In the video below, Dr. Peterson Pierre, M.D., confirms what Minnesota State Senator and Dr. Scott Jensen, M.D., revealed. Senator Jensen explains that hospital administrations have an incentive to diagnose and treat a person for COVID-19. The system is financially skewed toward diagnosing and treating COVID-19 even though the patient may not actually be ill from COVID-19. The patients may be in the hospital for an entirely different reason, but if they test positive for COVID-19 or they are diagnosed as having COVID-19 then the hospital hits the financial jackpot and can begin raking in the financial windfall from the federal government through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES Act).
For example, a hospital is reimbursed $5,000 for ordinary pneumonia under Medicare. But under the CARES Act, the hospital can charge the federal government $13,000 if that same person tests positive for COVID-19 or is diagnosed as having COVID-19. Although the patient is being treated for pneumonia, he is put on the COVID-19 billing rolls. If the patient is subsequently put on a ventilator, the payment from the federal government through the CARES Act goes up to $39,000.
Please understand that mechanical ventilation is a dangerous last-resort treatment. Studies have shown that between 66% and 86% of COVID-19 patients placed under mechanical ventilation die. One study reported that 31 of 32 (97%) mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients died
Mortality rates for those who received mechanical ventilation in the 18-to-65 and older-than-65 age groups were 76.4% and 97.2%, respectively. Mortality rates for those in the 18-to-65 and older-than-65 age groups who did not receive mechanical ventilation were 1.98% and 26.6%, respectively.
Compare the 76.4% of those 18 to 25 years old COVID-19 patients who were put on mechanical ventilators and subsequently died with only 1.98% of COVID-19 hospital patients 19 to 65 years old who were not ventilated and who died. We find that the mechanical ventilators caused a 39 fold increase in deaths (+3,900%). Mechanical ventilation is a death sentence. The federal authorities knew it beforehand and the greedy hospitals designed their protocols accordingly. Among the 2,634 COVID-19 New York City hospital patients who were discharged or died on or before April 4, 2020, approximately 12.2% (320) of them received invasive mechanical ventilation. That represents a $12,480,000 payout to the New York City hospitals.
Please make no mistake about it; mechanical ventilation is a deadly treatment. It is perverse to incentivize hospitals to administer such a dangerous protocol to treat a disease, unless you want to kill people. Hospitals who have been incentivized by the prospect of a financial windfall have turned to mechanical ventilation to treat COVID-19 when it is not otherwise appropriate.
Lest you think that this is some kind of fantastic exaggeration, USA Today, which is a left-wing liberal publication, did a fact check of Senator Jensen’s allegations and determined the following:
We rate the claim that hospitals get paid more if patients are listed as COVID-19 and on ventilators as TRUE
Dr. Pierre further alleges that the hospitals are financially incentivized to administer the toxic drug, remdesivir. I explain the danger and ineffectiveness of remdesivir in the following two articles:
Upon checking the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services, I found that Dr. Pierre’s allegation is true. Hospitals are given a “20% add-on payment under Section 3710 of the CARES Act” if they administer remdesivir to a patient diagnosed with COVID-19.
The ICD-10-PCS billing codes for the CARES Act add-on payment for remdesivir are XW033E5 (peripheral vein introduction) and XW043E5 (central vein introduction).
Add the financial incentives to administer remdesivir is the fact that the FDA has blocked the administration of safe and effective treatments like ivermectin. The FDA has ruled:
That statement by the FDA is not true. There have been 63 studies of the safety and effectiveness of ivermectin in treating COVID-19. Meta-analysis of those studies found an average of 69% and 86% improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis. Those numbers are probably conservative because researchers found a negative bias against ivermectin in a review of the studies. The researchers determined that the statistical probability for the studies to falsely portray a positive outcome for ivermectin is one in one trillion.
I explain the deviousness of the FDA’s attack on Ivermectin in the following article:
For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. 1 Timothy 6:10.
* * *