Whatever you want or need from the U.S. government, it’s here on USA.gov.

Our Vision

As the U.S. government’s official web portal, USA.gov makes it easy for the public to get U.S. government information and services on the web. USA.gov also serves as the catalyst for a growing electronic government.

Who “Owns” USA.gov?

Many people and organizations have had a hand in creating our comprehensive, award-winning portal to government. And the government worked fast—Internet time—to launch it and to keep it responsive to the American people and the world.

USA.gov is an interagency initiative administered by the U.S. General Services Administration’s Office of Citizen Services and Innovative Technologies. It got its start when Internet entrepreneur Eric Brewer, whose early research was funded by the Department of Defense, offered to donate a powerful search engine to government. That gift helped accelerate the government’s earlier work to create a government-wide portal.

In June 2000, President Clinton announced the gift from the Federal Search Foundation, a nonprofit organization established by Brewer, and instructed that an official U.S. web portal be launched within 90 days. USA.gov went online on September 22, 2000 under the name FirstGov.gov. The GSA and 22 federal agencies funded the initiative in 2001 and 2002. Since 2002, USA.gov has received an annual appropriation from the U.S. Congress. In January 2007, FirstGov.gov officially changed its name to USA.gov.

So, who “owns” USA.gov? The American people.

There is a handy site for Texas who want to know who represents them, and how to contact that person. Just visit http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us.

The Los Angeles Times reports, “The Obama administration announced a broad new initiative Tuesday to reduce medical errors, partnering with private insurers, business leaders, hospitals and patient advocates to tackle a problem that kills thousands of Americans every year.” This “campaign, funded by the healthcare overhaul the president signed last year, aims to cut by 40% over the next three years the number of harmful preventable conditions such as infections that patients acquire in the hospital.” HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius made the announcement about the Partnership for Patients initiative, and CMS Administrator Donald Berwick noted that the initiative has “big goals.”

The AP reports, “Sebelius said the new national Partnership for Patients will help other hospitals adopt those proven safety strategies.” The program “is funded by $1 billion from the new healthcare law, but has the potential to save Medicare up to $10 billion in that same time.”

The New York Times “Prescriptions” blog quotes Sebelius as saying, “Americans go the hospital to get well, but millions of patients are injured because of preventable complications and accidents. … Working closely with hospitals, doctors, nurses, patients, families and employers, we will support efforts to help keep patients safe, improve care, and reduce costs. Working together, we can help eliminate preventable harm to patients.”

According to the CNN “The Chart” blog, the initiative “will save 60,000 lives over the next three years by reducing millions of preventable hospital-related complications and injuries. Sebelius says the new partnership will also save about $35 billion in healthcare costs including $10 billion in Medicare savings.” Meanwhile, American Medical Association president Cecil Wilson, MD, said that the group’s “physicians will be encouraged to do everything they can to reduce adverse events and hospital readmissions.” Wilson added, “We know that if we ensure that a patient’s primary care physician receives their discharge papers within 24 hours of their release from the hospital, the likelihood of hospital readmission will be reduced.”

The Hill reports in its “Healthwatch” blog that HHS aims to accomplish the initiative’s goals “by disseminating best practices that have already allowed the nation’s best hospital systems to cut preventable errors significantly.” Berwick noted, “Blame and accusation are not the answers; teamwork, improvement are the answers.” The AMA’s Wilson is also quoted as saying, “We all need to do everything we can to avoid preventable patient illness and injuries while also working to ensure that patients are able to heal without complications.”

Reuters reports that another goal of the initiative is to cut hospital readmissions by at least 20 percent. Sebelius noted that 500 hospitals are already part of the effort.

CQ reports, “Because the program is voluntary, making good on the projections is initially going to require a disciplined effort by hospital and other healthcare CEOs to devote time and resources to the project — in addition to their efforts to comply with the many requirements of the healthcare law.” Berwick explained that “the changes needed in healthcare delivery to meet the goals of the project will help hospitals qualify in a few years for incentive payments under the health law to improve patient safety.”

The PBS NewsHour “The Rundown” blog reports, “The partnership will begin by asking hospitals to focus on nine types of medical mistakes where there is potential for dramatic reductions in harm. These include pressure ulcers, drug reactions, childbirth complications and surgical site infections.” Notably, Berwick will “oversee the new partnership.” He stated, “Through strong partnerships at national, regional, state and local levels … we are supporting the hospital community to significantly reduce harm to patients.

From the American Association for Justice news release.

Bloomberg News reports, “While companies say the 30-year-old review program is out-dated and inconsistent, lawmakers have criticized the FDA for not requiring substantial testing of new devices that developers claim are similar to existing products.” The agency “plans to clarify when clinical studies are required and create a council of top FDA experts to guarantee timely and predictable decision-making.” Notably, “about 3,000 new devices are cleared each year through the 510(k) program by demonstrating they are at least as safe and effective as legally marketed products for the same use. These applications rarely require tests in people, and they make up 90 percent of device approvals, according to a Government Accountability Office report in 2009.”

The Hill reports in its “Healthwatch” blog that the “FDA launched a review of the so-called 510(K) process 16 months ago following growing criticism that it is failing both the industry and consumers.” Jeffrey Shuren, director of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health at the FDA said, “We have been hearing major concerns about the program from industry, consumers, healthcare professionals and others.” Therefore, “these actions are intended to foster medical device innovation and support the safety and effectiveness of medical technologies in the United States.”

Reuters also quotes Shuren as saying that these changes will result in “a smarter medical device program that supports innovation, keeps jobs here at home, and brings important, safe, and effective technologies to patients quickly.”

The Wall Street Journal says that this move by the FDA is considered a victory for device makers, but the agency is denying that its decision was influenced by pressure from industry and some lawmakers. Shuren said, “We are implementing 47 [changes], and that’s a lot. … We went out with truly bold proposals” last year.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports, “The new rules drew a collective sigh of relief from the $350 billion medical technology industry, which has a considerable stronghold in Minnesota. But the activist group Public Citizen fired back that the agency cowed to industry pressKraft

From the American Association for Justice news release.

After further study the CPSC has now determined that the glasses were not “primarily” intended for use by children. Really? How many of your adult friends drink from Wizard of Oz glasses? Well, actually, a couple of my friends might do that, but I bet those glasses are used by many more children than by adults. Ridiculous.

When the Legislature convenes in January, it has to do more than agree with fed-up consumers that something ought to be done about this.

It has to do something.

It has to get these rates lower. That means fixing a broken system that lets insurance companies basically set their own rates with little or no control from the Texas Department of Insurance.

Lawmakers can’t be fooled by arguments from insurance companies that Texas has had a lot of major hurricanes. We’ve had two in the recent past, and many years of virtually no damage from tropical storms – like this year.

The biggest priority for the Legislature will be addressing the state’s budget shortfall of up to $25 billion. That’s a pocketbook issue for state government that cannot be ignored.

But homeowners insurance is a pocketbook issue for the people of Texas. The elected officials who represent them must not come home until they have delivered tangible relief here.

Of course that doesn’t stop politicians from proposing it, and thereby frightening the poor, the elderly, and the young Texans who rely on Medicaid for medical and nursing home care.

The article prompted an excellent response from Molly Dear Abshire, who is a Certified Elder Law attorney, and practices at the Wright Abshire law firm in Houston. This is her letter to the editor:

The recent article, “No Medicaid in Texas,” published on the front page of the Sunday, November 14, 2010 edition of the Houston Chronicle, exemplifies the sensitive subject of providing healthcare and healthcare reform in the nation. In the article, divisive rhetoric made by Gov. Rick Perry and other Republican state senators merely serves as political posturing and offers little in the way of solutions to the budget crisis facing state and local economies.

A common misperception of Medicaid is that program beneficiaries are only the indigent and undeserving. However, the majority of individuals who receive Medicaid benefits are the elderly, children and the developmentally disabled. These are people lacking a voice in the political process. Politicians calling for an opt-out from the federal Medicaid program offer little hope for improving the quality of care received by Medicaid recipients and fail to provide alternatives to the Medicaid program. Simply calling for a private health insurance solution is unfeasible and irresponsible.

Long-term care Medicaid goes beyond the payment of nursing home expenses, and less costly “waiver” programs are underfunded. Waiver programs, such as the Community Based Alternatives (“CBA”) and the Community Living Assistance and Support Services (“CLASS”) programs, provide healthcare and rehabilitative services in the Medicaid recipient’s home. These have been touted as more cost effective than nursing home care and, when appropriate, allow the individual to stay at home indefinitely. However, due to lack of funding and a lack of providers, these waiver programs have waiting lists of up to 10 years. Will this be the future for the elderly and disabled citizens of Texas?

What politicians fail to consider when seeking to opt-out of the Medicaid program is the severe toll such action would take upon families of long-term care Medicaid recipients. Often such recipients have elderly spouses who are physically unable to meet the needs of their spouse. In addition to the physical care-giving demands of the incapacitated spouse, the financial burden of providing care to the incapacitated spouse jeopardizes the “well” spouse’s ability to provide the basic necessities of life. With the average cost of nursing home care hovering at $4,500 per month, most couples quickly deplete their life savings to fund such care, leaving the spouse living outside of the nursing home in a meager existence.

If the Medicaid recipient is unmarried, their adult child, children or other close family members take on the burden of care. They often have minor children or employment, which makes providing adequate care for their incapacitated loved one impossible. Frequently, adult children do not live near their parents and are unable to move closer to provide care. Placement in a nursing home is sometimes the only option for giving the elderly or disabled individual the care they need. Therefore, the reality is that without the Medicaid program, vital nursing home care would be unattainable.

Statements like those made in Sunday’s article serve only to create additional stress and uncertainty among a disadvantaged group. As president of the Texas Chapter of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, and as an attorney in a firm specializing in servicing the needs the of elderly and disabled, my office is receiving calls from Medicaid recipients and their families who are terrified at the prospect of losing the Medicaid program’s life-saving benefits. Not only do long-term Medicaid benefits provide nursing home care for the recipient, but they also provide relief to the family who cannot afford nursing home care and is unable to care for the Medicaid recipient at home.

From the American Association for Justice news release.