Greg Ganske: “That is an incredible but true story. It shows that that reviewer did not know what she was talking about, or he was…”

“That is an incredible but true story. It shows that that reviewer did not know what she was talking about, or he was talking about, I do not know which. But I know how it happened. This reviewer was sitting at a computer terminal, and she saw ``Respiratory distress''; moved up the algorithm, ``Ventilator''; moved up the algorithm, ``Poor prognosis.'' The next question you ask is, have you thought about home ventilation? Let me tell the Members, that is a situation where this little boy's life was hanging in the balance. There is nobody that I know of, including myself or my wife, who is a physician, that could take a child in that situation home without all the technology that you would need in that intensive care unit and have a chance of that little boy surviving. Yet that is the kind of recommendations that we are getting from people that should not be giving the recommendations. That is why part of this legislation we are talking about says that if you are going to deny care, the denial of care has to come from somebody who is legitimate and qualified to understand the situation in order to deny the care. Then the legislation says that if you do not agree with that denial of care, you can appeal it, but the appeal has to be adjudicated on a timely basis, not 6 months from now, when, like this poor unfortunate lady, you may no longer be in this world.”