<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19046">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>
<DIV id=fb-root></DIV>
<DIV class=header>
<DIV class=left><A href="http://www.nytimes.com/"><IMG border=0 hspace=0
alt="The New York Times" align=left
src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/nytlogo153x23.gif"></A>
<HR align=left SIZE=1>
</DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=timestamp>April 25, 2011</DIV>
<DIV class=kicker></DIV>
<H1><NYT_HEADLINE type=" " version="1.0">So Much for That Ounce of
Prevention</NYT_HEADLINE></H1><NYT_BYLINE></NYT_BYLINE><NYT_TEXT>
<DIV id=articleBody><NYT_CORRECTION_TOP></NYT_CORRECTION_TOP>
<P>House Republicans are so bent on blocking any and all aspects of health care
reform that they have passed a bill that would eliminate a farsighted program —
the Prevention and Public Health Fund — intended to help states and communities
prevent diseases. Eliminating the fund would save roughly $16 billion over the
course of a decade, a small amount in the context of a trillion-dollar health
care reform. The loss to states and local communities would be considerable.
</P>
<P>Although most of the health care reforms are devoted to improving care for
the sick, the new fund is an important effort to stop people from getting ill —
saving lives and money. It would support public health programs to prevent
obesity, heart disease, diabetes and cancer, boost vaccination levels, and
reduce smoking, among other things. The money could also help state and local
health departments build laboratories, bolster their capacity to track
epidemics, and train public health workers. </P>
<P>A wide range of health organizations, including the American Cancer Society
and the American Heart Association, have signed letters in support of the
project. But in floor debate, various Republicans insisted the fund gave too
much power to the secretary of health and human services to decide how to
distribute the money. </P>
<P>One Republican worried that the fund might be used to support elective
abortions, a highly unlikely prospect. Another suggested that the secretary
could use the money to buy political advertising on behalf of President Obama
and health care reform. That is far-fetched. </P>
<P>The law clearly says the money must be spent for prevention, wellness and
public health activities, and Congress can always pass legislation directing the
secretary to finance favored programs or blocking spending on programs it
opposes. </P>
<P>The point of giving the secretary this guaranteed money was to try to
insulate implementation of a crucial element of health reform from the highly
politicized annual appropriations process. This latest gambit from the House
Republicans shows just why that is so important. The Senate should reject this
bill. </P><NYT_CORRECTION_BOTTOM>
<DIV
class=articleCorrection></DIV></NYT_CORRECTION_BOTTOM><NYT_UPDATE_BOTTOM></NYT_UPDATE_BOTTOM></DIV></NYT_TEXT><BR>
<CENTER></CENTER><NOSCRIPT class=noscript-show></NOSCRIPT>
<DIV id=upNextWrapper>
<DIV style="RIGHT: -410px" id=upNext></FONT><FONT
size=2>____________________________________<BR>Wayne A. Fox<BR>1009 Karen
Lane<BR>PO Box 9421<BR>Moscow, ID 83843</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A href="mailto:waf@moscow.com">waf@moscow.com</A><BR>208
882-7975<BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>