{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02212078651685393, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009129213483146067, 'mean_word_length': 5.074626865671642, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Health care reform 2009-2010: a neurosurgeon's perspective.

Organized neurosurgery through its Washington Committee developed a number of principles against which all health care reform legislation was measured, and none of the bills were acceptable. The American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons (AANS/CNS) worked through multiple venues to modify or reject the legislation. In the author's view, the American Medical Association (AMA) supported the bills because its board of trustees was too focused on eliminating the sustainable growth rate, or SGR. Physicians failed to shape the health care debate. The leadership of many medical organizations was not prepared for the debate. Many had no experience in this arena and thus were too willing to let lobbyists dictate their position. In the future there are 3 things organized neurosurgery must do: be prepared, never give in, and stick with their principles. Organized neurosurgery must be prepared by developing leaders that have experience in the full spectrum of organized medicine. Neurosurgeons must not count on others, and because the specialty is small all must be involved. Neurosurgeons must never give in. Organized neurosurgery started 2009 with little support for its positions but by the end of the debate had convinced many other organizations, representing almost 500,000 physicians, to take their position. From an organizational point of view, neurosurgeons should now do 3 things: 1) reform or reject the AMA; 2) develop a real surgical coalition; and 3) change the current political environment. Neurosurgeons must also follow their principles. In the author's opinion the most important principles are: health care as a responsibility, medical liability reform, and the right to privately contract. In the United Kingdom and Germany, where health care is considered a right rather than a responsibility, bureaucratic entities determine whether you have the right to health care just as the Independent Payment Advisory Board, established under the new health care reform law in the US, will soon limit by rationing of health care under the guise of cutting costs. If, however, health care is a responsibility not a right, the obligation is shifted from society to the individual. It puts the patient and the doctor in charge. It is a far better mechanism to control costs and preserve quality without rationing. It becomes our obligation to have health care, and it puts us in charge of our destiny. Proven liability reform was not included in the health care legislation despite the fact that up to $200 billion per year is spent on defensive medicine. Another and possibly the most important principle ignored in the legislation is the right for a patient and his/her physician to privately contract under Medicare without penalty.