Kendall Antekeier joined The Heartland Institute in June 2011 as the Legislative Specialist on Health Care. Kendall's responsibilities include interacting with elected officials and staff on health care issues; tracking new legislation; and drafting responses to emerging issues via talking points, news releases, and op-ed pieces, with the goal of educating legislators and informing them about free-market ideas. Prior to becoming a member of the Heartland staff, Kendall graduated from Saint Mary's College in Notre Dame, Indiana in 2011. There she earned a dual-degree in political science and communication studies, as well as completed scholarly research on the film Frost/Nixon, evaluating its implications regarding the relationship between journalists and politicians. As a student, Kendall worked with the Saint Joseph County Republican Party in South Bend, Indiana, aiding the Party's communication efforts by reporting on both local and national issues and facilitating contact with County candidates. She also held a communication internship position at WZZM 13 News in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Posts by author:

Kendall Antekeier

Colleges Required to Cover Birth Control For Students

The Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate requiring all employers to to provide abortifacients, sterilization, and contraceptives to female employees as “preventative care,” sparked an uproar of criticism. The Obama administration, in response, proposed a potential compromise that would allow religious institutions to be, at least in part, exempt from the mandate, but another administration announcement on the topic has resulted in similar disapproval.

According to The Hill’s, “Healthwatch“, the Obama administration will require colleges and universities to treat students as “employees,” providing them with contraception without copay. It also claimed there will be a religious exemption. [click to continue…]

{ 0 comments }

PPACA Video Series: What’s Really In The Law?

At 3,256 pages, to say the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is complex would be a understatement. It’s no wonder why members of the public (and some politicians) are still unsure of what is really in the law.

That’s why Dr. Jill Vecchio, a practicing physican and President of the Colorado chapter of Docs4PatientCare, made a video series breaking down PPACA, outlining both its potential and guaranteed implications. Covering everything from costs to constitutionality (or lack thereof,) the  7 part series explains what this law “means to all Americans.”

If you’d like to educate yourself, or others, on the contents of the federal health law, Dr. Vecchio’s first video can be viewed below, and the entire series can be found here.

{ 0 comments }

Where’s The Honesty When It Comes To Health Insurance Exchanges?

Whether to implement a health insurance exchange remains at the top of state debate as uncertainty over the future of the federal health law continues.

More and more states are choosing to resist implementing a health insurance exchange, at least until after the Supreme Court decision and/or the 2012 presidential election. However, there are those, like Idaho Gov. Butch Otter, who continue to push state-implementation. Gov. Otter has actively supported the use of a $20.4 million federal grant to establish an exchange in Idaho, but, not unlike most health exchange supporters, he has routinely used invalid information to do so. [click to continue…]

{ 0 comments }

UPDATE: HHS Says Units Over 70 Will Receive “Comfort Care” Instead of Actual Neurological Care

Those who have implied that the President’s health care law will establish “death panels,” have encountered excessive criticism. Yet, more and more information is being released identifying that rationing of care will in fact occur, and that it will be done by government bureaucracies.

A self-proclaimed Chicago neurosurgeon called into the The Mark Levin Show on WLS 890 last month to reveal a supposed Health and Human Services (HHS) document, associated with the Obama Administration’s federal health law, that will inhibit patients over the age of 70 from receiving neurological care. Instead of receiving “advanced neurosurgical care,” the caller claimed, “units,” (meaning patients), over 70 will receive care to make them “comfortable.” In order to provide the neurosurgical care, he stated, a physician would have to appeal to a “ethics committee” made up of administrators, not physicians, to determine if the services can be administered.

[click to continue…]

{ 0 comments }

HHS Says “Units” Over 70 Will Receive “Comfort Care” Instead Of Actual Neurological Care

Those who have implied that the President’s health care law will establish “death panels,” have encountered excessive criticism. Yet, more and more information is being released identifying that rationing of care will in fact occur, and that it will be done by government bureaucracies.

For example, a phone call into The Mark Levin Show on WLS 890 from a Chicago neurosurgeon last month revealed that a Health and Human Services (HHS) document, associated with the Obama Administration’s federal health law, will inhibit patients over the age of 70 from receiving neurological care. Instead of receiving “advanced neurosurgical care,” “units,” (meaning patients), over 70 will receive care to make them “comfortable.” In order to provide the neurosurgical care, a physician would have to appeal to a “ethics committee” made up of administrators, not physicians, to determine if the services can be administered.

This document, not surprisingly, has not been presented to the public.

Listen to the call by clicking the link below:

Obamacare Rationing – A Phone Call From A Neurosurgeon

{ 12 comments }

States Skeptical Feds Can Create Exchanges

There are several reasons why the establishment of federally run health insurance exchanges seems unlikely, and more and more states are starting to call the federal government’s bluff.

One of the most major and obvious reasons is the the federal government does not have the funds to establish federal exchanges. Section 1311 of the federal health law provides for federal subsidies of state health insurance exchanges, but no such funding exists for federally run exchanges. This “error” in the law (yet another one) will require the law to be reopened so that Congress can pass new appropriations, which in this political climate may be unlikely. At the very least it would be near impossible to accomplish before the federal deadline.

An extremely detailed Kaiser Health Report, produced in collaboration with The Washington Post, outlines a variety of other reasons why implementation of a federal health insurance exchange seems to be a hollow threat.

{ 0 comments }

ACIP Limits Vaccine Availability

The Heartland Institute has been diligently following the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice’s (ACIP) decision on whether to recommend meningitis vaccination for infants. With three different meningitis vaccines under consideration, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) held four ”public” meetings “to gather public opinion” on the topic. The ACIP is expected to make a decision within the next few months.

In the meantime, however, the ACIP has come out with a recommendation for a different meningitis vaccine for infants, MenACWY-D. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved this 2-dose vaccine for all infants between the ages of 9 and 23 months. However, the ACIP has decided to limit the availability of this drug, recommending it only for infants with “certain risk factors” or those who are at “high risk” of developing the illness. (A ACIP recommendation directly affects how available a vaccine will be on the market.)
[click to continue…]

{ 0 comments }

Frequently Asked Questions About HSAs

A recent report from Kaiser Health News dives into frequently asked questions about health savings accounts (HSAs).

The report suggests that HSAs may be “problematic for low-income families.” Therefore, The Heartland Institute suggests other reforms, paired with the expansion of HSAs, to benefit such individuals. Those reforms, as stated in our Patriot’s Toolbox, include:

  • Establishing high risk pools, which provide subsidized comprehensive health insurance to those with serious medical conditions. Such pools are typically funded by combination of state subsidies and tax credits for insurer assessments. Thirty-four states had high-risk pools in 2006.
  • Replacing the tax exemption for employer-provided health insurance with a tax credit or personal deduction that can be used to purchase health insurance and make deposits into HSAs.
  • Repeal the community rating and guaranteed issue laws, particularly in the individual market, that force the healthy to subsidize the unhealthy, driving many people out of the private insurance market.
  • Restricting eligibility for government health insurance programs, such as Medicaid and SCHIP, so that private insureres can sell affordable insurance products to middle-income families that can afford to pay the premiums without public aid.

[click to continue…]

{ 0 comments }

CDC Still Stalling…

In the most recent GOP debate, Gov. Rick Perry and Rep. Michelle Bachmann tussled over the particulars of Perry requiring Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccinations.

Though he now admits it a mistake, Perry had attempted to require the vaccination to protect young girls from HPV, a leading cause of cervical cancer. Bachmann argued that, because of his decision, Perry was an advocate of heavy government control.

However, regardless of the politically charged arguments from these presidential-hopefuls, there is a different vaccine that requires far more attention that it is receiving. [click to continue…]

{ 1 comment }

Federal Government To Fund Planned Parenthood?

In a 3-2 decision, New Hampshire’s Executive Council voted to withdrawal taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood back in June.

However, according to a report from the Concord Monitor, in what is ultimately an overreach of federal authority, the federal government will directly fund the family planning facility.

According to the report, the state’s decision meant that it had to find another way to have state-wide access to family planning services, a federal requirement. New Hampshire was struggling to do so, as its focus was to not have taxpayer funding supporting abortions.

That’s when federal government stepped in. [click to continue…]

{ 0 comments }

← Previous Entries