville’s WTVF NewsChannel5, Tennessee Tech University, and the League of Women Voters of Tennessee today announced that the State Collaborative on Reforming Education (SCORE) is joining as a sponsor in the Highlands Town Hall Debate 2010, a general-election gubernatorial debate scheduled for September 14 at TTU in Cookeville.

SCORE, a not-for-profit, non-partisan group led by former U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, encourages sound education policy decisions at the state and local levels. Earlier this year, in January, the group co-sponsored a NewsChannel5 gubernatorial debate that included all major candidates in the Democratic and Republican primary fields.

“SCORE has a track record of promoting a non-partisan focus on important issues in this election,” Sandy Boonstra, news director of NewsChannel5, said. “We’re pleased to work with them once again.”

Frist, a surgeon who represented Tennessee in the U.S. Senate for 12 years, said SCORE supports a renewed focus on key issues, including education and health care. “Ensuring a better education for Tennessee students is critical as we work to improve health outcomes and promote a better quality of life for all Tennesseans,” he said. “SCORE is proud to support an open dialogue on the important issues in this election.”

As the first televised general-election gubernatorial debate held outside of Nashville, Memphis, or Knoxville, the Highlands Town Hall Debate 2010 will give focus to hometown issues facing rural and suburban areas — with an emphasis on economic development, education, and health care. The Highlands is a public/private economic development initiative between Overton, Putnam, and White Counties managed by the Cookeville-Putnam County Chamber of Commerce.

Using guidelines established by its partners, the debate will offer a unique perspective on voter attitudes by soliciting video questions in advance via YouTube and allowing Tennesseans to vote on which questions they want asked of the candidates. Written questions may also be submitted via the debate’s web site. The debate will include a section for live audience questions and a section for candidate-to-candidate questions.
On the Web: www.HighlandsDebate2010.com.

BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee Pledges $500k to SCORE

BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee today announced a $500,000 contribution to advance K-12 public education reform — and better health outcomes — in partnership with the State Collaborative on Reforming Education (SCORE), founded by former U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.

“BlueCross BlueShield has a history of supporting promising community work across Tennessee, especially when it has the potential to promote better health,” said Vicky Gregg, president and CEO of the not-for-profit health plan. “Supporting a strong K-12 public education system is one of the best strategies for ensuring better health for the next generation.”

Gregg added: “BlueCross BlueShield is proud to partner with Sen. Frist and SCORE in their effort to support key education reform policies and promote school improvement on a statewide basis.”

SCORE is a nonprofit nonpartisan organization that works with state government and local school systems to encourage sound policy decisions in K-12 public education. Based at the John Seigenthaler Center at Vanderbilt University, SCORE provides policy and research support, and advocates on a statewide basis for key education reform initiatives including Tennessee’s First to the Top strategy.

Frist, one of 14 U.S. healthcare leaders serving on the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Commission to Build a Healthier America, said a growing body of researchconfirms that people with more education are likely to live longer, experience better health outcomes and practice healthier behaviors.

“There is an undeniable connection between education and health,” said Frist, a surgeon who represented Tennessee in the U.S. Senate for 12 years. “That’s why now, more than ever, we need a public education system producing more high-school graduates who are better prepared for a career or college, and life.”

Frist added: “BlueCross BlueShield’s generous contribution to SCORE sends a powerful message about the strong link between improving educational attainment and ensuring better health outcomes.”

In addition to chairing SCORE, Frist serves as vice chair of the Partnership for a Healthier America, which leads First Lady Michelle Obama’s national campaign to fight childhood obesity. To support the national strategy, Frist and SCORE are exploring new public initiatives to promote healthy kids and healthy communities in Tennessee and the South.

“BlueCross BlueShield’s support is invaluable as we look to further strengthen the connection between education and health,” Frist said. “SCORE looks forward to working with the statewide healthcare community to ensure a smarter, healthier generation of Tennesseans in the years ahead.”

ABOUT BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD
BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee is the state’s oldest and largest not-for-profit health plan, serving nearly 3 million Tennesseans. Founded in 1945, the Chattanooga-based company is focused on financing affordable health care coverage and providing peace of mind for all Tennesseans. BlueCross serves its members by delivering quality health care products, services and information. BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee Inc. is an independent licensee of BlueCross BlueShield Association. For more information, visit the company’s Web site at www.bcbst.com.

ABOUT SCORE
The State Collaborative on Reforming Education (SCORE) serves as a resource for state government and local school systems. SCORE is committed to thoughtful advocacy and policy work, and to building and sustaining a diverse coalition of public- and private-sector partners. SCORE is governed by a 14-member board of directors, chaired by Sen. Frist and comprised of Tennessee philanthropic and business leaders who care about public education.

CGIU Student Grant Competition Extended to April 30

There is exciting and timely news for students looking to make a direct impact in the world. Each year, the Clinton Global Initiative’s CGI U sponsors a competitive grant program called the Outstanding Commitment Awards. These grants are given to students who submit proposals for “Commitments to Action” that are aimed at improving communities and lives in their communities and across the globe. The grant awards range from $1,000 – $10,000 and applications are open to all currently-enrolled students, both undergraduate and graduate. The applications should be focused on one of CGI U’s five global challenge areas: Education, Environment & Climate Change, Peace & Human Rights, Poverty Alleviation, and Public Health, and are awarded to student-led groups focused on these areas.

This is a fantastic opportunity for students to take action in making a difference across the globe, and helping turn their ideas into reality. Time is running out however. The final deadline has been extended to April 30, 2010, so there are only a coupe days left for you to submit your applications.

I encourage students in Tennessee and across the globe to take advantage of this funding opportunity by submitting an application before the deadline. For more information about this exciting project, please visit http://www.cgiu.org/funding/.

The CGI U Outstanding Commitment Awards were launched in 2008 to provide financial support to innovative, student-driven initiatives. To see a map of previous award winners and their winning projects, please click here.

Frist Op-Ed in USA Today: “Race to the Top swiftly changes education dynamic”

NASHVILLE — Something remarkable is happening in American public education.

In a matter of months, the Obama administration’s Race to the Top competition engineered the kind of wholesale reform that ordinarily would take a generation to pull off. Ideas once considered to be the realm of conservative education policy are seeing a refreshing bipartisan embrace. In contrast to the partisan feuds defining the health care debate, Race to the Top is remaking public education as a practically non-partisan issue.

Forty states lobbed in plans to the U.S. Department of Education last January in pursuit of $4.35 billion in federal funds to spur innovation in the classroom. The first two winners in the competition — Delaware and my home state of Tennessee — are putting in place some of the most significant school-reform measures in years.

In Tennessee, we’ve got a new law requiring that student success count for half of annual teacher evaluations. Gov. Phil Bredesen, a Democrat, paved the way by calling the Republican-led legislature into special session. Four days later, sound ideas that had gone nowhere for years suddenly were law.

Delaware, playing off its history as “America’s first state,” is trying to be first in education reform. New regulations allow the state to directly intervene in failing schools. Data coaches will fan out across the state, using technology and student information to help teachers improve classroom instruction.

The list of new ideas, policies and laws born out of Race to the Top is impressive. In all, 15 states and Washington, D.C., emerged as finalists in the early round of competition. Even though most of them didn’t make the cut, some of them — including Florida and Georgia — are well-positioned for the second round.

To keep the challenge moving, the president is asking for an additional $1.35 billion in funding so that other states can chalk up reform wins that weren’t accomplished earlier.

In my opinion, Congress should concur.

Our problem in public education is clear. Nationwide, just over 70% of students graduate from high school — and only half of those graduates leave prepared to succeed in college, career and life, according to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The National Center for Education Statistics reports that 15-year-olds in the U.S. rank below their peers in 23 industrialized nations when it comes to math literacy.

Frankly, Americans are tired of a system that’s underperforming. In Tennessee, our State Collaborative on Reforming Education — a group of business leaders, educators and policymakers — is driving change. Across the country, Race to the Top is instilling a renewed sense of urgency for all of us.

To be sure, Race to the Top has its critics. Teachers’ unions view its emphasis on student data and test scores as heavy-handed. Skeptics of big government are frustrated that it took the lure of federal stimulus funds to push through reform. Meanwhile, it’s unclear how fast-drawn state reforms factor into the president’s proposed overhaul of the No Child Left Behind law. And, of course, whether any of these changes translate to student gains remains to be seen.

Nonetheless, let’s give President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan credit: Race to the Top has rapidly pushed massive change into a system of public education that has needed it for a while. We might see some unintended effects. But given the state of American public education, it was time to do something bold and different.

Let’s hope the race eventually leads to a marathon of lasting reform.

Republican Bill Frist, former U.S. Senate majority leader, chairs the non-profit Tennessee State Collaborative on Reforming Education.

(USA TODAY.)

Frist’s Statement on Race To The Top.

NASHVILLE – Former U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who chairs the education-reform group Tennessee SCORE, on March 4 issued this statement following news that Tennessee is a finalist in the federal government’s groundbreaking Race to the Top competition:

“Tennessee’s spot as a finalist confirms what we’ve known: The Volunteer State is poised to move farther, faster in public education reform than any other state in the nation. Governor Bredesen, the General Assembly, and stakeholders including the TEA are to be commended for their bipartisan work in positioning us for success. Thanks also to Secretary Duncan and the U.S. Department of Education for recognizing the extraordinary opportunities that exist here. Statewide, the education-reform community stands ready to help make sure that Tennessee is ‘first to the top.”

The Tennessee State Collaborative on Reforming Education (SCORE) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that promotes education innovation. In October 2009, SCORE released “A Roadmap to Success,” a report outlining comprehensive strategies for improving Tennessee schools. Many of the strategies were adopted in January’s special legislative session on education reform.

SCORE Final Report

On October 22, 2009, SCORE released its Final Report entitled ‘A Roadmap to Success: A Plan to Make Tennessee Schools #1 in the Southeast Within Five Years.” The report lays out in detail a plan that includes four key strategies that will help Tennessee become the Southeast’s top education performer – embracing high standards, cultivating strong leaders, ensuring excellent teachers, and utilizing data to improve student learning. It also outlines the role various groups can play in improving our schools. To download a copy of the report, please click here.

Tennessee Race to the Top Application Summary

SCORE has written a six-page summary of Tennessee’s 1,111-page Race to the Top application. This summary does not reflect SCORE’s view on the individual components of the application but rather is an attempt to summarize the application in a concise way. To view the summary, please click here. To view the complete application, pleaseclick here.

SCORE Gubernatorial Forum on Education

On Thursday, January 14, 2010, the Tennessee State Collaborative on Reforming Education (SCORE), along with Nashville’s News Channel Five and Belmont University hosted the first major gubernatorial forum of the 2010 election year. The Gubernatorial Forum on Education was the first time all the main candidates for governor from both the Democratic and Republican parties gathered on the same stage, sharing their ideas and plans for education and economic development in Tennessee.

To view the forum online, please click here.

About SCORE

The Tennessee State Collaborative on Reforming Education (SCORE) is an initiative to jumpstart long-term educational change in Tennessee to ensure that every child graduates high school prepared for college or a career. SCORE is chaired by William H. Frist, former Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate, along with a 30-person Steering Committee. To read more about SCORE, please click here.

Frist Statement on Race to the Top

NASHVILLE — Former U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who chairs the education-reform group Tennessee SCORE, today issued this statement following news that Tennessee is a finalist in the federal government’s groundbreaking Race to the Top competition:

“Tennessee’s spot as a finalist confirms what we’ve known:  The Volunteer State is poised to move farther, faster in public education reform than any other state in the nation.  Governor Bredesen, the General Assembly, and stakeholders including the TEA are to be commended for their bipartisan work in positioning us for success.  Thanks also to Secretary Duncan and the U.S. Department of Education for recognizing the extraordinary opportunities that exist here.  Statewide, the education-reform community stands ready to help make sure that Tennessee is ‘first to the top.’”

The Tennessee State Collaborative on Reforming Education (SCORE) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that promotes education innovation.  In October 2009, SCORE released “A Roadmap to Success,” a report outlining comprehensive strategies for improving Tennessee schools.  Many of the strategies were adopted in January’s special legislative session on education reform.

Special Session Presents Once-in-a-Lifetime Opportunity

By: Sen. Bill Frist, M.D.

In my 12 years of service to Tennesseans in the United States Senate, I learned that progress often comes from taking advantage of moments when the stars align around a specific goal.  In Tennessee, one of those moments is upon us, as for the first time in over 25 years the stars have aligned to make real, meaningful improvements to Tennessee’s education system.

Today, there are a number of factors coming together to create a truly unique opportunity for improving our schools.  Earlier this year, Governor Bredesen’s Tennessee Diploma Project went into effect, for the first time raising Tennessee’s academic standards to a nationally competitive level.  At the same time, national foundations, who for far too long have ignored Tennessee, have started to make major investments in our schools.  In the last six months alone, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has committed $90 million to improving teacher effectiveness in Memphis and made several other smaller investments across the state.

Perhaps most importantly is the consensus that has been built over the past year about how to improve Tennessee’s education system.  For the past year, I have chaired the Tennessee State Collaborative on Reforming Education (SCORE).  Led by a 25-member steering committee of top education, political, and business leaders from across Tennessee, SCORE has gathered input from all the state’s key education stakeholders by holding 72 town hall meetings across the state, hosting eight statewide meetings with leading education reformers from around the country, and conducting hundreds of one-on-one interviews.

In late October, SCORE released a final report entitled “A Roadmap to Success: A Plan to Make Tennessee Schools #1 in the Southeast Within Five Years.”  This report laid out the specific things each group – whether it be legislators, teachers, parents, or the business community – needs to do to improve our schools.  Over 300 individuals offered feedback on this final report, which represents a bold consensus among the state’s education stakeholders about a detailed plan for improving Tennessee’s education system.  Never before has there been so many different groups come together and agree about the way forward.

As members of the Tennessee General Assembly meet today in a special legislative session focused on education, I encourage them to take advantage of this truly unique moment in our state’s history.  Now is the time to enact truly meaningful education reform.  While the timing of the special session is in part driven by a desire to make the state’s application for federal Race to the Top funds more competitive, many of the ideas proposed in the current legislative package represent ideas that have been developed over the past year through SCORE’s inclusive process and wide-ranging outreach.

Specifically, SCORE’s final report laid out seven policy recommendations for the state legislature.  These seven items make up a large portion of the proposals being recommended by Governor Bredesen and being considered in the General Assembly.  Passing these items will not only ensure that Tennessee is competitive for hundreds of millions of federal Race to the Top dollars, but it will also ensure that Tennessee undertakes much needed education reforms that have been identified as necessary by many of Tennessee’s teachers, principals, superintendents, and maybe even more importantly, by parents and grandparents.    From the classroom to the boardroom, everyone has an interest in seeing our schools improve.

The stars have clearly aligned in Tennessee to create a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to improve our schools.  My hope is that this legislative special session will bring everyone together to take advantage of this truly unique moment.  If we all rise to the occasion, I am confident our schools will significantly improve and the children in our state will have a brighter future.

Bill Frist served as U.S. Senate Majority Leader from 2003- 2007 and is Chairman of Tennessee SCORE.

Bill Frist Receives 2011 NBAA Humanitarian Award

Bill Frist Receives 2011 NBAA Humanitarian Award from Bill Frist on Vimeo.

 

Bill Frist Flies Missions Worldwide to Help Those in Need

Esteemed doctor, pilot and former U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has been awarded the National Business Aviation Association’s (NBAA’s) 2011 Al Ueltschi Award for Humanitarian Leadership in recognition of his life-saving efforts worldwide, and the importance of business aviation to those endeavors.

An accomplished medical researcher and heart transplant surgeon, Dr. Frist was elected to the Senate representing Tennessee in 1994, the first practicing physician elected to the lawmaking body since 1928. During his two terms in office, Frist rose to the majority leader position faster than any previous senator while spearheading efforts to improve medical access for Americans and others worldwide, notably leading on bills like the Medicare Modernization Act and the passage of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). PEPFAR combats the spread of disease in resource-limited areas worldwide, and since its passage has provided life-saving anti-retroviral drug treatments to over 3.2 million people and counseling, testing and education to over 33 million to help prevent new infections. This ambitious program is often credited with saving a generation of Africans.

A true citizen-legislator, Frist has continued his regular medical mission trips worldwide since his retirement from the Senate in 2007. Frist – a pilot since the age of 16 and holder of multi-engine, commercial and instrument ratings – has consistently relied on aviation and his own piloting skills to expand his life-long commitment to healing to areas around the globe.

From using aviation night after night to personally transport hearts during his time-sensitive transplant procedures, to piloting planes throughout war-torn Sudan to perform surgery, Frist credits aviation as a powerful instrument for healing. Within days of the levees breaking in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, he flew his plane to care for those stranded. In flooded Bangladesh, he relied on floatplanes to ferry needed personnel and supplies on behalf of Save the Children and Samaritan’s Purse, and in 2010, he immediately flew to Haiti to perform surgery in the aftermath of the earthquake in Haiti.

“Bill Frist has combined his skill as an aviator with his expertise in medicine to reach people in need of life-saving treatment at home and all over the world,” said NBAA President and CEO Ed Bolen. “From piloting his own aircraft throughout Sudan to give surgical care, to using aviation to reach and treat victims days after the devastating earthquake in Haiti, the senator and doctor truly ‘walks the walk’ in assisting those most in need of help. He exemplifies the humanitarian spirit that’s always been a part of business aviation, and we are honored to recognize his pioneering work with this award.”

In his 2009 book Heart to Serve: The Passion to Bring Health, Hope, and Healing, Frist wrote about his belief that medicine unites the world in its common goal for peace. “People don’t usually go to war against someone who helped save their children,” he wrote. “While the world often sees America’s tougher side…when people see America’s more compassionate, humanitarian side, the barriers come down, and peace becomes a viable possibility.”

Established in 2006, NBAA’s Al Ueltschi Award for Humanitarian Leadership recognizes the spirit of service demonstrated by humanitarian leaders within the business aviation community. The award is named for Albert L. Ueltschi, who was instrumental in the development of ORBIS, an international non-profit organization dedicated to preventing blindness and saving sight.

The award will be presented to Frist at the Opening General Session for NBAA’s 64th Annual Meeting & Convention (NBAA2011) in Las Vegas, scheduled for 8:30 a.m. on Monday, October 10, 2011. The full Convention will be held Monday, October 10 through Wednesday, October 12.

Past recipients of the Al Ueltschi Award for Humanitarian Leadership include Cessna Aircraft Company (2006), the Veterans Airlift Command (2007), Corporate Angel Network (2008), and the Civil Air Patrol (2009). Last year, the Association honored humanitarians throughout the business aviation community for their efforts in providing relief efforts following the earthquake that devastated Haiti in January 2010.

# # #

Founded in 1947 and based in Washington, DC, the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) is the leading organization for companies that rely on general aviation aircraft to help make their businesses more efficient, productive and successful. The Association represents more than 8,000 companies and provides more than 100 products and services to the business aviation community, including the NBAA Annual Meeting & Convention, the world’s largest civil aviation trade show. Learn more about NBAA at www.nbaa.org.

Members of the media may receive NBAA Press Releases immediately via e-mail. To subscribe to the NBAA Press Release e-mail list, submit the online form atwww.nbaa.org/news/pr/subscribe.

Frist Visits Refugee Camp in East Africa

This week I traveled with Second Lady Dr. Jill Biden to refugee camps in eastern Kenya along the Somali border to witness the impact of the most acute food security emergency on earth.We need your help, and your help I promise will make a difference.

Yesterday we visited intake centers just on the border where over 1500 Somalis who walked for weeks with their starving children (over 29,000 young children have died of malnutrition and disease in Somalia alone over the past 90 days) arrive each day to find food and a safe place to live. But the camps are at capacity (the Dadaab camp has 430,000 refugees today; it was designed for 90,000) and new arrivals are left to fend for themselves on the outskirts of the camp.

Over the years I have delivered medical care in refugee camps on a number of trips, to camps in Darfur, Chad (on the border of Sudan), and in boy soldier camps in southern Sudan. I go as a doctor – and an observer of how we as individuals back at home can make a difference. Providing age appropriate health care to the vulnerable and malnourished children and adults is crucial to combat rapidly spreading disease and death. I see how we can use medicine and health as a currency for security and peace.

At Dadaab, I met with the nurses and doctors in clinics closed to the press.  Vaccinations for measles and polio are in need.  The crowded conditions in the camps make the kids especially susceptible to these deadly infectious diseases. That’s why we are seeing the current outbreaks of measles in the camps. Measles are preventable and treatable but we need more help. And that is where each of us comes in.

I saw the miracle of inexpensive oral rehydration with nutrients for babies and children who would otherwise die from the common diarrheal diseases that come from malnutrition. Much needed vitamins bolster the children’s immune systems. These are all simple, cheap interventions that are needed today. And they are all within our reach to provide.

The American people have done and are doing a lot (we are contributing over 47% of the current food aid coming to the Horn of Africa) which has markedly lessened the unfolding tragedy in the region, but the need today is growing faster than we and the entire international community are responding.

Dr. Biden and I, accompanied by USAID administrator Rajiv Shah, also saw in the field how our nation’s past investments are paying off. Due to our country’s investments in agricultural and livestock advancements in Kenya and Ethiopia over the past decade, they are able to handle the drought without the death associated with famine. But, lacking these investments over the past decade in war-torn Somalia, thousands have died and millions are at risk.

Aid agencies estimate that over $1 billion more is needed during this critical period to stop further deaths and get proper food, water, and health care, especially to the children who are most vulnerable.

How can you help? Hope Through Healing Hands is launching an East Africa Famine Campaign to raise funds to provide assistance to aid agencies who are on the ground now in the Horn of Africa. Based on my personal experiences, we will select beneficiaries whom we know and trust, who are on the ground now delivering care, and who will be providing both food and medical care to the victims of the famine.

Over 12 million are being affected. They need your support today.

Bill Frist, M.D.

P.S. Please follow our blog and our Facebook updates for more about the East Africa Famine Crisis.

Sen. Frist heads to Kenya to study famine’s effects

More than 29,000 young children have died of malnutrition and disease in Somalia in the past 90 days. We are now on our way to the Horn of Africa to see what more we as a nation can do.

Early this morning, our plane left Washington, D.C., bound for East Africa. I’m flying with Second Lady Dr. Jill Biden and USAID Administrator Raj Shah to study the famine’s effects on the lives of more than 12 million people, many of them children.

In fact, it is now being called “the children’s famine.”

Over the years, I have delivered medical care in refugee camps on a number of trips, both to camps in Darfur, in Chad (right on the border of Sudan), and in boy soldier camps in southern Sudan. I went as a doctor. Providing age-appropriate health care to the compromised and malnourished children and adults is crucial to combat rapidly spreading disease and death.

It begins with identifying the specific needs, which we will be doing, then ensuring access, which is a challenge especially in Somalia.

Aid agencies estimate that more than $1 billion more is needed during this critical period to stop further deaths and get proper food, water and health care especially to the children who are most vulnerable.

In the camps we visit, I will focus on the vaccinations given for measles, polio and malaria; oral rehydration distributed to those suffering from diarrhea; and vitamins for children to bolster their immune systems. These are simple, cheap interventions to fight disease in the malnourished. I am eager to learn what is being accomplished and what more needs to be done. America has done a lot which has lessened the unfolding tragedy in the region, but there is a lot more we can do to reverse the course underway.

We will learn much over the next few days. I am on this trip to hear the stories of the families and their journeys, and I will share those stories with you.

Please sign the ONE petition today to urge world leaders to provide the full funding that the UN has identified as necessary to help people in the Horn of Africa, and please keep your promises to deliver the long term solutions which could prevent crises like this from happening again.

East Africa – “The Children’s Famine”

As I write this, East Africa is in turmoil. Roughly 12 millions people, almost 5 million of which are children, along the Horn of Africa are experiencing the worst drought in sixty years. Tens of thousands have already died and millions more are at risk, especially children, who are dying at such a rate this disaster has already been named “The Children’s Famine.” Within weeks, more than half a million children will die in Somalia alone if they do not receive immediate aid and attention and already the under-5 death rate has increased six-fold from last year.

Outside of the immediate threat to life, this drought has ruined the livelihoods of millions living a pastoral and simple agricultural lifestyle. Rainfall has plummeted for two straight years, drying up remote water holes and devastating crops. Cattle and livestock death rates have reached 40% to 60% levels in some areas, wiping out the entire wealth of small communities. Refugees from these hard hit areas are now walking dozens of miles, losing children along the way, for the slim hope of aid at refugee camps in Kenya and Ethiopia. Experts have speculated that this drought and the resulting dislocation of millions could unwind an entire decade’s worth of agricultural advances in this arid region.

Tragically, however, this famine also has a strong man-made component. Al-Shabaab, an Islamic terrorist group affiliated with Al Qaeda, rules over almost every region that the UN has declared to be officially in a state of famine. Yet al-Shabaab denies there is even a problem, calling official reports of a famine, “an exaggeration.” Instead of helping their people, they are busy banning Western aid workers and setting up their own internment camps bereft of supplies and hope. When aid workers do venture into the southern Somali regions controlled by this terrorist group, they are often harassed or killed (42 aid workers were killed from 2008 to 2009). They have for years refused vaccinations for children in their territory, leaving them vulnerable to measles and other easily preventable diseases now that malnutrition saps kids’ immune systems. Now the militants are imprisoning Somalis attempting to flee to refugee camps and blocking off rivers and streams, strangling poor local farmers. Al-Shabaab has dramatically failed to build up its market strength and infrastructure in order to better weather these drastic environmental events, as Kenya and Ethiopia have done, often in partnership with the World Food Program, UNICEF, and other groups. This is why al-Shabaab controls area that accounts for 2.2 million of the 2.7 million in officially designated famine areas. The cruelty of people against people is truly shocking.

Yet there is hope. Currently over 11 million people are being reached with some form of aid. Countries around the world are starting to realize the true severity of this crisis and beginning to respond accordingly. Proudly America stands again as the single largest donor, but we still need help. I will have more details in the days to come, will share more ways to help, but for now please take a look at this great rundown of aid organizations currently operating in the Horn of Africa. Read about how they are helping and, if able, donate to one.

Bill Frist

Mother-and-child health challenges persist globally

This Mother’s Day, moms in Tennessee and around the world have more to celebrate than ever before. Infant mortality rates are declining in many communities and many countries. Yet even today, where a woman gives birth determines dramatically different odds of survival for her child. We can, and must, change that.

A baby in Shelby County has a 1 in 77 chance of dying before her first birthday. In some of our rural counties, 1 in 45 babies die. Those frightening rates are on par with Sri Lanka and Mongolia, respectively.

Overall, the U.S. child mortality rate is worse than in 40 other countries. It’s one of the main reasons Save the Children ranks our nation 31 out of 43 developed countries on the Mothers’ Index of its new State of the World’s Mothers report.

Within the United States, Tennessee has long had one of the worst infant mortality rates. But our state’s effort to change that is paying off. We’ve moved up from 46th to 41st in the latest national comparison on child health. That’s good news, but I’m sure you’ll agree, it isn’t nearly good enough.

Even in tough times, state programs making a difference — including Healthy Start, which makes home visits possible for new moms in rural areas — must be protected if we are to improve the health of moms and kids across the state. Healthy kids lead more fulfilling and productive lives. They create jobs and grow economies.

Children’s programs face possible federal cuts

Together,we must speak up for mothers everywhere. Federal programs that have helped reduce global child mortality by a third in the last 20 years are in danger of major cuts.

Worldwide, 8 million children still die each year, mostly from preventable causes. Imagine if diarrhea or pneumonia became a death sentence for your child. This is a daily risk for millions of mothers with no access to trained health workers or the most basic, inexpensive medicines. In Afghanistan, one in seven infants dies.

Why should Tennesseans worry about this when we have our own challenges right here at home? First, it’s not an either-or proposition. We should save every child’s life when we know how to do it inexpensively and so well. It doesn’t take much more than political will to give a child a real shot as a long, fulfilling life,

And it’s more than that. When we save children’s lives abroad, we help countries develop and give them hope. And when we do that, we help create the conditions for growth and prosperity.

That relates directly to Tennessee, where 44 of our 46 export industries are growing and our state benefits from nearly $26 billion in exports every year. U.S. economic growth increasingly depends on growing markets in developing countries. We are living in a world that is increasingly interconnected. Simply put, by helping mothers and their children everywhere, we help ourselves.

So, as we celebrate this day for mothers, let’s make a bold commitment to improve the lives of mothers and children in communities across the globe.

by Bill Frist
The Tennessean

Medicine Serves as a Currency for Peace

Just eight years ago, fewer than 50,000 HIV-positive people in Africa had access to the medicines needed to live. Today, through American-created and -supported programs, almost 4 million people are being treated for as little as 40 cents a day. They are raising their children, building their communities, farming the land and inventing new technologies; most importantly, they are living. All because Americans saw a continent under siege by the AIDS pandemic and took the lead in turning it around.

When we invest in the health of the poorest people in the world, not only do we help save and enhance their lives, we also invest in an enduring trust and partnership with other nations.

Yet, in these times, when we are tightening our belts — in our homes and in our government — every dollar counts. We want outcomes measured and results reported.

That being said, experience tells us this: While U.S. development assistance makes up less than 1 percent of the entire U.S. budget, the return on that investment can be counted in the millions of lives saved. They are saved by providing malaria bed nets so children can sleep safe from the harm of a deadly mosquito’s bite. They are saved through the testing and treatment of tuberculosis and through the medicines to prevent an HIV-positive mother from passing the disease along to her newborn. They are saved through widespread access to basic childhood vaccinations such as those for measles and polio.

Access to simple low-cost drugs, treatments and education has saved a generation in Africa. With continued American leadership, many more will be saved and go on to lead their countries into financially independent futures that include the United States as friend, not foe.

The 2012 budget passed by the House would have a substantial and harmful effect on the gains made in recent years. If cuts proposed by the House for the entire international affairs budget are proportionally applied, funding for lifesaving programs would fall by about 27 percent from 2011, according to estimates from the anti-poverty group ONE.

As ONE notes, “While these cuts would have miniscule value in the goal of balancing the budget, they will have a real and devastating impact on some of the most vulnerable people in the world.”

Years ago, ONE’s founder, Bono, the Irish rock star-activist, had a great idea: Why not color the U.S.-funded AIDS pills red, white and blue? With every pill taken, the patient would remember who cared enough to help them live.

I mention Bono’s idea because he highlights the double return on our investments for health in development and diplomacy — two of the three legs that support our U.S. national security (military defense being the third). People don’t go to war with a country that has saved the lives of their spouses and their children. Healthy people and healthy economies make for more stable countries. And, simply put, a more stable world is a safer world for us all.

On my medical missions as a surgeon, I have traveled throughout Africa, Southeast Asia and the Caribbean, seeing for myself that medicine is a real currency for peace.

A few years back, while in Southern Sudan, I met a family on a dusty rural strip of road. As they made their way toward me, I saw that the mother was carrying a yellow jug of water on her head and a baby swaddled on her back. Her two other children were skipping alongside her, using a stick to spin an old bicycle tire. Dropping the stick, the children watched me with curiosity, until the little boy worked up his nerve to speak.

“My name is America,” he said with pride. I told him I loved his name and that I came from America. Grinning, he looked at his mom and then back at me. “My mom named me that because an American doctor saved our lives the day I was born.”

There are millions of “Americas” around the world, thanks to our understanding that our health dollars achieve many ends. Medical diplomacy transforms hearts, minds and lives and revolutionizes how people see us.

America is an exceptional country and our leadership has vaccinated children, given them clean water to drink and saved them from lives shortened by the tragedy of AIDS. They will go on to be doctors, teachers and scientists. They are not likely to go on to raise arms against America. This is a gift we give our children.

In a time when we are looking to stretch our dollars, let’s prioritize programs that give solid returns. Let’s not turn back the clock on the enormous progress of the past eight years. Rather, let’s continue to lead by investing wisely in a healthy, secure future for us and for the world of which we are a part.

by Bill Frist
RollCall.com

Frist’s Foreword to the 2011 State of the World’s Mothers Report.

“Working together with developed and developing country partners, we reduced the total number of under-5 deaths worldwide by more than one-third in less than two decades.”

When children in developing countries die, we all mourn this loss of life, especially when we know that most of these deaths could have been easily prevented. We are no longer Democrats or Republicans – we are members of the human family who recognize that it is simply wrong for some of our children to have access to basic services that ensure they survive, while others do not.

The United States has a long and proud history of leadership in the fight to save children’s lives. American researchers pioneered simple solutions that have led to a remarkable decline in child mortality in recent decades (for example: oral rehydration solution to treat diarrhea, vitamin A supplements to fight malnutrition and disease, and lifesaving vaccines). Much of this success was accomplished with generous funding from the United States government.

Working together with developed and developing country partners, we reduced the total number of under-5 deaths worldwide by more than one-third – from 12.4 million per year to 8.1 million – in less than two decades. Yet tragically, 22,000 children still perish each day, mostly from preventable or treatable causes.

In the 1980s and 1990s, it was unthinkable that the United States would not be a leader in this realm. Polls have consistently shown that over 90 percent of Americans believe saving children should be a national priority. Congress and Administrations since the early 1980s have responded to the people’s will and appropriated funds that enabled USAID and groups like Save the Children to deliver lifesaving services to millions of children in the poorest countries in the world.

Save the Children’s 2011 State of the World’s Mothers report assembles a distinguished group of “champions for children” to explore the many reasons why we, as a nation, must continue to invest in these lifesaving programs.

Some of the messages may surprise you. For example, the President of Malawi shows that even a very poor country facing daunting health challenges can become a child survival success story by making strategic choices and working effectively with committed international partners. And Professor Peter Singer refutes the common myth that saving children is somehow at odds with protecting the environment.

Some of the solutions that could save the most lives may surprise you too. For example, did you know that a cadre of community-based health workers, given just six weeks of training and a few basic tools, can reduce child mortality by 24 percent or more? Professors Robert Black and Henry Perry from Johns Hopkins University discuss these findings in an essay revealing the great potential of community health workers to save more young lives.

There is no reason why child survival programs should not continue to receive bipartisan support. Former Xerox CEO Anne Mulcahy notes the many ways these programs help build a favorable climate for American businesses. And Col. John Agoglia reminds us that promoting the health of women and children in fragile and emerging nations is still one of the best ways for our nation to make friends and influence people around the world – which is key to America’s long-term national security.

Generous American hearts go out to those who were not born into our good fortune. Actor Jennifer Garner tells how her own mother’s example inspired her awareness of the critical needs of children around the world. And Rick and Kay Warren of the Saddleback Church describe how partnerships between the U.S. government and the faith-based community have improved the health of mothers and children in countless communities.

Save the Children’s annual Mothers’ Index is a powerful reminder of the many places on earth where mothers and children still need our help. Millions more lives could be saved by expanding our support for basic, low-cost health services and the frontline health workers who deliver lifesaving care. As Congress and the Administration face tough choices about future funding for international programs, let’s work together to give the gift too many mothers still want most – the basic health care that will save their child’s life.

To read the full report click here.

William H. Frist, MD, (left) is a former U.S. Senate Majority Leader.

Jon Corzine (right) is a former U.S. Senator and Governor of New Jersey.

Theyco-chair Save the Children’s Newborn and Child Survival Campaign.

Can Africa Make The Cut?

by Raynard Jackson

Whenever the U.S. government enters into a state of fiscal austerity, politicians always look for budget cuts from programs they deem to be less important or have little or no constituency. Foreign policy budgets, especially those directed towards Africa seem to always show up near the top of that list.

The left will blame it on the “mean” Republicans who don’t care about Africa. The truth is that Africa seems to benefit more from Republican control of Congress/White House than from Democratic control. Isn’t it amazing that former President George W. Bush did more for Africa than any president in the history of the U.S.? But, yet, he gets little or no credit for his policies towards Africa.

It was the Bush administration that first labeled what was going on in the Sudan as genocide (made by then Secretary of State, Colin Powell before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee). Bush played a critical role in helping to end the civil war in the Sudan.

Under the Bush administration, development aid to Africa quadrupled from $ 1.3 billion in 2001 to more than $ 5 billion in 2008. The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) was created by Bush. Africa has received in excess of $ 3.5 billion from the fund so far. The MCC was established to reward poor countries that encouraged economic growth, good governance, and social services for its citizens.

The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) was created in 2000 and expanded under Bush in 2004. The bill provides trade benefits with the U.S. for 40 African countries that have implemented reforms in their countries to encourage economic growth.

The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) was created by Bush and had $ 15 billion appropriated over five years (2003-2008). I find it amazing that the program has been cut by the Obama administration (though Obama pledged to increase it by $ 1 billion annually during his presidential campaign).

Along with PEPFAR, Bush established the U.S. Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (or the Global AIDS Act) established the State Department Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator to oversee all international AIDS funding and programming

Bush’s policies are credited with saving the lives of millions of Africans.

 

The political right would argue that America just can’t afford to continue some of these programs. They don’t question the merits of the programs, just the financial ability of the U.S. to continue to fund them.

I put the blame for this type of myopic thinking on two groups. The first is U.S. supporters of these programs (this includes, politicians, faith based groups, American citizens, etc.). America must do a better job in explaining why and how these programs impact the U.S. If we don’t spend the money on the front end (for prevention), we will spend the money on the back end (for treatment, humanitarian intervention, nation building, etc.).

I would put most of the responsibility on the second group—African heads of state and their designated U.S. ambassadors! African leaders and their ambassadors show very little understanding of how to get things done through our political process here in Washington, DC. Most African ambassadors have no relations with relevant members of Congress on the African committees of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.

How many African diplomats can pick up the phone right now and get Congressman Chris Smith (at home, on his cell, or in his office)? Smith represents New Jersey’s 4th congressional district and is one of the biggest supporters of Africa that most people have never heard of. He also happens to be a member of the House’s Committee on Foreign Affairs and chairs the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights.

African diplomats constantly complain about what the U.S. is not doing for them or their country’s interests. They hire high powered lobbyist who have little ability to translate their needs into a language that is understood in the political arena. They rarely engage the American people as to why their country is important to the U.S and why they should care. They have no media strategy, no advocate within the halls of the U.S. Congress, and they lack the “friends in high places.”

Africans must understand that it is important to engage the American people whether there is a crisis going on in their country or not; whether there is an adverse policy percolating through Congress or not.

The new Congress convened in January and there are many new members in both the House and the Senate who are new to their respective African committees. African diplomats have made little, if any, effort to establish relations with these new members beyond any perfunctory meet and greet.

There will most definitely be across the board budget cuts for the foreseeable future. How deep they are relative to Africa will depend on how well the African diplomatic community communicates their country’s importance to the American people and relevant members of both the House and the Senate.

Based on my private conversations with members of Congress, the White House, members of civil society, and NGOs, Africa doesn’t make the cut in terms of understanding how to make things happen in the U.S.

Raynard Jackson is president & CEO of Raynard Jackson & Associates, LLC., a D.C.-public relations/government affairs firm. He is also a contributing editor for ExcellStyle Magazine (www.excellstyle.com) & U.S. Africa Magazine (www.usafricaonline.com).

Clinton Bush Haiti Fund: Inveneo Project

See how the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund’s grant to Inveneo is empowering rural and underserved communities in Haiti with information and communications technologies.

Their grant will accelerate the development of sustainable, high-speed wireless broadband connectivity to 20 population centers in six rural regions across Haiti, which will in turn stimulate economic growth and support decentralization of the country. Inveneo works with several Haitian ISPs to deliver training programs that will prepare its partners to manage and take full responsibility for the network. Inveneo also provides training programs for Haitian Information and Communication Technology (ICT) entrepreneurs.

Visit www.ClintonBushHaitiFund.org to get involved.

Clinton Bush Haiti Fund: YouthBuild IDEJEN Project

See how the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund’s grant to YouthBuild International, partnering with IDEJEN, will put young people back to work in Haiti and give them the skills necessary to rebuild their country.

The centers will serve at-risk youth (ages 16–28) by providing them with vocational training in construction and leadership skills for the future. The grant will also be used to provide a two-to-one match of trainees’ savings contributions, support leadership training for the Build Back Better Youth Corps. The program also provides six months of follow-up support as trainees seek viable employment opportunities or pursue self-employment.

The first training center, JENKA, was built in Leogane, the epicenter of the earthquake where nearly 90 percent of the buildings were destroyed. This first of 12 centers is where the project’s local implementing partner IDEJEN (Haitian Out of School Livelyhood Initiative) is now recruiting staff and students.

Clinton Bush Haiti Fund money enabled YouthBuild to get construction underway quickly while other projects in Haiti have stalled due to funding delays.

Visit www.ClintonBushHaitiFund.org to get involved.

Clinton Bush Haiti Fund: Artisans in Jacmel

See how money from the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund has provided sales and marketing support for local artisans.

Their funds also helped these local business people rebuild their workshops, damaged during the earthquake. Through our support, artisans were able to complete their order to Macy’s for its exclusive “Heart of Haiti” collection, inspired by the courage and culture of the Haitian people.

Clinton Bush Haiti Fund’s recent loan to Fairwinds Trading, will expand this support to artisans in three additional communities and increase employment opportunities for Haitians — particularly women. This could sustain the employment of 740 artisans and artisan managers and provide secondary employment for 185 additional individuals.

Follow-up orders from Macy’s could provide income to support 4,544 individuals.

Visit www.ClintonBushHaitiFund.org to get involved.

Conversation: Exploring Global Health

Tuesday night I was in New York at an event for Harvard Medical School, “Conversation: Exploring Global Health.” Moderated by 60 Minutes’ Byron Pitts, the event was a conversation about the history and direction of global health with Dr. Paul Farmer, who among other things leads the Department of Global Health and Social Medicine at HMS and co-founded Partners In Health one of the most influential, visionary and effective international humanitarian organizations, and Dr. Joia Mukherjee, who was just named the Director of Global Medical Education and Social Change at HMS.

Clinton Bush Haiti Fund Update

In the ten months since the catastrophic earthquake, the Haitian people have been working towards rebuilding and recovering. But now, a devastating cholera epidemic is spreading, threatening progress.

The Clinton Bush Haiti Fund is dedicated to funding initiatives that create jobs, teach skills, and assist local businesses. With programs that promote economic opportunity for all Haitians, Haiti will be better able to prevent, plan for, and respond to future crises and natural disasters like these.

Please help us continue this work, so the people of Haiti can rebuild and thrive.

With gratitude,
President William J. Clinton
President George W. Bush

DONATE NOW
Sign Up for Email Updates
Follow us on: Twitter
Facebook
________________________________

Clinton Bush Haiti Fund
Clinton Bush Haiti Fund P.O. Box 632454 * Baltimore, MD 21263-2454

UPDATE: Haiti Cholera Outbreak

I write to you today a little more optimistic than my last post on the developing disaster in Haiti. I will be keeping on top of the situation there and encourage you to stop by to read updates on my personal website, BillFrist.com. This weekend, I urgently emailed around the medical community, searching for desperately needed supplies for Haiti’s ongoing cholera outbreak. From starting with nothing Saturday morning, we now will have a massive bulk shipment of Ringers Lactate and IV sets arrive this week in Haiti, be distributed that afternoon to 8 facilities by evening. Impressive response on short notice.

I also just got word from USAID that they now are also sending more Ringers Lactate. Yesterday morning I was told there were 200,000 in Haiti in storage and 400,000 in pipeline. When I said my people alone on the ground were using 75,000 per month there was a long pause. Now people seem to be getting the picture.

The Clinton Bush Haiti Fund, where I sit on the board, has recently announced an emergency $100,000 grant to the African Methodist Episcopal Church Service and Development Agency (AME-SADA).  This wonderful organization is the only organization providing health care to the 350,000 residents of Archaie and Cabaret in the Artibonite region of Haiti. These funds will be used exclusively to fight the cholera outbreak, and USAID’s Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance is matching our grant with in-kind, instead of monetary, support.

However this is only the start. As I said last week, estimates vary, but it is almost certain that 200,000 to 800,000 Haitians will be infected with cholera. The death toll has risen over the weekend to 1,250 and the outbreak finally appears to have fully hit the capital, Port-au-Prince, with a reported 15% to 20% increase in cases every day. The successes above are crucial in beginning the wave of support that Haiti and the NGOs on the ground critically need, but they are only the start of the solution. For now, think about donating to one of the charities below (or to one that I haven’t listed!) and always remember to spread the word.

Samaritan’s Purse

Doctors without Borders

Save the Children

Haiti Cholera Outbreak

As the cholera outbreak continues to ravage through Haiti, killing hundreds and inciting terror and riots throughout the country, I’m afraid I may have more bad news. It has come to my attention today that the cholera outbreak is being vastly underreported and underestimated. My sources on the ground in Haiti have estimated that the current epidemic is up to 400% worse than the official numbers reflect. Considering that the official numbers already state a toll of 1,110 dead and another 18,000 sick, the scope of this savage outbreak is shocking.

Furthermore, it seems that nearly all the organizations on the ground were caught by surprise by this sudden outbreak and are grossly undersupplied. Simply put, eradicating the cholera outbreak requires resources beyond Haiti’s capacity. Ringers Lactate fluid (required for intravenous rehydration) remains incredibly scarce within the country. The UN also refuses to provide any cholera treatment supplies to any NGO, instead dedicating all its supplies to the Haitian government. Medications from the Haitian Ministry of Health are also currently not forthcoming. Certain organizations are simply waiting for the disease to strike the capital, Port-au-Prince, before acting. A group I frequently work with, Samaritan’s Purse, is receiving reports of high mortality in remote areas with no assistance reaching them. The U.S. government claims that materials are in place to respond to this developing disaster, but this does not seem to be the case and I worry that false confidence may cost lives.

The spread of cholera now seems past controlling, and using Pan American Health Organization calculations (in the MOST optimistic, with an attack rate of 2% scenario) around 200,000 people will require IV fluid. As around 75% of all cases require hospitalization, each patient uses 8 liters per day for three days, the conservative estimate for IV fluid needed stands at 3.6 million units. Unfortunately, some experts believe that the attack rate will rise above 2% due to lingering sanitation and hygiene conditions caused by the devastating earthquake combined with a Haitian population with no exposure to cholera and immature resistance.

With much of the country living in squalid post-earthquake conditions, we should expect an attack rate of up to 5-8%, according to the Refugee Health Manual. At this rate, we can expect as many as 500,000 to 800,000 cases of cholera. Due to the intense overcrowding, these cases might not be spread out over six months, but rip through the population in six weeks. Roads in Haiti, already devastated by the earthquake and again recently by Hurricane Tomas, continue to keep sick people from seeking and receiving proper aid, meaning that more advanced treatments are needed to halt the disease.

Save the Children, which has been in Haiti for over 30 years and currently operates in 17 large urban camps, is desperately struggling to fight back the disease. They are scrambling to set up new treatment centers around the country as current ones, such as their facility in Port-au-Prince now operates 24 hours a day and still cannot do enough. On the preventive side, Save the Children has distributed 10,000 hygiene kits, 19,000 bars of soap, and chlorinated water to schools and camps. These actions are important and have saved thousands of lives, but in a country of 10 million people, they are simply not enough to hold back the tide.

Similarly my friends at Samaritan’s Purse, who remain a major national player in Haiti, report that even with their huge public awareness WASH program, 400 treatment beds, and over 300 staff dedicated solely to cholera, they were completely unprepared for this outbreak. I find it hard to believe that many organizations were prepared for this and I simply cannot imagine that any hidden capacity exists.

This issue needs immediate global attention. Many organizations on the ground do not have the resources to quickly buy, deliver, and administer necessary cholera medications, like Ringers Lactate. Even if they can afford these costs, it is only the beginning of the current logistical nightmare. The airport in Cap-Haitien has been shut down and there are roadblocks between Cap-Haitien and Port-au-Prince, effectively isolating the entire North of the country. If supplies do make it to Haiti, customs holds these shipments 3 to 10 days and the backlog of supplies, not just at Port-au-Prince but around the country is staggering and costing lives every day. NGO’s are unable to receive and distribute supplies and are resorting to covert and illegal means in some cases to secure these life-saving medicines. Civil unrest around the country, caused by the belief that the UN Peacekeepers are connected to the outbreak, are further hampering the delivery of supplies that eventually do get through the ports.

These hindrances to saving lives must be eliminated. Haiti needs IV fluids sent in massive quantities. Life-saving supplies must be allowed to enter immediately into the country, not sit on pallets for 3 to 10 days out of bureaucratic formality. Organizations on the ground have sophisticated software that allows all the various partners to work together to comprehensively treat the population; we simply do not have enough supplies. The immense backlog of supplies at the ports has strained the entire response grid to the point of collapse and the internal rioting makes it difficult and dangerous to move supplies inside Haiti. The world must help, and must help now.

In addition, the United States needs to seriously and objectively consider a military airlift of supplies into Haiti. While this may appear a drastic measure to some, we cannot sit idle while our neighbor to the south suffers through this nightmare. Our military provided crucial support to those suffering after the Indian Ocean tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, and the earthquake that ravaged Haiti in January, and can do so again in this dire time of need.

Cholera is a disease we can defeat if we work together. Up to 80% of cases can be successfully treated with relatively simple medicines, such as rehydration salts. So join me in telling your friends, writing your congressman, volunteering, or writing a check to one of the many worthy organizations on the ground. We need to spread the alarm, and quickly. This epidemic is larger than previously thought or reported, we are drastically underequipped to deal with it, and it’s moving fast.

Senator Frist on the Childhood Obesity Epidemic

Why is ending childhood obesity such an important issue for you?

Why is ending childhood obesity such an important issue for you? from Bill Frist on Vimeo.

What is the private sector’s role?

What is the private sector’s role? from Bill Frist on Vimeo.

Why should the private sector care about childhood obesity?

Why should the private sector care about childhood obesity? from Bill Frist on Vimeo.

So what’s the silver bullet here?

So what’s the silver bullet here? from Bill Frist on Vimeo.

Senator Frist’s Recommended Changes to US Health Care

I sat down with the Alliance for Health Reform earlier this year and talked about some necessary changes and helpful ideas for the future of healthcare reform. Watch the videos below to see my thoughts on the big changes needed to US health care and especially the need to support primary care.

Sen. Bill Frist’s recommended changes to U.S. health care from William Erwin on Vimeo.

Sen. Bill Frist on the need to support primary care from William Erwin on Vimeo.

Private sector must join in fight against child obesity

More than one-fifth of preschool children are overweight or obese. That’s 20 percent of kids 5 years old and younger who are already on track for chronic health problems such as cancer, type 2 diabetes and heart disease before their first day of kindergarten.

That’s more than 4 million toddlers already queued up for health issues that will last them a lifetime. And of the heaviest youngsters — those who are obese — more than 160,000 live in Tennessee.

Our state’s and our nation’s obesity epidemic is well-documented, and childhood obesity continues to be an appropriate focus. We are learning more and more how nutrition and exercise at the very earliest stages of life can have a dramatic impact on our bodies as we age.

If the body mass index (or BMI, the ratio of height to weight that is typically used to determine a healthy weight) increases too soon or too rapidly for a young child — as young as 3 years old — research shows that child has a much higher risk of obesity later in life.

In short, too much fat produced too early sets the stage for a battle against obesity that will last a lifetime. Before most kids can add 1 plus 1 and get 2, their bodies are learning that being overweight is a way of life.

To start our children in life along this path is simply unacceptable.

There are plenty of statistics to cite, from economic — nearly $150 billion per year is being spent nationally to treat obesity-related medical conditions — to national security — more than 25 percent of all Americans ages 17-24 are unqualified for military service because they are too heavy. But those statistics shouldn’t be necessary.

Being overweight doesn’t necessarily equate to low self-esteem or an inability to achieve, but we cannot intentionally start toddlers out with a predisposition to type 2 diabetes and cancer and heart disease and expect things to be easier for them.

The next 15 years are going to be hard enough; we don’t need to make things any more difficult.

Solving the problem, however, is more complex; there is no silver bullet. Private- and public-sector leaders all have a critical role to play.

Several mayors from across the country recently pledged to do more for those in early child-care education settings in their cities. Many private-sector companies are helping to curb this epidemic, too. Specifically, a recent commitment from the planet’s largest retailers and food and beverage manufacturers to reduce calories in their products by 1.5 trillion by 2015 is laudable.

Parents, get kids moving

Parents also play a role. That’s why we’re calling on everyone to get our youngest kids more physically active. Whether that’s taking a walk or playing a game, it’s just as important for the 3-year-old in your life as it is for the 33-year-old in your life (or, in my case, older still). Cut out the sugar-sweetened beverages for kids under 5 and look to low-fat or nonfat milk for kids over 2 years old.

Equally, the private sector needs to continue to step up. Parents don’t need more complexity and more costs; they need more answers and easier ways to provide a healthy lifestyle for their kids. We need the private sector to make healthy choices as easy and as economical as possible.

We’re asking private industry to better serve their customers and communities by helping them access healthier products. This allows kids to have healthy childhoods. We can do better.

For a nation that prides itself on opportunity, we owe our youngest and most vulnerable at least that: the pledge to ensure their future is as healthy as possible.

And that means starting right from the beginning.

The Honorable William H. Frist, M.D., is vice chairman of the Partnership for a Healthier America, an organization working with the private sector to solve the nation’s childhood obesity crisis.

America’s Greatness and “Real” Healthcare Reform

 

By William H. Frist, MD, Former US Senate Majority Leader, and Ejaz Elahi, Dresner Partners

Introduction. In this article, we review the current state of the healthcare landscape, the fundamental causes of how we got here, and the legislative response. In addition, we offer a view to the likely future direction of the healthcare sector, in particular the respective roles of the public and private sectors.

First, some history. From 1969 to 2008, the total public debt as a percentage of GDP has, on average, hovered around 40%, never exceeding 50% (with the exception of 1992 to 1995 when it touched 50%). In 2008, for the first time in recorded history, the total debt as a percentage of GDP exceeded 50%, reaching 57% in 2010. The primary reason: exploding federal deficits, which grew from $400 billion in 2008, to $1.3 trillion in 2010.

According to the General Accounting Office (GAO), total debt is likely to touch approximately 120% of GDP by 2019 with a prolonged upward trend thereafter. At this rate, by 2019, approximately 93% of federal revenues will be spent on Medicare, Medicaid, social security, and interest payments, with the remainder left over for other public goods, namely education, energy, defense, law enforcement, and scientific research, among others. As a percentage of total healthcare spending, Medicare, Medicaid and other public programs made up 47.4 percent of the total $2.3 trillion healthcare spending in 2008, of which Medicare alone made up 20.1 percent, or $462.3 billion.

It is clear why the series of major legislative responses—the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, to the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA)—all have taken aim at the main “cost” of healthcare, i.e. entitlements, particularly Medicare. While legislation progressively has incorporated fundamental reform measures in addition to payment curtailment, reform ultimately will be the burden of the full spectrum of stakeholders—the federal government, states, providers, businesses, and individuals, with information technology as the primary enabler.

This “real” reform will be the result of rapid, incremental changes focused on simultaneously improving outcomes and efficiency, rather than on the reactive philosophy of attempting to induce positive change throughout the delivery system by attenuating payments. We believe that pursuing value, i.e. maximizing clinical outcomes per dollar spent, is the only rational course of action, particularly in the context of crippling budgetary constraints, and should be the central principle of any process to effect reform. How would this come about? Following is a discussion of each stakeholder’s role and how “real” reform, rather than ad hoc tinkering, would bring about sustainable value-creating change.

Federal Government. Recognizing that Medicare has become replete with waste and inefficiency, successive federal governments have, in assorted ways, attempted to “reform” Medicare, as discussed above. In recent years, however, the idea of premium support has emerged. The concept was first explored in 1995 by Henry Aaron, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, and Robert Reischauer, President of the Urban Institute and former head of the Congressional Budget Office. In 1998, then-Senators Bill Frist (R-TN)) and John B. Breaux, (D-LA) tried vigorously to advance the idea as separate legislation, and in November 1999, Senators Frist, Breaux, et al introduced the Medicare Preservation and Improvement Act of 1999 (S.1895). Then-President Clinton’s National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare incorporated S.1895’s core principles in its recommendation issued in [2010]; however, President Clinton ultimately did not support the Commission’s recommendation.

The fundamental concept behind the Frist-Breaux bill is to restructure Medicare using as a model the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHB), which covers nine million federal employees, retirees and their families. Under the FEHB, enrollees are offered a choice of private insurance plans in addition to Medicare Fee for Service, in sharp contrast to the current Medicare model. The government provides on average 72 percent[?] of the premium charged to enrollees by their chosen plan. FEHB was begun in 1960 and has materially lower administrative cost per enrollee than Medicare. S.1895 embodied the key elements of the FEHB structure.

On April 5, 2011, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) unveiled a plan that is a direct derivative of S.1895 and provides unprecedented choice to Medicare beneficiaries, while reducing the government’s payment burden. While details, not the least of which include structure, extent of premium support and potential rate increases, would emerge eventually, the plan (or some future derivative thereof) would also create a larger pie for the private insurance sector and introduce long-overdue competition among private insurers.

An emerging model for this structure is Medicare Part D, where the government provides basic premium support and provides oversight of the marketplace. Enrollees select their insurance and care delivery model, paying out of pocket for higher-coverage choices.

States. 2010 was the year of the largest state budget shortfall in history: $191 billion (up from $110 billion in 2009). Despite this situation, governors are faced with the daunting task of implementing the ACA’s key provisions, most notably health insurance exchanges. Under the ACA’s mandate, states have the option to establish and administer online insurance exchanges that offer consumers a choice of in-state private insurance plans or, if the state chooses, to instead allow the federal government to do so. The deadline for establishing a functioning exchange is January 1, 2014.

Given many states’ constrained resources, some states view the startup costs and administrative burden for establishing insurance exchanges as prohibitive. Last month, Louisiana decided against a state-run exchange, thereby transferring the responsibility to the federal government, as allowed by the ACA. At the other extreme, Utah and Massachusetts had exchanges in place before the enactment of the ACA, with decidedly mixed results.

Most states, however, are still undecided. Aside from the availability of requisite resources, a key criticism of the insurance exchange idea is that due to the ongoing consolidation of the payer sector, the risk of a single monopolistic payer emerging in a given state (particularly in smaller states) is too great. The net effect of this would be that consumers would eventually have less, rather than more, choice, and this obviously would be the opposite of the intent of the ACA. Moreover, there is concern that an exchange would quickly turn into an inefficient government bureaucracy, thereby placing a new burden on state taxpayers.

A possible solution: create a uniform regulatory structure across all states to allow payers to compete across state boundaries without misaligning payer incentives with consumer goals. This provision is not part of the ACA. Enabling inter-state competition among payers would certainly allow more consumer choice, and hence more favorable pricing and coverage. In turn, payers would have access to new markets.

Providers and Payers. No longer can the provider-payer partnership remain adversarial. While pure “operating” efficiency is essential for any provider, it does not by itself constitute a process for creating value. Historically, providers have been fixated (largely as a result of declining reimbursement) on non-clinical metrics such as average length of stay, census, admissions and outpatient visits. Real reform should focus on the patient and doctor, rather than on the physical facility where healthcare is delivered. Value creation can only be accomplished through a patient-centered, consumer-driven model where the primary care physician is the quarterback.

Under the current system, commercial payers (due mainly to their origins in the indemnity industry) fundamentally are risk managers employing actuarial methods which (by definition) rely on historical and current, rather than future, events. This fundamentally ignores value, i.e. the best clinical outcomes, at the lowest cost, while preventing adverse future events. The payers’ model, therefore, would need to change from rewarding providers for volume, to rewarding providers for value.

For providers to create value, their delivery model would need to shift from a volume-based one-size-fits-all model to a patient-centric system in which care is customized for each patient based on his/her unique conditions. The primary care physician would be the central element of a system of real-time assessment, customization of care algorithms (including preventive care protocols), and interaction with specialists and other caregivers, regardless of the site of care.

Businesses. According to the US Chamber of Commerce, healthcare is the most expensive benefit paid by US employers. This is starkly illustrated by the fact that healthcare adds $1,500 to $2,000 to the cost of every vehicle General Motors produces and Starbucks spends more on worker benefits than on coffee.

The good news is that investment into initiatives such as workplace wellness programs can have a significant positive impact over the long term. While there exists controversy over the return on investment (ROI) of workplace programs, there are clear examples of success: Dow Chemical saved more than $70 million over 10 years from a healthy workplace program. The scholarly literature also supports the concept: in a review of 72 published articles, the ROI (mostly from increased employee productivity) from workplace programs is $3.40 to $4.80 for every dollar spent.

Individuals. The internet has become the primary source of information for consumers (vs. doctors and family). This ability to access information rapidly and directly has empowered the consumer as never before—“consumerism” clearly affects the behavior of doctors and hospitals. As a result, providers increasingly are viewing individuals as informed consumers and true partners in care, rather than a set of symptoms to be treated. Additionally, this has resulted in healthcare becoming more and more continuous and less episodic.

Additionally, healthcare is becoming increasingly “personalized”. It turns out that most drugs, whatever the condition, are effective for only about half the people who take them. Advanced screening methods give physicians more evidence for tailoring treatments directly to the individual receiving it, potentially improving care and saving money, i.e. creating value. Personalized medicine goes even beyond that by determining which drug is best for which patient, rather than continuing to treat everyone in the same manner in the hope of benefitting the fortunate few.

Information Technology. The role of Healthcare Information Technology (HCIT) will be pivotal in bringing about perpetual value-creating change. Currently, the main thrust of HCIT development is devoted to workflow and care management through (1) the seamless connectivity of all caregivers involved in a given patient’s care, (2) the ability to electronically store (thereby eliminating paper-based records) and access patients’ clinical information in a uniform format (also referred to as Electronic Medical Records, EMR), (3) the centralized storage of clinical information and the ability to move and access it across disparate healthcare information systems (also referred to as Health Information Exchanges, HIE), and (4) the automation of non-clinical protocols. For the most part, these efforts address the vast inefficiency in the overall healthcare delivery system and will result in a robust future foundation for a value-based delivery system.

More importantly, HCIT will play a key role in clinical decision making and the evolution of Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM, the application of the best-available data obtained from advanced screening methods to facilitate clinical decision making). With the development of advanced diagnostic methods such as genomics and proteomics, the sheer volume of variables and data required to facilitate effective clinical decision making is beginning to overwhelm human cognitive capacity. Without a substantial and sustained future investment into the development of sophisticated decision support systems, it is unlikely that long-term value creation-creation efforts will advance much beyond operational “fine tuning”. It is alarming to note that the overall information technology spending per employee in healthcare is only $500, compared to over $8,000 in the financial services sector.

As an example of the impact of the use of decision support systems, an initiative at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center to reduce the number of Ventilator Acquired Pneumonia (VAP) cases yielded highly encouraging results. In 2009 (vs 2008), the number of VAPs prevented was 108, which resulted in 16 avoided deaths, 1,055 avoided hospital days, 431 avoided ICU days, and $4.3 million saved.

Conclusion. The ACA is now the law of the land. While not perfect, it does generally embody the concept of value, and can be built upon. Can (and will) it be repealed? Unlikely, although parts of it may be changed materially or entirely removed (such as the individual mandate, which is likely to be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court). The final legislative outcome is difficult to predict.

What is certain and predictable, however, is that the single-largest threat to the greatness of America will continue to be the exploding debt driven by accelerating entitlement spending. The only way to break the cycle is to drastically reduce the need for entitlements, and the only way to accomplish that is to build a value-based healthcare delivery system that has the pursuit of value as its central element.

In Case You Missed It… RealClearPolitics : Newsmaker Interview with Bill Frist

RCP: Republican candidates are pledging to repeal the health care bill, and with your background in medicine and also as a leader in the Senate acutely aware of policy-making, what’s the best way for Republicans to proceed?

Frist: Republicans will not repeal the fundamentals of the new law. Because of the law’s unpopularity with so many hard-working, centrist voters, who see their health cost and taxes continuing to rise, the mantra of “repeal and replace” resonates at election time. Republicans will pick up 500 state legislative seats, the majority of governorships, and will regain control of the House. In two weeks, they then become the leaders of the legislative branch. The electorate wants results and their responsibility will be to constructively shape implementation of the new law.

RCP: If they try to repeal parts of the bill, what parts will they start with, and what is realistic?

Frist: Passing a law is 20% of the work (the easy part). Implementing it successfully requires 80% of the effort. As with Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960’s and 1970’s, implementation will ultimately be defined by regulatory language, interpretation of Congressional intent, and the outcome of elections (in this case, a series of elections in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016).

Repeal of discrete sections of the law are a possibility but will require solid bi-partisan support. For example, consideration will be given to repeal (or modification of) the Independent Payment Advisory Board. Is it too much power to allow 15 unelected individuals the absolute authority to unilaterally dictate with the force of law how to cut Medicare for as much as 2% a year every year?

RCP: What parts of this bill are solid and should stay in place if changes begin?

Frist: The “individual mandate,” the redefinition of the Medicaid coverage threshold to be 133% of poverty, the demonstration projects of accountable care organizations and medical homes, payment reform, and prevention are solid.

RCP: Do you think Republicans have been entirely correct in how they’ve portrayed the bill; do you think there misperceptions remain about the law as Democrats suggest?

Frist: Those who call the law a federal government takeover are wrong. Yes, there are more government mandates, bureaucracies, and hefty government spending, but our health care sector will maintain its rugged pluralism and its strong employer-based foundation (150 billion people). Care will continue to be delivered by non-government physicians and nurses working in non-government hospitals and facilities.

RCP: What new legislation would you like to see crop up regarding health care delivery in this country?

Frist: The health sector needs breathing room from new legislation. For innovation to prosper, new cost-effective treatments to emerge, accountable care organizations to be established, state exchanges to be operationalized, more laws are not needed. The sector needs some certainty and time to adapt.

RCP: How big of a role do you think health care and the new law will factor into the Republican presidential primary over the next year, and how do you think it will shake up the field?

Frist: The next presidential election will be determined by 2 things: the economy/jobs and Afghanistan. Health care will not be a defining issue in the presidential election in 2 years, but will be cited by voters as supporting evidence of one’s own views on taxes, the role of government, and entitlement spending (the debt).

RCP: If a Republican unseats President Obama in 2012, what’s the first step that president should take regarding health care policy?

Frist: The President must focus “like a laser beam” on health care costs. This will likely begin with provider payment reform which will transform fee-for-service, volume-based payments to value-based constructs. Incentives and markets will work. Government fiat will not.

RCP: What is being ignored currently in the implementation of the health care bill/what do you think will crop up in the debate in the next few years that we’re missing now?

Frist: The law is state-driven, not federally driven. Both the 16 million new entrants to Medicaid and the 24 million in the new health exchanges will be state-administered. Today, the federal government is inadequately serving the states in view of the huge (and I’d argue appropriate) responsibility it has thrust on the states.

RCP: What is the best way to curb health care costs in your view?

Frist: Markets and incentives. When fairly framed by government, they work. Just look at the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. With transparency, competition, incentives, partnership with the private sector, prescription drug costs for seniors with Medicare have year after year have come in 10 – 20% less than predicted. That is bending the cost curve.

RCP: You’re still very involved in health care policy in the country from Tennessee; what’s topping your agenda on health care policy and what you will be doing over the next few years?

Frist: My life is health. I spend a third of my time on health care policy, a third on global health issues like children’s issues and clean water through Hope Through Healing Hands, and a third marrying private capital to dynamic managers who are constructively and innovatively addressing the “value equation” in health care. I loved transplanting hearts and I love transforming health care.

To read the entire interview on RealClearPolitics, please click here

Health care, education, and places to go, things to do

The federal health care law has a lot in common with TennCare, says former U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.

“They both began with a benefit package that was very rich and had no effective cost controls or cost accountability in the system,” Frist said during a recent conversation in Washington.

There are elements within the bill he likes, Frist says, but the costs render it unsustainable in its present form.

Frist, a former heart surgeon, was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1994, reelected in 2000, and retired at the end of his second term. He served as majority leader from 2005 until Jan. 3, 2007.

Keeping a frenetic pace since his departure from the Senate, his activities are focused in four main areas: domestic health; global health; global poverty and education; and education. His wide-ranging activities are found at three websites, www.billfrist.com;www.tennesseescore.org; and www.hopethroughhealinghands.org.

With respect to the nation’s new health care law, Frist says that he sees it resulting in what occurred in Tennessee with TennCare: growth in access and unrestrained spending will result in a demand for much higher revenues (taxes), reduced benefits, or both.

“Underlying both Tennessee then and the country now is health care spending growth at 2.5 percent faster than economic growth,” he said. “With benefits and spending growing faster than the economy – and revenues only growing at the size of the economy – it’s inevitable that at some point there has to be increased revenues or cutting benefits compared to the time the laws were passed that created the program.”

Massachusetts’ universal health care program experience is another model Frist cites in his concerns about the new U.S. law.

“In the law’s first three years coverage was expanded in Massachusetts, but costs were not controlled. Now we see costs exploding with Massachusetts having the most expensive health care in America. Waiting times to find a primary care physician have increased 25 percent, to 44 days. Almost 60 percent of Massachusetts primary care physicians are accepting no new patients.”

Frist is “disappointed” that the Democrat Senate majority used the budgetary process of reconciliation to pass the health care bill on a purely partisan majority vote. He said that no other piece of social legislation – including civil rights, Social Security, and the original Medicare and Medicaid bills – was passed with a purely partisan Senate vote.

While discussing health care Frist frequently returns to the other subject dominating his thoughts: education.

A Tennessee-focused project is Tennessee SCORE, the State Collaborative On Reforming Education. He says he’s made education a focus in large measure because of the direct correlation between an individual’s health status and the education level he or she has achieved.

“A study with Robert Wood Johnson foundation to measure infant mortality found that it is worse in Tennessee than in any other state when factoring in the difference between the educated and uneducated,” he said. “Education is the single largest determinant of health care outcomes. It affects how long one lives, and the quality of that person’s life.”

Frist said that even as Tennessee struggled educationally, the business community wasn’t participating as fully as it could or should in finding solutions.

“The governor (Phil Bredesen) had just started his higher standards push. I said that I can pull together, from outside of government, 100 people: philanthropists; educators; charter school advocates; leaders from other states that have been through this; and others.”

Thus, Tennessee SCORE was formed.

“We started convening people and had nine statewide meetings, 86 town meetings and hundreds of interviews,” Frist said. “It contributed to reforming the state’s charter school law and to winning the national competition on education reform called Race to the Top.

“Our grassroots collaborative isn’t a tool of anybody. It’s not a government commission. It doesn’t matter who’s in and who’s not. Our sole focus is building a system that educates children for today’s world. It was originally a year-long project, but it has been so effective we’ve kept it going and will play an important role as our state transitions to the policies of the next governor.”

With that, it was time to end the conversation. His assistant signaled that it was time to move along.

One last question: what does he think is coming in the fall elections?

“I think the House (of Representatives) will switch,” he said, meaning it will become Republican controlled.

With that, he was on his way. Places to go. Things to do. Lots of them.

By: George Korda

George Korda is political analyst for WATE-TV. He hosts “State Your Case” Sunday afternoons from noon to 3 p.m. on FM 100, WNOX and appears on the “Hallerin Hilton Hill” show regularly on WNOX. He is president of Korda Communications, a public relations and communications consulting firm.

Frist Named As Vice Chair For First Lady Michelle Obama’s Childhood Obesity Foundation

Partnership for a Healthier America Expands Leadership, Naming Board of Directors and Honorary Vice Chairs

Sen. Frist, Mayor Booker Join First Lady Michelle Obama as Honorary Leaders of Childhood Obesity Foundation
Nine-Member Board of Directors Brings Vast Array of Experience and Expertise to Support Partnership, Guide its Activities

Washington, DC – The Partnership for a Healthier America today announced the addition of key leaders in its effort to address the serious epidemic of childhood obesity. The organization named former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Newark Mayor Cory Booker as Honorary Vice Chairs, and appointed a board of directors, including Dr. James R. Gavin III, who will serve as chairman. The Partnership is working to mobilize the private sector, thought leaders, media, and local communities to action and further the goals of First Lady Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move! campaign to curb childhood obesity within a generation.
In their roles, Frist, Booker, Gavin, and the board of directors bring valuable leadership and experience to help drive the Partnership’s activities and ensure the organization is effective in establishing measurable solutions for fighting obesity.

On a conference call today with Frist, Booker, and Gavin, the First Lady welcomed the Partnership’s new leaders. “Reversing the obesity trend has never been more important to the health of our nation and, to succeed, it will take the combined effort of public and private sectors,” the First Lady said. “I am encouraged by the enthusiasm and resolve of the honorary vice chairs and new board of directors, and I am confident that their leadership and experience will help us achieve our goal of solving childhood obesity within a generation.”
A licensed physician, Frist has long recognized the growing danger of the obesity epidemic. “As childhood obesity continues to threaten the health and future of all American children, the time has come for meaningful, measurable solutions to solve this crisis,” Frist said. “I look forward to working to mobilize leaders across this country to take action and improve the health of our nation.”
Similarly, Booker has worked tirelessly to promote healthy lifestyles and physical fitness for all Newark residents. “My experiences in Newark have shown me that the fight against childhood obesity can only be won if all people come together to find real, achievable solutions,” Booker said. “I am excited to join in this effort and help bring our nation together for this important cause.”
As the Partnership’s board chairman, Dr. Gavin brings a deep knowledge of childhood obesity-related illnesses and the policy and environmental influences that are contributing factors. He currently serves as chief executive officer and chief medical officer of Healing Our Village, Inc., a health communication corporation developing methods to assure health care system change that promotes patient behavior change for improved health outcomes in medically-underserved populations.

“The Partnership for a Healthier America will fill a unique niche among childhood obesity initiatives across the country, by working to target industry-specific solutions that can be measured and tracked,” Gavin said. “I am pleased to help lead this organization in efforts to develop a strong network of committed and solution-oriented members dedicated to curbing childhood obesity within a generation.”
Other newly-appointed members of the board of directors are Deborah DeHaas, Peter Dolan, S. Lawrence Kocot, Deborah Landesman, Janet Murguía, Vivian Riefberg, William L. Roper, and Antronette K. Yancey.
These board members bring significant experience and expertise that will support the Partnership’s activities and help ensure its success. Members offer medical expertise on issues related to childhood obesity; have experience leading large companies, as well as organizations focused on driving social change; and represent multiple communities highly affected by the childhood obesity epidemic. For complete board member biographies, please visit www.aHealthierAmerica.org/about/board.html.

About the Partnership for a Healthier America

The Partnership for a Healthier America is an independent, nonpartisan organization that will mobilize broad-based support for efforts to solve the child obesity challenge. Core activities of the Partnership include:

  • Developing a strong membership network of leaders across sectors with commitment to scaling meaningful and measurable solutions;
  • Convening members annually to affirm, align, and announce commitments;
  • Promoting broad understanding among all sectors about the role healthy food, physical activity, and the environment play in reversing the childhood obesity epidemic;
  • Facilitating and measuring the impact of members’ commitments against clear and transparent targets; and
  • Connecting potential partners in the private and nonprofit sectors to each other and to the correct points of contact in government to ensure efficient leveraging of actions, and sharing of knowledge and lessons learned at the community, state, and national levels.

 

The Partnership emerged out of a series of conversations between The California Endowment, Kaiser Permanente, Nemours, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, and the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, which is a partnership of the American Heart Association and the William J. Clinton Foundation. Sonnenschein, Nath and Rosenthal, LLP has provided operational and legal support in establishing the Foundation. The Brookings Institution has also contributed thought leadership to the effort.

For more information about the Partnership for a Healthier America, please visitwww.aHealthierAmerica.org.

About the Let’s Move! Campaign

The First Lady’s nationwide initiative seeks to solve the challenge of childhood obesity, so that America’s youngest children reach adulthood at a healthy weight. Her plan offers four pillars:

  • Offering parents the tools and information they need to make healthy choices for their kids;
  • Getting healthier food into our nation’s schools;
  • Ensuring that all our families have access to healthy, affordable food in their communities; and
  • Increasing opportunities for kids to be physically active, both in and out of school.

 

The Partnership will support these pillars through a campaign to unite and inspire families from every corner of the United States to take real and sustained actions to eat better, be more active, and make a commitment to embracing healthier lifestyles.

For more information on Let’s Move!, visit www.letsmove.gov.

Frist / Breaux Op-Ed in Politico

(Politico, March 19, 2010)

By Sen. Bill Frist, M.D. and Sen. John Breaux

Though we come from different political backgrounds and disagree on key aspects of health-care reform, we share a deep concern about provisions of proposed legislation that would establish a super-powerful board to dictate the future of Medicare.

While the new entity, an “Independent Payment Advisory Board,” addresses a growing problem, its structure in the current legislation raises serious constitutional and process questions that Congress must confront.

The board, intended to help control Medicare costs – which, all agree, are rising at a concerning rate – would possess nearly total power over the federal health care program for the elderly and disabled.

After the president appointed its members, the board could propose sweeping and dramatic Medicare changes that would become law unless Congress enacted its own proposal to achieve the same level of cuts. Congressional leaders would have to muster nearly-impossible-to-obtain supermajority votes if they wanted to overturn the board’s decisions.

For all intents and purposes, the board would have the power to influence and re-write nearly all aspects of Medicare.

While independent commissions and boards have sometimes played important policy-making roles, Congress has refrained from giving them this degree of power. It represents a dangerous surrender of authority by the elected representatives of the American people.

The Constitution, after all, explicitly reserves “all legislative powers” to Congress. Courts have repeatedly found that it can’t even surrender these powers to the President — much less to an independent board.

Most significantly, in 1998, the Supreme Court ruled a 1996 “line item veto” law unconstitutional because it allowed the President to reject specific spending or tax provisions and mandated Congressional supermajority votes to overturn these partial vetoes.

In fact, the line item veto was less far reaching than the proposed Advisory Board. While the 1996 measure simply allowed the President to reject certain types of spending or tax provisions, the board will have the effective power to rewrite the law. Neither of us can understand how the proposed board could pass Constitutional muster if the line item veto did not.

We believe there’s a better way to control Medicare costs without infringing on the Constitution. History has shown that advisory boards and commissions don’t need sweeping power—or any at all—to prove effective.

In medical circles, the existing Preventative Services Task Force has enough influence over decision-making that it caused a firestorm several months ago when it changed its recommendations on mammograms. More significantly, the 9/11 Commission—which had no legislative power—had its recommendations passed into law by overwhelming bipartisan majorities simply because its findings were so convincing, well-researched and well-presented.

Even the best-known commission that does have some legal power, the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (which can close military bases), exists under firm Congressional oversight. Both Congress and the President can overrule it without taking extraordinary steps and, unlike the proposed Medicare board, it has no power to rewrite laws.

America does need to reform its health care system and part of any reform should involve an effort to control Medicare costs. An independent commission could help Congress to do this.

Ultimately, however, we would be better off looking to established Congressional oversight rather than implementing heavy-handed regulation to make significant – and potentially unconstitutional – changes to a program essential to the successful delivery of health care to America’s seniors.

Bill Frist is a former Republican senator from Tennessee who served as Majority Leader. John Breaux is a former Democratic senator from Louisiana and served as Co-Chair of the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare

A Historic and Dangerous Senate Mistake

By Bill Frist
Published: February 26, 2010

Using ‘reconciliation’ to ram through health reform would only deepen partisan passions.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has announced that while Democrats have a number of options to complete health-care legislation, he may use the budget reconciliation process to do so. This would be an unprecedented, dangerous and historic mistake.

Budget reconciliation is an arcane Senate procedure whereby legislation can be passed using a lowered threshold of requisite votes (a simple majority) under fast-track rules that limit debate. This process was intended for incremental changes to the budget—not sweeping social legislation.

Using the budget reconciliation procedure to pass health-care reform would be unprecedented because Congress has never used it to adopt major, substantive policy change. The Senate’s health bill is without question such a change: It would fundamentally alter one-fifth of our economy.

The first use of this special prcedure was in the fall of 1980, as the Democratic majority in Congress moved to reduce entitlement programs as a response to candidate Ronald Reagan’s focus on the growing deficit. Throughout the 1980s and ’90s, reconciliation was used to reduce deficit projections and to enact budget enforcement mechanisms. In early 2001, with projected surpluses well into the future, it was used to return a portion of that surplus to the public by changing tax rates.

Senators of both parties have assiduously avoided using budget reconciliation as a mechanism to pass expansive social legislation that lacks bipartisan support. In 1993, Democratic leaders—including the dean of Senate procedure and an author of the original Budget Act, Robert C. Byrd— appropriately prevailed on the Clinton administration not to use reconciliation to adopt its health-care agenda. It was used to pass welfare reform in 1996, an entitlement program, but the changes had substantial bipartisan support.

In 2003, while I was serving as majority leader, Republicans used the reconciliation process to enact tax cuts. I was approached by members of my own caucus to use reconciliation to extend prescription drug coverage to millions of Medicare recipients. I resisted. The Congress considered the legislation under regular order, and the Medicare Modernization Act passed through the normal legislative procedure in 2003.

The same concerns I expressed about using this procedure to fast-track prescription drug expansions with a simple majority vote were similarly expressed by Majority Leader Reid, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, and others last year when they chose not to use the procedure to enact their health-care legislation. Over the past several months, an additional 15 Democratic senators have expressed opposition to using this tool.

The concern about using reconciliation to bypass Senate rules which do not limit debate reflect the late New York Democratic Sen. Pat Moynihan’s admonishment—that significant policy changes impacting almost all Americans should be adopted with bipartisan support if the legislation is to survive and be supported in the public arena.

Applying the reconciliation process is dangerous because it would likely destroy its true purpose, which is to help enact fiscal policy consistent with an agreed-upon congressional budget blueprint. Worse, using reconciliation to amend a bill before it has become law in order to avoid the normal House and Senate conference procedure is a total affront to the legislative process.

Finally, enacting sweeping health-care reform through reconciliation is a mistake because of rapidly diminishing public support for the strictly partisan Senate and House health bills. The American people disdain the backroom deals that have been cut with the hospital and pharmaceutical industries, the unions, the public display of the “cornhusker kickback,” etc. The public will likely—and in my opinion, rightly—rebel against the use of a procedural tactic to lower the standard threshold for passage because of a lack of sufficient support in the Senate.

Americans want bipartisan solutions for major social and economic issues; they don’t want legislative gimmicks that force unpopular legislation through the Senate. Thomas Jefferson once referred to the Senate as “the cooling saucer” of the legislative process. Using budget reconciliation in this way would dramatically alter the founders’ intent for the Senate, and transform it from cooling saucer to a boiling teapot of partisanship.

Mr. Reid was right to rule out this option when this saga began last year. He would be wise to abandon it today.

 

 

Dr. Frist served as U.S. Senate majority leader from 2003–2007.

 

Sen. Frist in The New York Times: How the G.O.P. Can Fix Health Care

In a bid to reopen the debate over health care reform, President Obama has arranged a televised bipartisan meeting this Thursday. Republican leaders in Congress have been invited to bring their best ideas for slowing the growth of health care expenditures and expanding the number of insured Americans. The Op-Ed editors asked five conservative thinkers to outline what they believe those ideas should be.

President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have failed at health care reform. They have failed because they fundamentally don’t believe in markets, incentives and the power of hundreds of millions of people to make smart choices about their health. It’s just not in the Democratic leaders’ DNA.

Transforming health care to slow the growth of spending requires a radical restructuring of how health services are paid for. The most powerful way to reduce costs (and make room to expand coverage) is to shift away from “volume-based” reimbursement (the more you do, the more money you make) to “value-based” reimbursement.

Others will appropriately and wisely make the case for preventive care, chronic disease management, shopping for insurance across state lines, malpractice reform and the elimination of pre-existing conditions as exclusionary criteria for health insurance — all steps that I favor and that together would strengthen the health care system. But they won’t transform it. The only way to do that is to align the incentives of doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical makers and other health care providers through value-based purchasing.

The Congressional plan to squeeze reimbursement to nurses, doctors and hospitals by imposing top-down budgeting in Washington won’t work. It won’t change anyone’s behavior, and it will eventually lead to rationing, which undercuts innovation and medical research.

This is not rocket science. You simply need to pay people to do a good job, demand measurable outcomes and adopt proven standards of practice and information technology. Reward value, not volume.

Medicare and private insurance companies should reimburse providers not for each discrete service they provide but for managing a patient’s condition over an entire episode of care. In my own field, transplantation, for example, a payer should not separately reimburse 56 different nurses, doctors, pharmacies, imaging centers and hospitals. Instead, it should pay a heart transplant team a fixed sum (adjusted for risk) based on the diagnosis of “heart failure requiring transplantation.” The disbursement of that payment would then be made at the local level, where value can be most accurately determined, and waste most likely eliminated.

Health care providers could then compete on the basis of efficiency and success. Markets work. We should use them to drive behavior toward the goals of sustainable value in medical treatment and affordable health care for all Americans.

– BILL FRIST, surgeon and former United States senator from Tennessee

To read the entire op-ed in The New York Times, please click on the following link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/opinion/22healthintro.html?ref=opinion

Don’t Give Up on Healthcare in 2010

Americans have once again demonstrated when it comes to health reform, they are most comfortable with incremental, not comprehensive, policy changes.

With an increasingly distrustful public, a real-dollar price tag of over $2 trillion, policies that fail to address out-of-control cost escalation and a federal debt that is projected to grow from $12.3 to $21 trillion over the next decade (before new health entitlement spending is even added), comprehensive health reform is dead.

The turning point was January 19 when Republican state Sen. Scott Brown won the Massachusetts seat held by Sen. Ted Kennedy in the traditionally deep blue state, campaigning that he would be “the 41st senator to defeat ObamaCare.” His election was followed the next week by the president’s State of the Union message, which emphasized jobs, and did not even mention health reform until 33 minutes into the speech. The signature issue of his first year in office was relegated to a low priority. He blamed a lack of understanding on the part of the public. But most observers, and the public, more appropriately blame inadequate and potentially destructive policy.

Congress will respond by considering only modest, targeted health initiatives over the next year. This could include items such as short-term “patching” of projected physician payment cuts to maintain overall flat funding (with a relative increase in primary care reimbursement), limited expansion of the Medicaid populations, insurance reform to address pre-existing illness and anti-trust provisions, continued cuts to Medicare Advantage plans, and a host of tiny demonstration projects including bundled payments, medical home, and preventive care/wellness. Reimbursement pressures will accelerate across the board as the Administration turns its attention to controlling entitlement spending, focusing specifically on Medicare and Medicaid.

As a doctor, and one who deeply believes that having insurance makes a big difference in overall health, I am disappointed that the country has lost an opportunity to address in a meaningful way the issues of access and cost. Let’s all stay on the issue of health reform, but let’s focus on maximizing value to the patient. Patient-centered, knowledge-based, provider friendly, and consumer-driven delivery of health care within a carefully crafted federal and state framework of regulations that ensure equity and access can and should be done.

Americans have sent a powerful message to Washington in rejecting the president’s approach of too much centralized control of medical decision making, but let’s help our elected representatives craft a more market-based and patient-centered approach that yes can achieve better access for all.

East Africa – The Children’s Famine

As I write this, East Africa is in turmoil. Roughly 12 millions people, almost 5 million of which are children, along the Horn of Africa are experiencing the worst drought in sixty years. Tens of thousands have already died and millions more are at risk, especially children, who are dying at such a rate this disaster has already been named “The Children’s Famine.” Within weeks, more than half a million children will die in Somalia alone if they do not receive immediate aid and attention and already the under-5 death rate has increased six-fold from last year.

Outside of the immediate threat to life, this drought has ruined the livelihoods of millions living a pastoral and simple agricultural lifestyle. Rainfall has plummeted for two straight years, drying up remote water holes and devastating crops. Cattle and livestock death rates have reached 40% to 60% levels in some areas, wiping out the entire wealth of small communities. Refugees from these hard hit areas are now walking dozens of miles, losing children along the way, for the slim hope of aid at refugee camps in Kenya and Ethiopia. Experts have speculated that this drought and the resulting dislocation of millions could unwind an entire decade’s worth of agricultural advances in this arid region.

Tragically, however, this famine also has a strong man-made component. Al-Shabaab, an Islamic terrorist group affiliated with Al Qaeda, rules over almost every region that the UN has declared to be officially in a state of famine. Yet al-Shabaab denies there is even a problem, calling official reports of a famine, “an exaggeration.” Instead of helping their people, they are busy banning Western aid workers and setting up their own internment camps bereft of supplies and hope. When aid workers do venture into the southern Somali regions controlled by this terrorist group, they are often harassed or killed (42 aid workers were killed from 2008 to 2009). They have for years refused vaccinations for children in their territory, leaving them vulnerable to measles and other easily preventable diseases now that malnutrition saps kids’ immune systems. Now the militants are imprisoning Somalis attempting to flee to refugee camps and blocking off rivers and streams, strangling poor local farmers. Al-Shabaab has dramatically failed to build up its market strength and infrastructure in order to better weather these drastic environmental events, as Kenya and Ethiopia have done, often in partnership with the World Food Program, UNICEF, and other groups. This is why al-Shabaab controls area that accounts for 2.2 million of the 2.7 million in officially designated famine areas. The cruelty of people against people is truly shocking.

Yet there is hope. Currently over 11 million people are being reached with some form of aid. Countries around the world are starting to realize the true severity of this crisis and beginning to respond accordingly. Proudly America stands again as the single largest donor, but we still need help. I will have more details in the days to come, will share more ways to help, but for now please take a look at this great rundown of aid organizations currently operating in the Horn of Africa. Read about how they are helping and, if able, donate to one.

Bill Frist

TN SCORE Summit Recap

Hosted at beautiful David Lipscomb University in Nashville, the Summit gathered together over 500 stakeholders from around the South for two days of panel discussions, breakout sessions, networking, and informal conversations all based on improving rural education and communities. Session topics included using technology to improve student achievement, strategies for improving high school graduation and college completion rates, implications of federal policy for rural school districts, bolstering principal success, increasing teacher retention, and improving early childhood education. Click here for a fuller recap of the event or here to see pictures from the Summit. to view full album.

SCORE is used as Case Study in National Report

03.26.10

Tennessee SCORE is a case study in a new Policy Innovators in Education (PIE) Network report, “The Race to Reform: How Education Reform Advocates are Leveraging Race to the Top,” which tells the stories of state advocacy groups with an “outsized” impact on public education policy. The report opens with a description of SCORE and the collaborative process that supported passage of Tennessee’s First to the Top Act, a sweeping bipartisan overhaul of the state’s education reform law. Happy ending to the story – at least for now – is that Tennessee is one of 16 Race to the Top finalists.

Medicine as a Currency for Peace Through Global Health Diplomacy

The twenty-first century has seen the rise of a new nexus, one that generates a remarkable opportunity for medicine and health to serve as a powerful currency for peace. Two trends define this nexus. The first is globalization and all the interconnections this phenomenon has produced among populations previously isolated from one another in almost every regard. The second is a wave of scientific, technological, and public health advances that have dramatically improved our capacity to provide quality healthcare to more individuals here at home-and to others around the globe.

Human history is benchmarked by wars and plagues and is punctuated by seemingly far shorter periods of peace and health. War may arise from causes such as economic and political oppression, an overwhelming sense of despair regarding the prospects for a brighter future, and the belief that physical security is no longer certain. But amidst wars and plagues, societies seem less inclined to fight with one another when they are healthy and hopeful.

Health is a unique vehicle that crosses boundaries in times of war and distress and in times of suffering and turmoil. Working to improve the health of our fellow man sends a message that speaks to our common humanity and serves as a vehicle for peacemakers. It is not only in our national interest to understand this principle, to demonstrate it, and to exploit it; it is in our human interest to do so as well.

Health transcends political and cultural boundaries. Facilitating access to healthcare provides tangible benefits. Chief among them are a better, safer world and a powerful sense of hope. With health comes family. With health comes opportunity. With health comes productivity.

Globalization opens the door more prominently to the role of health diplomacy. In today’s era of integration, interdependence, and global connectivity, foreign policy is appropriately being broadened to incorporate health matters more directly and with greater visibility. What happens to a single individual, wherever she might live, can affect not just a local community but the economy and the social fabric of a nation on the other side of the world. In recent times, we have seen the deeply disruptive impacts new health scares such as SARS and mad cow disease can have on travel and trade. We have seen the destructive threat of HIV/AIDS, drug-resistant tuberculosis, and other infectious diseases that do not respect geographical borders. And the new reality of global interdependence, emerging diseases, potential pandemics, and public health underscores the advantage of identifying shared values and interests among societies around the world. The health of an individual is more directly tied to the health of a community and of populations throughout the world than ever before.

Read the full paper online:

Frist, William H. (2007) “Medicine as a Currency for Peace Through Global Health Diplomacy,” Yale Law & Policy Review: Vol. 26: Iss. 1, Article 5. Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylpr/vol26/iss1/5

Leading the Fight Against Global HIV/AIDS

The following is text of remarks delivered on the Senate floor. 

May 14, 2003 – Senate Floor Remarks

Mr. President, the size of HIV is about 100 nanometers. That is tiny, microscopic, and invisible to the naked eye. A nanometer is one-billionth of a meter. If you divide 3 feet, into 1 billion parts, and take 100 of those parts, that is the size of HIV. That is 2,000 times smaller than a human hair.

Yet that little virus casts a long shadow of death. Reaching across oceans sweeping across continents, burrowing deep into even the most remote villages on Earth, AIDS–the disease that virus causes–has killed 23 million people since it was discovered in 1981. Forty-two million people are living with the HIV virus right now. And another 60 million people could die by 2020.

Those are daunting statistics. They paint a dark landscape. But they do not reveal the individual rays of light that have been dimmed by HIV/AIDS. The loving mother who left her child to fend on the streets.  The caring husband who left his wife to support their family. The innocent newborn who left the womb facing not a bright future, but an early death.

Nowhere is there a greater threat to life today than in the AIDS-ravaged parts of the world: Africa, the Caribbean, and soon China, India, and Russia. Millions of lives have already been lost. Millions of more lives will be lost unless we act. But if we do act, if we summon the moral courage to shine light into the long shadow of this little virus, we will change the course of history.

HIV/AIDS has a tremendous impact on a society and an economy. In Zimbabwe, AIDS will wipe out 20 percent of its workforce by 2005. Kenya has reported in recent years as many as 75 percent of the deaths in law enforcement are AIDS-related. In countries with HIV prevalence rates of 20 percent or higher, economic growth, GDP, drops by an average of 2.6 percentage points per year. Economies are shrinking solely because of this little virus. That, my friends, causes hopelessness to prevail.

But we are still losing the battle against the virus. The problem is getting worse, not better. The virus is spreading like wildfire. By 2010, China will have 10 to 15 million cases of HIV/AIDS, and India is likely to have 20 to 25 million cases–the highest estimate for any country. Every 10 seconds brings 1 AIDS-related death and 2 new HIV infections. For every 1 person who has died over the last 20 years, 2 more will die in the next 20 years.

We have a moral duty to lead the world in this fight, . . . to devote more resources and manage those resources so they get where they need go and help the people who need help.

At the end of the week the Senate will take up H.R. 1298 authorizing the President’s emergency plan to fight AIDS. The House passed this bill with overwhelming support, 375 to 41. All but one of the House Democrats voted for the bipartisan compromise. This bill is not perfect. But we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The President will sign this bill as it currently stands.

We will defeat HIV/AIDS. As a Senator, as a doctor, as a medical missionary, I have committed to this cause. The President has committed to this cause both in word and deed.

History will judge whether a world led by America stood by and let transpire one of the greatest destructions of human life in recorded history–or performed one of its most heroic rescues. President Bush has opened the door to that latter possibility. We must pass this legislation now and get this program established without further delay.

The President’s Global AIDS Initiative is a rare opportunity to enact legislation that will save hundreds of thousands–millions–of lives. This is our moment.

May 2003 Senate Floor Remarks on HIV/AIDS

The following is text of remarks delivered on the Senate floor. 

May 13, 2003 – Senate Floor Remarks

Mr. President, the sequence we just walked through is very important. The sense of urgency for the HIV/AIDS legislation, for me, really boils down to the fact that every 10 seconds somebody is dying from this little virus, and that is something that is going to take leadership from the United States–the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives–to act upon. Indeed, the President has acted; the House of Representatives has acted. The last hurdle to the reality of the United States being the true world leader in fighting HIV/AIDS is this body. When every 10 seconds a person is dying and we can make a difference, it becomes urgent, not just to this physician but to the Congress and to the United States.

Following the jobs and growth package this week, we will immediately turn to H.R. 1298, which is the bipartisan United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003. I plan to bring that to the floor as soon as we complete the jobs and growth package and to complete it this week. It is my hope we will have good debate. We will have good debate. There are people on both sides of the aisle who have participated aggressively in the discussion and, indeed, have moved legislation–not successfully–but moved legislation forward in this body. We will have the debate. We will dispose of the amendments and proceed to final passage by the end of this week on this urgent issue.

For the past 5 years, I have worked with Senators on both sides of the aisle, and House Members, all of whom are devoted to the idea that the United States can and, even more importantly, must play a leading role in our response to this global health crisis. It has taken a long time for people throughout the world, indeed the United States and–maybe a little bit longer than I and others would like–for the Congress to realize what a moral crisis, what a public health crisis this pandemic is, all caused by a virus, an infection which emerged in this country about 22 years ago–in 1981, not that long ago.

In previous Congresses, we passed legislation at the committee level. Sweeping legislation to accomplish the establishment of the U.S. leadership on the virus has been considered, but it has never made it into law. Now we have that opportunity. Indeed, I am committed to see that we seize that opportunity this week with no delays because it is such a huge global issue, an issue which I regard as one of the greatest moral challenges we have seen in this country in the last 100 years.

I have chosen to begin our debate with H.R. 1298 because it is the bill that offers us the best hope that we can get the job done in an expeditious fashion and one that best assimilates the thoughts and ideas and works of past legislation from this body, on both sides of the aisle, as well as in the House of Representatives.

What is making it possible now, after 5 years of working on this issue personally, again with colleagues from both sides of the aisle–it is very clear–is the leadership of the President of the United States. It was his statement in the State of the Union Address this year where the President didn’t just use rhetoric or give lip-service to the fight against this virus, but he made an unprecedented commitment to this public health challenge in a 5-year, $15 billion effort to combat HIV/AIDS globally. It was unprecedented. The President has claimed for our Nation the leading role in fighting this aggressive virus, this destructive virus, a virus that daily continues to take the lives of thousands of innocents, resulting in about 13 to 14 million young children today as orphans, and even that number will go to 30 to 40 million over the next 15 years.

It should be recognized that the bipartisan bill we will consider is a product of a lot of work. People say it is a House-written bill. If you look at it, first, it is overwhelmingly bipartisan; secondly, if you read through the legislation, you see that it draws upon much of the effort from this body, on both sides of the aisle, from the various committees, that have addressed emerging infections in the past–from this body as well as the House.

In the pages of that legislation, we will find much that is familiar in the proposals we have tried to pass before. Thus, Democrats and Republicans, once they read the bill, can claim satisfaction by finding that many of the provisions have been authored from Members on both sides of the aisle. That is the bill that is so close to becoming law. That is the bill we will be debating.

The consensus on the legislation to fight global HIV/AIDS is deep, but I have to say it is very narrow. I don’t reveal any secrets in acknowledging that there are very strong differences around the margins of this debate. But what is truly remarkable–people will see this as they look at the legislation itself, and I find it very encouraging–is that we have come to this point of consensus that will permit us to get this bill through this last hurdle, through the Congress, and to the President of the United States.

The bill we bring to the floor does offer a 5-year plan, $15 billion to combat HIV/AIDS on a global scale. The bipartisan support is reflected in the fact that only one House Democrat voted against this bipartisan compromise bill. Thus, it is not a Republican bill; it is not a Democrat bill; it is a bipartisan bill.

The vote in the House of Representatives was 375 to 41. The President and White House staff have reviewed the House bill, and the White House has informed me that the President would sign this bill as it currently stands. This means that Senate passage is the only remaining hurdle in the way of this 5-year, $15 billion commitment by the United States of America in the global fight against HIV/AIDS.

We must pass this bill. We must pass this bill this week. I know some of my colleagues would change the legislation and tweak it, given the opportunity. I know some would add a little here and take away some there, change the language as it is written. In a perfect world, I would like to make several changes in the bill that I think have some merit. But as someone who has invested years of my own life, in terms of developing the legislation in this fight against AIDS and in educating others about this issue, and as a physician and someone who is familiar with infectious disease and has experience in treating this virus very directly, I have reflected on ultimately what is most important.

My conclusion is that it is important for us to pass this legislation now and get this program established without further delay–not 6 months from now, not 3 months from now, not a month from now. It is a moral issue, and history will ultimately judge how this body responds to this devastating virus. There is no change I could personally propose to this legislation that is so significant that it would cause a delay in getting this bill to the President. Therefore, when we bring up the bill, I intend to offer no amendments. I will argue against any amendments. It is my hope that other Senators will reach that conclusion as well.

The bill is a 5-year authorization and it is important for us to remember that no matter what final shape this bill takes as we pass it, this is the first major step. We still have a lot of work to do, but this is the first major step. We will have the ability in future authorizations and in the appropriations process to make other changes, to take the next step as they prove necessary. But now is the time for us to get the job done, create the capacity for that global response, and to give the President of the United States the leverage he needs to attract similar leadership from the world’s other wealthy nations.

With this legislation, the United States of America will clearly be leading this fight and will become an example for the other wealthy nations to participate. Simply put, too many innocent children and men and women and young people have been infected by this terrible virus. Too many have died. We have failed to act in the past. We have had good intentions, but we have failed to act in the past. We must not fail these people again. This is our opportunity.

In closing, I appeal to my colleagues on both sides that we join together in passing this bipartisan bill. I acknowledge that it is not a perfect bill, but my conscience does not permit me to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This is, without a doubt, one moment to put the global interests of others above our own differences and to do our work, to do good, and to reaffirm that which makes the United States of America not just a powerful Nation but indeed a great Nation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

January 2003 Senate Floor Remarks on HIV/AIDS

The following is text of remarks delivered on the Senate floor. 

Jan. 30, 2003 – Senate Floor Remarks

Mr. President, for a few moments before closing tonight–and we have had a very productive day and we will make the more formal announcements in about 15 minutes or so–I take a few moments addressing an issue that means a lot to me, personally, and to take a moment to reflect upon an announcement that the President made at the State of the Union two nights ago.

It has to do with a little virus, called HIV/AIDS virus, and the devastation it has wrought on individuals, most importantly, but also communities and villages and counties and States and countries and continents and, indeed, the whole world.

Once a year I have a wonderful opportunity to travel to Africa as part of a medical mission team. I travel not as a Senator, but I have the opportunity to travel as a physician. Last January, on one of these medical mission trips, I treated patients in villages and in clinics and a number of countries in Africa, including the Sudan, Uganda, Tanzania, and Kenya. Many of the patients I dealt with were infected with HIV/AIDS virus. This little tiny virus, a microorganism, causes this disease we all know as AIDS.

I think back to a number of patients. In Arusha, in the slums, conditions are crowded, but as you walk through these very crowded slums, the people there are very proud. While there, I visited with a young woman by the name of Tabu. She lived in a small–by small I mean one room, probably 8 feet by 8 feet–stick-framed mud hut. I remember walking in there, as my eyes adjusted, and seeing a very beautiful woman, 28 years old, sitting on the edge of the bed–a human smile. And on the walls behind her, to keep moisture out, were newspapers plastered on the walls. Again, things neat and clean, but a very small hut which was her home–a woman with a broad smile who was obviously sick, and very sick, meaning she would die in the next week to 2 weeks.

She lived in this, her home, with her 11-year-old daughter, Adija, whom I also met, although her other children did not live with them in that hut because Tabu was so ill and so sick that she simply couldn’t physically manage having the other children there. As she explained her story to me–again, I was the physician from America who came to be with her–her story was one she was a little bit embarrassed about because she literally had to send her children away because of her disability–her physical disability, due to this little tiny virus–to send them away to live with her mother who could take care of her children.

I mentioned her smile. As my eyes adjusted, I saw that she was indeed wasted, thin and sick, but her eyes and her smile were full of hope. That smile in many ways hid the pain of that illness, the pain of having to send her children away. The next day, she left her hut and she was going to go live with her mother for the last few days of her life, to die in her childhood home.

Tabu told me she was one of four sisters, all of whom had HIV/AIDS. All had been infected with the virus. Musuli, a sister 20 years old, who lived with her mom; Zbidanya, 15 years of age; and an older sister, Omeut, who had already died.

Tabu died the next week. But she didn’t have to. If we do our job and if we follow the bold leadership as spelled out by the President of the United States, we can cure this disease, a disease that is destroying nations–indeed, destroying a continent, and mercilessly and relentlessly spreading throughout the world–Russia and China and the Caribbean.

That face of Tabu, there in Arusha, in that home, is indeed the face of AIDS in Africa and in nations around the world.

The little tiny virus is not all that different from the viruses I am quite accustomed to treating in the population I treated before coming to the Senate, that can tear apart individuals, but this virus is different in that it is smarter. It is more cagey than other viruses. But it is still just a little microorganism that is wiping out these continents, a little tiny virus. It is ravaging families. It is causing mass destruction, this little tiny virus. It is ravaging societies. It is ravaging economies. It is ravaging countries. And, indeed, it is ravaging whole continents. To my mind, there is no greater challenge, morally or physically, facing the global health community today than this global health crisis.

The other interesting thing about it is, it is new. Usually if you have something this devastating, you think it has a long history and has grown over the years and over the centuries. But it is new. When I was in medical school, we had never heard of an HIV virus; we had never heard of the disease called AIDS. I am not that old; 1981 was the first time in this country we were smart enough to figure out that there is this little HIV virus that causes AIDS–1981. That is 22 years ago.

But since that pandemic–epidemic means a disease spreading in one part of the world. A pandemic is just that, it is spreading all over the world. That is where the “pan” in pandemic comes from. Since 1981, more than 60 million people have been infected with this little virus that wasn’t around 23 years ago. That is basically the population of the great State of New York times 3. Twenty-three million people have died from this little tiny virus. And we are losing the battle. We are fighting it, but it is a battle we are losing as we go forward.

For every one person who has died since I was in medical school, say, since 1981 when we first discovered it in this country, for every one person who has died in the last 20 years, in the best of all worlds, if we do everything perfectly, we do everything right, for every one person who died in the last 20 years, two people are going to die in the next 20. That is in the best of all worlds.

Why is that? Because there is no cure for this virus. People hear me talk on this floor a lot about vaccines, saying we need to protect the infrastructure and fight bioterrorism with these vaccines. We do not have a vaccine for this little tiny virus. So we have no cure. We have no vaccine to prevent it. As I said earlier, this little virus is smart. Whenever we have a therapy that works pretty well, the little virus changes itself–probably 1,000 times faster than other viruses–so it will defy that treatment. Every time we get a treatment, it changes itself. It is a cagey virus.

The virus causes AIDS. AIDS is the disease, the manifestation. Tabu, being wasted and thin–the virus itself is what causes it. What do we know about the disease itself? Whom does it hit? Put aside perceptions, the stigma of AIDS. Put them aside. Let me tell you about the virus. The virus hits young people. Eight hundred thousand children were infected in 2002. Young people account for 60 percent of the new HIV infections each year. Worldwide, 13 million people have been orphaned by AIDS. Most of them are, indeed, in Africa. When you are orphaned by AIDS; you are left without mentors; you are left without parents; you are left without a supportive structure; you are left without the support we have in other, more advantaged, countries.

As I go to Africa on these mission trips–again, I go down as a physician–you have the opportunity to go walking through villages. Nothing really can prepare you for walking through a village and looking at the people in the homes. You see very old people–not very old, but old for the society there–people in their seventies, sixties, fifties. Then you see just little kids running around. What you do not see are people 20 years of age, to 35, to 40 years of age. It is almost like this whole segment of the population has been wiped out–old people and young people, but nobody in their productive years.

That is what you see if you go to Nairobi and you walk through the Kibera slums, which go on, it seems, forever. When you walk through the slums, you don’t see people in their most productive years.

Entire generations are being wiped out, and kids are growing up in the streets with no parents and no mentors. And that all translates down into no hope.

What is fascinating is that we have the power to bring them hope. That is why I get excited when the President thinks big. And he articulated that in the State of the Union speech. It is thinking big because we have the power to bring them hope. We must ask ourselves, How can we, since we have that power, not use that power?  Most people do not realize the disease of AIDS caused by the virus is today a disease of predominantly women. It is just not part of what we historically have pictured what this disease is all about. More than half of all the people now infected with AIDS are women.  With AIDS on a rampage through the villages of sub-Saharan Africa, life expectancy in Africa is now 47 years of age. I wouldn’t be alive at 47 years of age.  What is interesting is, what increment is due to this little, tiny virus? If the HIV virus had never appeared over the last 20 years, instead of living 47 years you would live 62 years–just because of this little virus.

If you are born in Botswana, you are not going to live to 47 years, or 45, or 43, or 42, or 41. You may live to the age of 38. Average life expectancy, if you are born in Botswana today, is 38 years of age because of this single little virus wiping out people, destroying people, killing people in their most productive years.

In 2005, in Zimbabwe, 20 percent of its workforce will be wiped out due to AIDS. Death is tragic enough. Taking this productive segment of society, very quickly you have to ask yourself, with that productive segment as parents and with the infrastructure of civil society disappearing, what happens to the children who are left behind? Who will feed the children? Who will mentor those children?

Law enforcement is being wiped out, and teachers are being wiped out. Kenya has reported in recent years as many as 75 percent of the deaths in law enforcement, in its police force, are AIDS-related. In civil society the potential for disruption is obvious.

If you look at what this little tiny virus incrementally does to the economy of these countries, we see we can give unlimited aid and money, but unless we defeat this little virus, the economies are not going to grow; they are going to diminish. If you look at those countries where the prevalent rates are about 20 percent or so–which is, in medical terms, significant penetration, but not unusual for Africa–the economy doesn’t grow but drops 2.6 percent a year because of the HIV/AIDS virus. Why? Because you wipe out the most productive people in that society. We see poor countries growing poorer because of the virus, not just financially, which is how we measure gross domestic product, but spiritually. The hopelessness, the helplessness that comes from this little virus, all of a sudden becomes the norm.

What is the role of the United States of America, especially in light of the President’s pronouncement the other night? Historically we have much to be proud of. I think we need to add that, because we read about people from other countries and people associated with the United States who have never stepped to the plate. I want to disabuse my colleagues and people who are listening. The United States has already done much to combat global HIV/AIDS in terms of research, and in terms of financial investment, both unilaterally and bilaterally. You hear about the Global Fund on AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria–an important fund, a new fund, that hasn’t yet been proven. But it becomes sort of the marker in many people’s minds of what we are contributing. In truth, it is one part of a huge battle–a lot of resources that were actually invested in fighting AIDS, but in terms of that Global Fund on AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the United States was the first donor under President Bush. In a second round of financing, we once again were the first donor to that fund. Before the President’s announcement, we were that global fund’s largest donor. We placed $500 million, more than any other nation. That is a quarter of all the pledges. The next closest country hasn’t even matched half of our commitment.

I say that because I am offended when people say the United States simply has not stepped to the plate. Just as impressive is the speed with which we have addressed this issue historically. We ramped up funding dramatically in both direct aid, bilateral aid, and global fund money.

Total funding in 1999 was $154 million. Remember, the President two nights ago was talking about billions of dollars. Just 4 years ago we spent totally $159 million. In the last 4 years, there has been an eightfold increase, up to about $1.2 billion. Indeed, the United States is today leading–even before the President’s announcement–the global fight against HIV/AIDS. I think we can be proud of that. But–and is where the President’s announcement came–we can do more. I believe in support of what the President has said from a moral standpoint, we can and should and will do more.

I mentioned we are losing the battle. Every 10 seconds somebody dies of the infection. But in that same 10 seconds there are two new infections. Remember that we have no cure. That is right now. That shows there is so much to be done. Each death and each new infection is one more tragic battle lost in the war against this killer virus.

I think, I know, that we have a moral obligation and a human requirement to provide more resources to fully enter the big war to win the battle one person at a time. Those resources must be managed and monitored so they get to those people who we intend to help. The process must be transparent. I know that the President, because he has told me personally and in meetings many times, wants to invest that money making sure we get results; that the money is used wisely with focus, that it is used transparently, and that we measure the results we set out to achieve.

I think also we in this body need to summon the commitment of all Americans to be soldiers in this war in whatever way they possibly can. I say that only because as elected officials, although we know it is the right thing to do and morally the most powerful thing to do, some constituents around the country ask, Why in the world are you investing in a disease that, yes, affects the world but is predominantly a continent so far away?

One of the reasons I am carrying on this discussion tonight is because I think each of us has an obligation–has an opportunity but also an obligation–to help educate not just our colleagues and people in Congress but people all across America. We need to do that every day in speeches–every time I go back to Tennessee or my colleagues go back to Nevada or South Dakota or Georgia or California. We have made a lot of progress in the last couple of years. With the President’s announcement in the State of the Union Address, I believe we are on the cusp of a truly historic leaf that I believe can turn the tide of this devastating disease, if we will start saving lives and also instilling hope.

Over the past 2 years, Senator Kerry and I, with a bipartisan group of Senators, have constructed and put together what I believe is a significant bill that addresses this little, tiny virus–this cagey virus that is causing this mass destruction–and which addresses the moral challenge this virus represents. The legislation will be discussed in the Foreign Relations Committee next week, led by the Senator from Indiana, chairman of that committee, Senator Lugar. I hope this bill becomes the legislative counterpart to President Bush’s bold initiative.

The President has pledged more resources, significantly more resources, a tripling in funding. He has proposed an emergency plan, and he has used–this may be the most significant thing–the bully pulpit to rally a great Nation to this noble cause. He sets the gold standard for humanitarian efforts for the United States but also for the world. I know he has personally committed to achieving results. His proposal, once our bill is acted upon, will prevent 7 million of these new infections, will provide the antiretroviral drugs for 2 million HIV-infected people, will care for 10 million HIV-infected individuals and AIDS orphans, and will provide $15 billion–$15 billion–in funding over the next 5 years.

I should also add that, as a government, we cannot do it alone. Even single leaders cannot do it alone. Even what this body does cannot do it alone.  It is truly remarkable, as I have been addressing this particular issue over the last 8 years, to see this new intersection, this new coalition of partners that heretofore just has not existed. It has not existed. By that I am talking about the pharmaceutical companies. At the end of the day, it is going to be the research of the pharmaceutical companies–in developing vaccines, in figuring out why this virus changes–that will give much of the answer. The pharmaceutical companies, the faith-based community–the churches, the spiritual community–the academies, and the universities all across this great Nation are coming together at this intersection, along with Government and along with, I should add, the private sector and foundations.

I mention the foundations because we just saw an announcement last week by Bill Gates. It is significant, with big numbers, huge numbers going to global health. We have seen nothing like this in the history of the world. It comes from a foundation that, in truth, moves a lot faster than Government can move. We have been working on the HIV/AIDS issue for years and years and years. Bill Gates basically said: Listen, I see the problem. I am going to go out and do my best to lick the problem. Indeed, he announced this past week a remarkable $200 million grant to establish what is called the Grand Challenges in Global Health initiative. This is going to be a major new effort and a partnership with our NIH, our National Institutes of Health, which will accelerate research on the most difficult scientific barriers in global health.

Today, only 10 percent of medical research in this country–only 10 percent–is devoted to the diseases which account for 90 percent of the health burden in the world. Mr. Gates said: It doesn’t make sense. For 90 percent of the health burden in the world, we are only spending 10 percent of our research dollars. Let’s do something about it. He is in a position to do just that. Through his foundation, he will change just that.

The Gates initiative will provide grants to support the collaborative efforts of the most creative and innovative scientists and researchers in the world. The initiative will draw attention to these urgent global health research needs. And it will stimulate where I think the real answer is going to be; that is, the public-private partnerships–the partnerships with the academies, with the churches, with the pharmaceutical companies, with the leadership, yes, of the United States and other of the wealthier countries, but also the leadership of the disadvantaged countries, the countries that are being subjected to the ravages of HIV/AIDS.

I would not have said this 4 years ago, but we will defeat this little virus. When I close my eyes, that is what I see: this little virus–and all the death and destruction–but this little tiny virus, in part because I am a doctor. When I think of disease, I always look at the cause of it. But it is that little virus. We will defeat it. Let me repeat that: We will. It will be with the leadership of the United States of America. And by “leadership,” I am talking about this body, working with the President, working with the House of Representatives, working with the public-private partnerships. With that leadership, we will defeat this virus.

But the question is–and the reason timing is important–how many children and women and men are going to die before we defeat the virus? I already told you, in the best of all worlds, for every one person who died in the last 20 years, two are going to die in the next 20. Even if we discovered a vaccine right now, that is going to happen, because the vaccine is for prevention.

The real question is, Will 60 million or 80 million or 100 million people die? Or, again, under the leadership of the President of the United States, and with the legislation that we can generate in this body, instead of it being 100 million, can it be 20 million or 40 million or 45 million or 50 million? Or will it grow from 100 million to 200 million or 300 million?

That is the urgency. That is why we need an emergency response. And that is why, as a physician, as someone who, with my own hands, has had the opportunity to work with hundreds of HIV/AIDS patients in this country and in many countries in Africa, it means so much to me. I have seen that so directly.

The answer is in our hands. Literally, it is in our hands. We are capable today of slowing this pandemic. It is going to increase in the near future. There is nothing we can do about that. But we can slow the trajectory. Indeed, in countries such as Uganda it has already flattened and decreased, so we know there are things we can do now to reverse this trajectory. But we have to choose to fight first. We need to make that commitment the President made 2 nights ago and fight it with our will, fight it with resources, fight it with energy and as much spirit as we can muster.

I will close because I know it is late, and we have worked again aggressively over the course of the day and have made real progress, but I will close by simply saying, the President, I know, is committed in both word and deed. I think it is now time for our body, this legislative body, to come together to work for this legislation and help lead a great people and a great nation to overcome one of the greatest moral and public health challenges the world will face in the 21st century.