And the "Lie of the Year" winner is ... Sarah Palin!!

Of all the falsehoods and distortions in the political discourse this year, one stood out from the rest.

“Death panels.”

The claim set political debate afire when it was made in August, raising issues from the role of government in health care to the bounds of acceptable political discussion. In a nod to the way technology has transformed politics, the statement wasn’t made in an interview or a television ad. Sarah Palin posted it on her Facebook page.

Her assertion — that the government would set up boards to determine whether seniors and the disabled were worthy of care — spread through newscasts, talk shows, blogs and town hall meetings. Opponents of health care legislation said it revealed the real goals of the Democratic proposals. Advocates for health reform said it showed the depths to which their opponents would sink. Still others scratched their heads and said, “Death panels? Really?”

The editors of PolitiFact.com, the fact-checking Web site of the St. Petersburg Times, have chosen it as our inaugural “Lie of the Year.”

PolitiFact readers overwhelmingly supported the decision. Nearly 5,000 voted in a national poll to name the biggest lie, and 61 percent chose “death panels” from a field of eight finalists. (See the complete results.)

This is the story of how two words generated intense heat in the national debate over health care.

• • •

The former governor of Alaska had been out of the headlines since she announced her resignation on July 3; the Facebook message instantly brought her back to the political stage.

“As more Americans delve into the disturbing details of the nationalized health care plan that the current administration is rushing through Congress, our collective jaw is dropping, and we’re saying not just no, but hell no!” Palin wrote.

“The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.”

It wasn’t the first time opponents of the Democratic plans for health care had raised the specter of euthanasia. In February, the conservative editorial page of the Washington Times compared plans for more funding for health information technology with eugenics programs instituted in Nazi Germany.

Democrats in the House introduced a bill July 14 that closely mirrored President Barack Obama’s campaign promises on health care. The bill increased regulation of insurance companies, proposed a national health insurance exchange where individuals and small business could shop for plans, expanded health programs for the poor, and gave incentives to doctors and hospitals for efficiency and improved care. It did not promote euthanasia.

On July 16, Betsy McCaughey, the former lieutenant governor of New York and a conservative health care commentator, suggested that the Democratic plan included a measure requiring seniors be told how to end their lives. “Congress would make it mandatory — absolutely require — that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner,” she said on a radio show hosted by conservative Fred Thompson.

PolitiFact gave McCaughey a Pants on Fire rating for that statement. There were no mandatory sessions proposed. Instead, for the first time, Medicare would pay for doctors’ appointments for patients to discuss living wills, health care directives and other end-of-life issues. The appointments were optional, and the AARP supported the measure.
Nevertheless, Republican officials began amplifying McCaughey’s comments.

House Republican Leader John Boehner issued a statement July 23 that said, “This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia if enacted into law.”

Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., said on the House floor July 28 that a Republican alternative for health reform was “pro-life because it will not put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government.”

Palin’s statement then launched the health care debate into overdrive. The term was mentioned in news reports approximately 6,000 times in August and September, according to the Nexis database. By October, it was still being mentioned 150 to 300 times a week.

• • •

The phrase “death panels” appears to be original to Palin. A search of news databases showed no use prior to her Facebook posting.

History professor Ian Dowbiggin, who has written several books on medical history, euthanasia and eugenics, said he had never heard the term before Palin used it. He said the phrase invokes images of Nazi Germany, which denied life-saving care to people who were not deemed useful enough to broader society. Adolf Hitler ordered Nazi officials to secretly register, select, and murder handicapped people such as schizophrenics, epileptics, disabled babies and other long-stay hospital patients, according to Dowbiggin.

“It’s not far-fetched to make the historical argument that as you get government more and more involved in health care, you create an environment that is more hospitable to the legalization of forms of euthanasia,” Dowbiggin said. “But the Nazi example should be used very advisedly.”

“This is an issue that’s being exploited by political figures who are opposed to the health care legislation,” he added. “They’re trying to sensationalize the issue as much as possible to drum up opposition.”

On Aug. 10, PolitiFact rated Palin’s statement Pants on Fire. In the weeks that followed, health care policy experts on both the right and the left said the euthanasia comparisons were inaccurate. Gail Wilensky, a health adviser to President George H.W. Bush, said the charge was untrue and upsetting.

“I think it is really unfortunate that this has been raised and received so much attention because there are serious issues to debate in health care reform,” she said at a forum on Sept. 3.

But some prominent Republicans didn’t reject the death panels claim.

Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the Finance Committee, told people at a town hall meeting on Aug. 12 that people “have every right to fear. You shouldn’t have counseling at the end of life; you ought to have counseling 20 years before you’re going to die. You ought to plan these things out. And I don’t have any problem with things like living wills, but they ought to be done within the family. We should not have a government program that determines you’re going to pull the plug on Grandma.”

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich, asked about the issue on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, said, “You are asking us to trust turning power over to the government, when there are clearly people in America who believe in establishing euthanasia, including selective standards.”

• • •

Democrats responded by saying the accusation wasn’t true and highlighting the actual Medicare provision and what it said.

That wasn’t necessarily an effective strategy, said Drew Westen, a psychologist who studies political communication and advises Democrats on messaging. “Instead of stopping and asking themselves, ‘What are Republicans trying to appeal to?’, the Democrats rolled their eyes and said, ‘Isn’t this stupid,’ ” he said. “On one level, it was stupid, but on another level, it was hitting seniors very close to where they live.”

People intuitively understand that health care reform is about lowering costs, and end-of-life care can be quite costly, he said. The “death panels” claim exploited fears that people already had. Rather than just saying the claim wasn’t true, Westen said, a better response would be that there already are “death panels” — run by insurance companies.

“That’s the response that should have been there, from the first day the attack was made,” Westen said. “You never let an attack like this stand or go unresponded to in any 24-hour cycle.”

The charge was raised repeatedly during August town hall meetings. The claim particularly caught the attention of seniors, said John Rother, a health policy expert with the AARP. “That’s who’s most sensitive to any suggestion of denial of necessary care or being told you can’t get the care you need from your doctor,” he said.

The town hall meetings highlighted the partisan divisions when it came to death panels. The claim excited the Republican base along with the Tea Party to mobilize a vocal opposition, Rother said. “If your start-out stance is being distrustful of government, then this fit right into your worldview.” Though nonpartisan, AARP has generally supported Democratic efforts to pass health care legislation.

• • •

Two independent polls showed that about 30 percent of the public believed death panels were part of health care reform, both the week after Palin made the comment and a month later.

Yet seniors were no more likely to believe it than other age groups. The polls showed a closer correlation by party, with Republicans more likely to say that death panels were part of the plans pending in Congress. It’s not clear whether Palin’s comments swayed anyone who was undecided or unsure about health care reform.

“It touched a nerve of anxiety, and then there was a big response from the press and from experts that assured people that euthanasia wasn’t anywhere near this debate,” said Robert Blendon, a Harvard University researcher who studies public opinion on health care. “Most people, at the end of the day, did not believe it was being proposed.”

As the furor over the phrase settled down, Democrats used it as evidence that Republicans were unreasonably opposing health reform.

President Obama rebutted the claim in a major health care address on Sept. 9: “Some of people’s concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.”

The phrase has been mentioned in the Congressional record about 40 times since Palin’s Facebook posting, but virtually all were Democrats citing it as an example of Republican intransigence.

“You know, GOP used to stand for Grand Old Party,” said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., on Nov. 7. “Now it stands for Grandstand, Oppose, and Pretend. They grandstand with phony claims about nonexistent death panels. They oppose any real reform.” The House voted in favor of health care legislation the same day.

• • •

Rep. Earl Blumenauer, the Oregon Democrat who promoted the provision that allowed Medicare to pay for doctor appointments about end-of-life counseling, said he sees both positives and negatives from the controversy.

On the positive side, he said he’s optimistic the Medicare provision will make it into the final version of health care reform, which is still pending in the Senate, and people had more conversations about making their wishes known for things like living wills or do-not-resuscitate orders.

“It really did energize people who deal with palliative care,” he said. “Ultimately, it helped advance the cause of giving people more control over end-of-life decisions.”

On the other hand, he said, the episode suggests that political distortions need to be confronted faster and more forcefully.

“It’s a sobering prospect that political discourse is going to resemble hand-to-hand combat for the foreseeable future,” he said.

That doesn’t bode well for keeping average citizens involved in the political process, especially those who are independent or not particularly partisan.

“I think they’re losing their appetite to wade through the vitriol, and I’m in the same boat,” Blumenauer said. “We are moving to a point where we drive normal people away, and everybody else gets their news and increasingly opinion prescreened, going for days never hearing an opposing viewpoint. That gives me pause.”

• • •

As for Palin, she told the conservative National Review in an interview on Nov. 17, the same day her best-selling memoir Going Rogue was released, that she didn’t regret her comments. (PolitiFact’s calls and e-mail to Palin were not returned.)

“To me, while reading that section of the bill, it became so evident that there would be a panel of bureaucrats who would decide on levels of health care, decide on those who are worthy or not worthy of receiving some government-controlled coverage,” she said. “Since health care would have to be rationed if it were promised to everyone, it would therefore lead to harm for many individuals not able to receive the government care. That leads, of course, to death.”

“The term I used to describe the panel making these decisions should not be taken literally,” said Palin. The phrase is “a lot like when President Reagan used to refer to the Soviet Union as the ‘evil empire.’ He got his point across. He got people thinking and researching what he was talking about. It was quite effective. Same thing with the ‘death panels.’ I would characterize them like that again, in a heartbeat.”

Angie Drobnic Holan
PolitiFact.com

From “Prospects For Bipartisan Health Reform,” a breakfast conference at Union Station in Washington, and the Senate Finance Committee mark-up of its health reform plan in the Hart Office Building:

Quick question: How many Republicans are likely to sign on to the health reform package now making its way through the Senate?  Apparently, only three, if you believe the prognostication offered by an august group of Washington insiders this morning: former Louisiana House Member Billy Tauzin (now CEO of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America); Ron Pollack, executive director of the advocacy group Families USA;  and John Rother, executive vice president for policy and strategy at AARP.

The Pontificating Panel/Photo by Alicia Ault

Former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle, whose Bipartisan Policy Center hosted the breakfast, was even less sanguine.  He said maybe two Republicans might cross their GOP leaders to back a reform package.

Mr. Daschle may be more in the know.  After all, as the Washington Post recently reported in a front page story, he occupies one of the most prominent seats at Tosca, Washington’s newest power lunch spot.

But it certainly doesn’t require a crystal ball or longtime inside-the-beltway chops to discern the lack of bipartisanship.

Just a few blocks away, the Senate Finance Committee had begun the second day of deliberations on its draft reform plan.   It was not pretty.  Republican amendments were being struck down with impunity by the Democratic majority;  Democrats’ amendments were largely adopted by the same majority.

Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) struggled to rein in a near-mutiny incited by Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) over whether the committee was moving too fast.  (The same Jim Bunning who was caught napping during the first day of mark-up.) Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), the chairman’s lone Republican supporter after almost three months of negotiations, jumped ship and joined with Sen. Bunning in condemning what she called an illogical and improper rush.

Sen. Bunning’s attempt to delay a vote  was being echoed across the Hill. Or maybe his amendment — which would have required the legislation to be posted and a Congressional Budget Office score to be in hand before the committee voted — was an echo of what was happening elsewhere, as House and Senate Republicans vociferously pushed for passage of a bill that would require all legislation to be posted online or otherwise made public at least 72 hours before a floor vote.  See Minority Leader John Boehner’s release here and Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s YouTube video here.

Sen. Baucus tried to muzzle his Republican colleague several times, but committee member Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) interceded and Sen. Bunning got his say.  In the end, a Baucus-led amendment passed; it was a slight variation on the Bunning theme, requiring that the panel make its bill public 72 hours before it voted.

But it left a sour taste in Republicans’ mouths.

The sausage-making is getting bloodier.

How many Senate Republicans do you think will vote for the final health reform package? Take our poll.

— Alicia Ault (on Twitter @aliciaault)

From MEDIA MATTERS:

The Washington Independent highlights Betsy McCaughey’s resignation from the board of directors of Cantel Medical Corp., a medical products company, to “avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest.” McCaughey’s resignation coincides with her attempt to revive her false end-of-life counseling smears on The Daily Show.

According to Cantel’s press release:

LITTLE FALLS, N.J., Aug 21, 2009 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX News Network/ — CANTEL MEDICAL CORP. (NYSE: CMN) announced that on August 20, 2009 it received a letter of resignation from Ms. Elizabeth McCaughey as a director of the Company. Ms. McCaughey, who had served as a director since 2005, stated that she was resigning to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest during the national debate over healthcare reform.

McCaughey has been on Cantel’s board since 2005, but her apparent conflict of interest hasn’t kept CNN and Fox News from repeatedly hosting her to spread false attacks on health care reform.

All that translates to: Old Betsy Wetsy made such a fool of herself on The Daily Show that she got canned!

Original DVD cover

I thought we’d take a look back on Betsy Wetsy’s shenanigans. From MEDIA MATTERS (July 31, 2009):

On July 16, Betsy McCaughey falsely claimed that the House health care reform bill would “absolutely require” end-of-life counseling for seniors “that will tell them how to end their life sooner.” Since then, numerous media figures have echoed McCaughey’s claim — even after the falsehood was debunked and McCaughey herself backtracked.

McCaughey first made claim on Fred Thompson’s radio show.

…snip…

In New York Post, McCaughey claims bill “compels seniors” to “submit” to counseling sessions. Following her appearance on Thompson’s show, McCaughey made a similar claim in a July 17 New York Post op-ed, writing that “[o]ne troubling provision” of the bill “compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years … about alternatives for end-of-life care,” adding that the “mandate invites abuse, and seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care.”

[Sean] Hannity: Seniors “forced to undergo, quote, ‘end-of-life counseling,’ apparently to encourage them to check out before their time is up.”

…snip…

[Laura] Ingraham: “[M]andatory counseling session” by “government bureaucrat” is “frightening.” On the July 17 edition of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, guest host Laura Ingraham said: “The fact that a government bureaucrat will come to an old person’s house as a mandatory counseling session — first of all, stay away from my father, who is 83 years old. I do not want any government bureaucrat telling him what kind of treatment he should consider to be a good citizen. That’s frightening.”

…snip…

[Rush] Limbaugh: Bill provides for “[m]andatory counseling.”

…snip…

McCaughey: Bill will “pressure the elderly to end their lives prematurely.” In a July 23 Wall Street Journal op-ed, McCaughey again claimed the bill will “pressure the elderly to end their lives prematurely,” referring to the provision she characterized as “ensur[ing] that seniors are counseled on end-of-life options, including refusing nutrition where state law allows it.”

…snip…

McCaughey’s original claim gets “Pants on Fire” status. [On July 23 at PolitiFact]

…snip…

Despite debunking, Fox News, [Washington] Times continue to advance false claim

Hannity: Bill includes “mandatory advisory counseling sessions with the elderly.” On the July 27 edition of Fox News’ Hannity, Fox News contributor Dick Morris stated that senior citizens are “getting that this is creeping euthanasia.”

…snip…

Fox News’ Johnson claimed health care reform “a subtle form of euthanasia.” Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. said on the July 27 Fox & Friends, “Some people are saying, well, this is a health care reform, other people say — maybe me — that this is a subtle form of euthanasia. [...]“

…snip…

Fox’s Johnson: Provision “is kind of our 2009 Brave New World, Soylent Green, 1984, Aldous Huxley kind of world.

…snip…

McCaughey walked back her claim in a Politico article. According to a July 28 Politico article, when asked about criticism of her claim that the bill makes counseling “mandatory,” McCaughey claimed that she was right about the effect (if not the literal wording) of the legislation.

…snip…

AARP Executive VP: McCaughey’s commentary “rife with gross — and even cruel — distortions.” In a July 28 press release, AARP executive vice president John Rother stated that “Betsy McCaughey’s recent commentary on health care reform column in various media outlets is rife with gross — and even cruel — distortions.” Criticizing McCaughey’s “distortions” with regard to comparative effectiveness research and end-of-life counseling, Rother added that AARP will “fight the campaign of misinformation that vested interests are using to try to scare older Americans in order to protect the status quo.”

Debunkings, McCaughey’s backtracking doesn’t stop media echo chamber

York says according to bill, “there will be consultation … to discuss … end-of-life issues.” On the July 28 edition of Special Report, Washington Examiner chief political correspondent Byron York falsely claimed that a provision in a House health reform bill “says that there will be consultation between a caregiver and a patient to discuss things like hospice care and other issues — other end-of-life issues,” which he claimed raised the question of “whether there’s any coercive element to this.” [Special Report with Bret Baier, 7/28/09]

Washington Post promoted falsehood. In a July 29 Post article about President Obama’s AARP forum on health care, Ceci Connolly wrote that “[o]ne woman asked Obama about ‘rumors’ that under the proposed legislation, every American over age 65 would be visited by a government worker and ‘told to decide how they wish to die,’ ” but did not report that the “rumors” are not true, as Cuthbert and Obama noted during that forum.

Hannity: “I don’t want somebody at the end of my life from some bureaucrat counseling me about whether or not I need antibiotics.”

…snip…

Buchanan: “Now we’re hearing all this stuff about people at the end of their life are gonna get visited by some guy.” On the July 31 edition of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, MSNBC contributor Pat Buchanan said: “We’ve been talking about the other side now, which is the apprehension and fear on the part of people who’ve got good health insurance and would like to have other folks taken care of, but they say wait a minute, we’re gonna get taxed, and now we’re hearing all this stuff about people at the end of their life are gonna get visited by some guy.”

…snip…

Salon’s Conason says McCaughey the “source” of the ” ‘elderly euthanasia’ hoax.” In a July 31 Salon article, Joe Conason wrote: “It appears that McCaughey is the source of the ‘elderly euthanasia’ hoax now circulating on the Internet, talk radio and in right-wing media, which claims that Democratic health bills will force old, ill Medicare recipients into making plans for their own deaths.

(You can watch–and I heartily suggest you do–both parts of Jon Stewart’s interview of Betsy Wetsy here)

Demonstrators in Lincoln, Neb., last week argued about the Democratic-led push to overhaul the health care system.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin says the health care overhaul bill would set up a “death panel.” Federal bureaucrats would play God, ruling on whether ailing seniors are worth enough to society to deserve life-sustaining medical care. Palin and other critics are wrong.

Nothing in the legislation would carry out such a bleak vision. The provision that has caused the uproar would instead authorize Medicare to pay doctors for counseling patients about end-of-life care, if the patient wishes. Here are some questions and answers on the controversy:

Q: Does the health care legislation bill promote “mercy killing,” or euthanasia?

A: No!

Q: Then what’s all the fuss about?

A: A provision in the House bill written by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., would allow Medicare to pay doctors for voluntary counseling sessions that address end-of-life issues. The conversations between doctor and patient would include living wills, making a close relative or a trusted friend your health care proxy, learning about hospice as an option for the terminally ill, and information about pain medications for people suffering chronic discomfort.

The sessions would be covered every five years, more frequently if someone is gravely ill.

Q: Is anything required?

Monsignor Charles Fahey, 76, a Catholic priest who is chairman of the board of the National Council on Aging, a nonprofit service and advocacy group, says no.

“We have to make decisions that are deliberative about our health care at every moment,” Fahey said. “What I have said is that if I cannot say another prayer, if I cannot give or get another hug, and if I cannot have another martini – then let me go.”

Q: Does the bill advocate assisted suicide?

A: No! It would block funds for counseling that presents suicide or assisted suicide as an option.

Q: Who supports the provision?

A: The American Medical Association, the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization and Consumers Union are among the groups supporting the provision. AARP, the seniors’ lobby, is taking out print advertisements this week that label as false the claim that the legislation will empower the government to take over life-and-death decisions from individuals.

Q: Should the federal government be getting involved with living wills and end-of-life questions – decisions that are highly personal and really difficult?

A: It already is.

The government requires hospitals to ask adult patients if they have a living will, or “advance directive.” If the patient doesn’t have one, and wants one, the hospital has to provide assistance. The mandate on hospitals was instituted during a Republican administration, in 1992, under President George H.W. Bush.

Q: How does a living will work, and how is it different from a health care proxy?

A: A living will – also called an advance directive – spells out a patient’s wishes if he or she becomes incapacitated. Often people say they don’t want to be kept alive on breathing machines if their condition is terminal and irreversible.

A health care proxy empowers another person to make medical decisions should the patient become incapacitated.

There’s also a power-of-attorney, which authorizes another person to make financial decisions for someone who is incapacitated.

Such legal documents have become standard estate-planning tools in the last twenty years.

Q: Would the health overhaul legislation change the way people now deal with making end-of-life decisions?

A: It very well could.

Supporters of the provision say the main consequence would be to formally bring doctors into a discussion that now takes place mainly among family members and lawyers.

“When you execute a legal document with your lawyer, it ends up in your files and in the lawyer’s files,” said John Rother, a senior policy and strategy adviser for AARP. “Unless the doctor is part of this discussion, it’s unlikely that your wishes will be respected. The doctor will be the one involved in any decisions.”

The American Medical Association says involving doctors is simple common sense.

“There has been a lot of misinformation about the advance care planning provisions in the bill,” AMA President Dr. James Rohack said in a statement. “It’s plain, old-fashioned medical care.”

Q: So why are some people upset?

Some social conservatives say stronger language is needed to protect seniors from being pressured into signing away their rights to medical treatment in a moment of depression or despair.

The National Right to Life Committee opposes the provision as written.

“I’m not aware of ‘death panels’ in the bill,” said David O’Steen, executive director of the group. “I’m not aware of anything that says you will be hauled before a government bureaucrat. But we are concerned … it doesn’t take a lot to push a vulnerable person – perhaps unwittingly – to give up their right to life-sustaining treatment.”

The White House says it is countering false claims with a “reality check” page on its Web site, http://www.whitehouse.gov .

—

On the Net:

White House site on health care claims: http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/

Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar
Associated Press

Tom Brokaw led four panelists in a recap of the first policy forum, the topic of which was Health Insurance for All Americans. These panelists represented a cross-section of the forum participants, and included:

John Rother, director of Policy and Strategy for AARP. Rother is responsible for the federal and state public policies of AARP, for international initiatives and for formulating the organization’s overall strategic direction. He is an authority on Medicare, managed care, long-term care, Social Security, pensions and the challenges facing the baby boomer generation.

Linda Dillman, executive vice president of Risk Management, Benefits and Sustainability at Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Since joining Wal-Mart in 1991, she has held several key information systems management positions. She was named to Fortune magazine’s list of the “50 Most Powerful Women in Business” every year from 2003 to 2007.

Michael Cascone Jr., chairman emeritus of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida. During his tenure as chief executive officer, the company continued to increase the number of Floridians it served to more than 6 million and maintained external financial ratings that were among the highest in the country. Cascone currently serves on the board of The Alliance for Advancing Nonprofit Healthcare and on the advisory council for the University of North Florida’s Center for Global Health and Medical Diplomacy.

Ashley Thompson, director of Policy for the American Hospital Association (AHA), the national organization representing all types of hospitals, health care networks, and their patients and communities. Thompson leads the association’s ongoing development of a national framework for improving America’s health and health care. She also is responsible for the development of policy positions on emerging issues such as pay-for-performance and transparency.

Universal Coverage