Reprint of an Editorial from the Las Vegas Sun (read the original article here)

The Times misses the point: Working for all Nevadans isn’t a problem
Wednesday, Sept. 7, 2011 | 2 a.m.

As part of a series on members of Congress and the causes they champion, The New York Times on Tuesday published an article about Nevada Rep. Shelley Berkley and her advocacy for health care with the foreboding headline, “A Congresswoman’s Cause Is Often Her Husband’s Gain.”

The newspaper focused on her support of a kidney transplant program at University Medical Center, noting that her husband, Dr. Larry Lehrner, is a leading kidney specialist whose practice includes a contract with the hospital and a dozen dialysis treatment centers. The article suggested that her advocacy for better treatment is a conflict of interest because her husband’s practice has benefited as a result.

“The intermingling of Ms. Berkley’s public and private life, though, is striking even among her peers on Capitol Hill,” the article states.

Seriously?

It is no secret that Berkley, who is running for the U.S. Senate, is married to a doctor and that she is a strong advocate for quality health care. The Times’ article pointed out that Berkley, along with other members of the congressional delegation, pushed to keep the UMC kidney transplant center open after it ran into problems with federal regulators. Because her husband’s practice has a contract with the hospital, there must be a conflict, right?

Wrong.

Berkley was correct to advocate for UMC. The state had no other transplant center, and as a result of her work, the UMC center is

now improved, and Nevadans don’t have to leave the state for care. The idea that her advocacy on behalf of the good of all Nevadans is some sort of conflict of interest is ridiculous. (The Times didn’t mention that she has opposed tort reform measures pushed by doctors’ groups that would have helped her husband.)

The larger issue is that voters are being asked to accept the premise that it would be unethical for a lawmaker to support legislation that would benefit the public if it would also benefit his or her spouse’s profession.

If that is the case, voters would have to reject every lawmaker with a spouse in the military who supports better armor, increased pay or better benefits for the troops, or any lawmaker whose spouse is a firefighter and advocates for better fire safety regulations that benefit the public. Or, to extend that reasoning, any doctors in Congress who vote on health care policy.

Absent any other evidence of unethical action by Berkley, and we know of none, the voters need to keep their perspective. Her advocacy wasn’t driven for personal gain, it was aimed at helping Nevadans. Berkley has always passionately worked to help Nevadans, first and foremost. That’s not a conflict, that’s good representation.

Berkley Campaign Statement on New York Times Article

The New York Times Attacks Nevada’s Only Kidney Transplant Facility, Ignores Key Facts

The New York Times story attacks Nevada’s only kidney transplant facility and ignored crucial facts in order to drive a misleading narrative about Congresswoman Shelley Berkley’s efforts to improve care for sick patients in Nevada. Shelley Berkley has a long history of fighting for better healthcare for patients — she has sponsored or cosponsored 78 pieces of healthcare legislation that are not related to kidney care including osteoporosis, cancer, hepatitis C, and heart disease.

“While the New York Times may not care about the healthcare needs of my fellow Nevadans, I do. I will never stop fighting on behalf of my constituents just because my husband is a doctor — as I won’t stop standing up for veterans because my father served in World War II,” said Shelley Berkley. “I have always worked closely with Democrats and Republicans over many years to put the health of Nevadans above all else, making quality care available to veterans and to patients suffering from cancer, diabetes, autism, heart disease, kidney disease, and other illnesses and will continue to do so in the future.”

In 2008, the University Medical Center reached out to the entire congressional delegation, including Republican Reps. Dean Heller and Jon Porter and Congresswoman Berkley to save the state’s only kidney transplant center and prevent sick patients in Nevada from having to Phoenix, San Diego and other facilities out of state in order to receive transplants. In fact, Republican Congressman Porter’s office reached out to Congresswoman’s Berkley and requested that she helped lead the effort to save UMC.

The New York Times also ignored the fact that this is old news. The government watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington said in 2008 that Shelley’s work to keep UMC open was not a conflict of interest.

Shelley Berkley has always been a champion for patients, including the more than 4,000 Nevadans diagnosed with renal failure each year, and she will always fight to make sure these patients have the best care possible.

THE FACTS THE NEW YORK TIMES IGNORED

Nevada’s Congressional Delegation Saved the State’s Only Kidney Transplant Program

The New York Times ignored several key facts in its recent reporting on Congresswoman Berkley’s record on kidney care. The New York times may not care if sick patients in Nevada have access to a kidney transplant center in their state, but Nevadans do care and so does Shelley Berkley. Here are the facts that the Times ignored

  • UMC Reached Out to the Entire Congressional Delegation to Ask for Help. Faced with losing Medicare funding and being forced to close the state’s only kidney transplant center, the University Medical Center reached out to Nevada’s congressional delegation and asked them to intervene.
  • Bipartisan Effort Included then-Rep. Dean Heller and was led by Rep. Porter. The entire congressional delegation, Reps. Porter, Heller and Berkley wrote a letter and had meetings with Medicare officials to help save the program. Rep. Porter reached out to Berkley’s office to suggest a joint letter and was the first official to meet with the head of Medicare.
  • This is OLD NEWS…Consumer Watchdog Group Said Berkley Had No Conflict of Interest in Helping Save UMC. The government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), stated that Berkley’s work to ensure her constituents had access to kidney care was not a conflict of interest because her husband did not have a direct financial tie to Medicare.
  • Patients Would Have to Travel Hundreds of Miles Out of State for Care, Leading to Steep Costs. If the program had been revoked, sick patients would have had to travel at least 300 miles out-of-state to Arizona or California for care. News reports noted patients could face steep travel costs as well as up to three months of recovery out-of-state without their network of family and friends.
  • More Than 4,000 People Die Each Year Waiting for a Kidney Transplant.  In Nevada, 4,134 People Were Diagnosed with Renal Failure in 2008.

UMC Sought Help from Congressional Delegation to Save the Program

UMC’s Kidney Transplant Program Nearly Lost Medicare Funding, Which Would Force the Program to Close. In 2008, the University Medical Center (UMC) kidney transplant program nearly lost its Medicare funding due to deficiencies cited by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid. Losing that funding would have forced the transplant program to close. [Las Vegas Sun, 6/1/09]

UMC Sought Help from Nevada’s Congressional Delegation. UMC Chief Executive Officer Kathy Silver said “…the hospital has already sought help from the state’s congressional delegation, which is now pleading with CMS to reconsider.” [LVRJ, 10/25/08]

  • Hospital Officials Said Hospital Was Being Unfairly Penalized.  According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, “Hospital officials and others say the program is being unfairly penalized. One of the deaths used to justify the CMS findings was a suicide, they said. Were it not for that death, UMC Chief Executive Officer Kathy Silver said, the program would be in compliance.”  [LVRJ, 10/25/08]

Nevada’s Delegation Urged the Head of Medicare to Reconsider. Because of the transplant center’s importance to the region, the political appeals for leniency included a letter and personal conversations with the head of Medicare by Reps. Shelley Berkley, Dean Heller and Jon Porter expressing their “strong disagreement” with the agency’s decision. [Las Vegas Sun, 11/4/08; LVRJ, 10/29/08]

Rep. Jon Porter Was The First Member Of The Nevada Delegation To Meet With CMS Officials About UMC’s Kidney Transplant Program. According to the Review-Journal, “Nevada’s only kidney transplant program might have a lifeline. Rep. Jon Porter R-Nev…said Wednesday he has had productive conversations twice in two days with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services… Porter said. ‘I have made it clear to CMS that this is a critical program for Nevadans…Porter met with Kerry Weems, CMS’ acting administrator, on Tuesday in Las Vegas. He spoke with CMS officials again Wednesday while back in Washington. David Cherry, a spokesman for Berkley, said the congresswoman is scheduled to meet with CMS officials sometime today.” [Review-Journal, 10/30/08]

Rep. Porter’s Office Initiated the Letter. Staff from Rep. Porter e-mailed the offices of Reps. Berkley and Heller to suggest a joint letter after urging from UMC. [E-Mail from Rep. Porter’s office to Rep. Berkley’s office, 10/23/08]

OLD NEWS: Consumer Watchdog Group Already Said There Was No Conflict of Interest

Consumer Watchdog Group: No Conflict Of Interest For Berkley. Officials from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) said Berkley’s advocacy for UMC was not a conflict of interest because her husband, Dr. Larry Lehrner, does not have a direct financial tie to Medicare. Lehrner handles the business aspects of the contract, not the medical services. [Las Vegas Sun, 11/4/08]

UMC is Nevada’s Only Kidney Transplant Center & Has Performed More Than 180 Transplants

UMC’s Transplant Program was Recertified in 2009. UMC announced in June 2009 that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services had recertified its kidney transplant program. [Las Vegas Sun, 6/1/09]

UMC is Nevada’s Only Transplant Center. The University Medical Center in Las Vegas is Nevada’s only organ transplant center. [UMC Release, 3/30/11]

More Than 180 People Have Received Kidney Transplants at UMC. To date, more than 180 people have received kidney transplants at UMC. [UMC web site, accessed 9/02/11]

Transplant Program Has Success Rate of Higher than 95%. UMC kidney transplant patients now enjoy a success rate of greater than 95% at one year.  [UMC web site, accessed 9/02/11]

More Than 4,000 People Die Waiting for a Kidney Transplant Each Year. Each year, more than 4,000 Americans die waiting for a kidney – about 12 a day.  [LVRJ, 2/22/09]

2008: There Were 4,134 Diagnoses Of Renal Failure In Nevada. “In 2008 there were 4,134 diagnoses of renal failure in Nevada. The average length of stay was 5.19 days for both sexes. The average charge was $38,785.”  [Norah Langendorf, M.Ed, Nevada Compare Care, “Renal Failure & Kidney Transplants, A Comparison of Hospitals and Trends in Nevada,” 2008]

Without UMC’s Program, Patients Would Have to Travel Hundreds of Miles to CA or Arizona for Care

Threat of Program’s Closing Put Patients Into Disarray. The Review-Journal reported in 2008 that Kaylin Somavia, a patient’s mother stated, “This is an absolute nightmare…We haven’t even begun to figure out where she is going to have this procedure done if our lawmakers can’t get CMS to change their minds.” [LVRJ, 10/28/08]

Kidney Transplant Patients Would Have to Travel to Scottsdale, Arizona or Los Angeles. Patients in need of kidney transplants would have had to travel to out-of-state facilities such as the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Ariz., or UCLA, officials said.  Previously, when the program was smaller, organs from Nevada donors were being sent out of state because program unable to do transplants. [LVRJ, 10/25/08]

Patients Would Have to Travel at least 300 Miles. The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported in 2008 that Alexa Blair, who was fighting end-stage renal disease with dialysis several times a week, was left with one option when CMS decided to revoke UCM transplant privileges—travel at least 300 miles to an out-of-state facility. [LVRJ, 10/28/08]

Patients Would Face Steep Travel Costs.  Blair said her insurer would pay up to $10,000 for travel expenses. However, since she and her mother will need an emergency flight, the cost of the flight alone could use up much of that money.  What remains will probably not be enough to support two people during the 12 weeks of follow-up care, she said. [LVRJ, 10/28/08]

Patients Expressed Concern about Costs. The Review-Journal reported that Betty Tolliver, the mother of a transplant victim, recalled her relief when she heard transplants at UMC could go forward, “There was just no way that patients and their loved ones could afford to live in another state for weeks or months during the transplant recovery period when follow-up care is so critical,’ she said.”  [LVRJ, 2/22/09]

Patients Would Have to Spend Up to 3 Months Out of State. The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that kidney transplant patient Alexa Blair was told by her transplant coordinator that if she had the procedure outside of Nevada, she should plan to stay near that facility up to 12 weeks. [LVRJ, 10/28/08]

Patients Would Have to Face Recovery Without Their Full Network of Friends and Family. The Review-Journal reported that Amy Allen, who underwent a kidney transplant at UMC, credited part of her recovery to the fact that her family and friends were close after the surgery. Without them, she said, ‘I don’t know if I would have made it’ emotionally and said she wouldn’t imagine undergoing a transplant in another state. [LVRJ, 10/28/08]

Berkley a Champion for Patients in Nevada

Berkley Co-Sponsored At Least 78 Bills Related To Various Medical Issues And Diseases. Berkley has sponsored or cosponsored 78 pieces of legislation outside of her work on kidney care to promote higher quality of care for sick patients in Nevada including those suffering with osteoporosis, cancer, hepatitis C, and heart disease. [106th] H.R.1070: Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention and Treatment Act of 1999; [106th] H.R.1816: Eliminate Colorectal Cancer Act of 1999; [106th] H.R.1857: Living Organ Donation Incentives Act of 1999; [106th] H.R.2498: Public Health Improvement Act; [106th] H.R.383: Women’s Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1999; [106th] H.R.3840: Medicare Osteoporosis Measurement Act of 2000; [106th] H.R.4069: Stamp Out Breast Cancer Reauthorization Act; [106th] H.R.457: Organ Donor Leave Act; [106th] H.R.762: Lupus Research and Care Amendments of 2000; [106th] H.R.925: Osteoporosis Early Detection and Prevention Act of 1999; [106th] H.R.933: Osteoporosis Federal Employee Health Benefits Standardization Act of 1999; [107th] H.R.326: Ovarian Cancer Research and Information Amendments of 2001; [107th] H.R.3278: Medicare Cholesterol Screening Coverage Act of 2001; [107th] H.R.3710: Colon Cancer Screen for Life Act of 2002; [107th] H.R.5031: Inflammatory Bowel Disease Act; [107th] H.R.536: Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act of 2001; [107th] H.R.595: Medicare Osteoporosis Measurement Act of 2001; [107th] H.R.689: Osteoporosis Federal Employee Health Benefits Standardization Act of 2001; [107th] H.R.887: Women’s Health and Cancer Rights Conforming Amendments of 2001; [108th] H.R.1068: Pancreatic Islet Cell Transplantation Act of 2003; [108th] H.R.1288: Access to Cancer Therapies Act of 2003; [108th] H.R.1422: Colon Cancer Screen for Life Act of 2003; [108th] H.R.1622: Quality Cancer Care Preservation Act; [108th] H.R.1746: Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act of 2003; [108th] H.R.1886: Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act of 2003; [108th] H.R.1916: Diabetes Prevention Access and Care Act; [108th] H.R.2151: Medicare Osteoporosis Measurement Act of 2003; [108th] H.R.290: Inflammatory Bowel Disease Act; [108th] H.R.3362: Cancer Screening Coverage Act of 2003; [108th] H.R.3438: Gynecologic Cancer Education and Awareness Act of 2003; [108th] H.R.3658: Stroke Treatment and Ongoing Prevention Act; [108th] H.R.3859: Early Treatment for HIV Act of 2004; [108th] H.R.4154: Osteoporosis Early Detection and Prevention Act of 2004; [109th] H.R.2231: Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act of 2005; [109th] H.R.2257: Medicare Osteoporosis Measurement Act of 2005; [109th] H.R.3005: Pulmonary Hypertension Research Act of 2005; [109th] H.R.312: Breast Cancer Research Stamp Reauthorization Act; [109th] H.R.3369: Attacking Viral Influenza Across Nations Act of 2005; [109th] H.R.4747: Heart Disease Education, Analysis, and Research, and Treatment for Women Act; [109th] H.R.583: Arthritis Prevention, Control, and Cure Act of 2005;  [109th] H.R.898: Stroke Treatment and Ongoing Prevention Act; [110th] H.R.1014: Heart Disease Education, Analysis Research, and Treatment for Women Act; [110th] H.R.1032: Alzheimer’s Treatment and Caregiver Support Act; [110th] H.R.1064: Breast Cancer Research Stamp Reauthorization Act; [110th] H.R.1078: Comprehensive Cancer Care Improvement Act of 2007; [110th] H.R.1113: Inflammatory Bowel Disease Research Enhancement Act; [110th] H.R.1132: National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program Reauthorization Act of 2007; [110th] H.R.1157: Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act of 2008; [110th] H.R.1188: Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Research, Cure, and Care Act of 2007; [110th] H.R.1283: Arthritis Prevention, Control, and Cure Act of 2008; [110th] H.R.1926: Colon Cancer Screen for Life Act of 2007; [110th] H.R.2210: Diabetes Prevention Access and Care Act of 2007; [110th] H.R.2468: Ovarian and Cervical Cancer Awareness Act of 2007; [110th] H.R.2552: Hepatitis C Epidemic Control and Prevention Act of 2007; [110th] H.R.2922: Preventing Diabetes in Medicare Act of 2007; [110th] H.R.3042: Medicare Early Detection of Cancer Promotion Act of 2007; [110th] H.R.3326: Early Treatment for HIV Act of 2007; [110th] H.R.3689: Ovarian Cancer Biomarker Research Act of 2007; [110th] H.R.5265: Paul D. Wellstone Muscular Dystrophy Community Assistance, Research, and Education Amendments of 2008; [110th] H.R.6203: Cure and Understanding through Research for Alzheimer’s Act of 2008; [110th] H.R.758: Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act of 2008; [111th] H.R.1032: Heart Disease Education, Analysis Research, and Treatment for Women Act; [111th] H.R.1210: Arthritis Prevention, Control, and Cure Act of 2010; [111th] H.R.1362: National Neurological Diseases Surveillance System Act of 2010; [111th] H.R.1402: Catalyst to Better Diabetes Care Act of 2009; [111th] H.R.1616: Early Treatment for HIV Act of 2009; [111th] H.R.2275: Inflammatory Bowel Disease Research and Awareness Act;  [111th] H.R.2941: To reauthorize and enhance Johanna’s Law to increase public awareness and knowledge with respect to gynecologic cancers.; [111th] H.R.2987: Cure and Understanding through Research for Alzheimer’s Act of 2009; [111th] H.R.3286: Alzheimer’s Breakthrough Act of 2009; [111th] H.R.3559: Supporting ColoRectal Examination and Education Now (SCREEN) Act of 2009; [111th] H.R.678: Huntington’s Disease Parity Act of 2009; [111th] H.R.745: Pancreatic Cancer Research and Education Act; [111th] H.R.930: Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Research, Cure, and Care Act of 2009; [112nd] H.R.111: Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act of 2011; [112nd] H.R.1386: Health Outcomes, Planning, and Education for Alzheimer’s Act; [112nd] H.R.2020: Preservation of Access to Osteoporosis Testing for Medicare Beneficiaries Act of 2011; [112nd] H.R.733: Pancreatic Cancer Research and Education Act [Thomas.gov, accessed 8/19/11]