Recent scrutiny of Hillary Clinton’s pneumonia diagnosis and Donald Trump’s gastroenterologist’s letter reveals how the dynamic is shifting in regard to health disclosures from presidential candidates. Past candidates and sitting presidents have approached health disclosures over the years, so there is no consistent precedent.
What are the rules? When running for public office, your life is an open book. The definition of open has changed over the years, though. If our current definition had been in effect in the 1960s, the secret visits by doctors to the White House might not have occurred. As the definition evolves, so does the public’s expectations of what candidates should disclose.
Go back to 1944: President Franklin D. Roosevelt was ill, but the public had no idea how ill he was. His doctor wrote a letter stating Roosevelt’s health was strong, and then FDR died from a massive stroke shortly after being elected. Much has been written about President John F. Kennedy, who publicly complained about his bad back (and related that to a war injury).
Unknown at the time, though, was that Kennedy had Addison’s disease — a condition where the glands don’t produce enough hormones and can lead to fatigue, joint pain and low blood sugar. At times, he was on eight medications, and his father sent ahead packages of medicines for trips that Kennedy made.
In more recent times, almost all candidates have at least released letters from their personal physicians providing a high-level overview of their health. Senator John McCain in the 2008 election made 1,200 pages of medical records available to a group of journalists, and he was declared “fit” by them. In the 1996 campaign, President Bill Clinton said, “The public has a right to know the condition of the president’s health.”
In 2016, the 24/7 news cycle, uptick in social media and citizen journalists tweeting observations means that for a candidate to be truly open, she or he must declare everything. Changes in a candidate’s medical history should be reported as soon as available. But what threshold is there for how significant the changes must be — or how serious the medical condition — in order to be reported? For example, is a campaign required to report that the candidate has a cold?
As a physician, I know a pneumonia diagnosis can vary greatly in seriousness—from seeming like a bad cold to being life-threatening. That kind of diagnosis should not be thrown around lightly. But our current system does not support a transparent approach to disclosing these diagnoses.
So what should we do? Some candidates have produced health summaries in past elections, but even Sen. McCain’s 1,200 pages were probably not his entire medical record. This is not to say anything was missing, but who decides what to include? We have seen through history that the candidate’s or president’s physician may not fully disclose the facts.
I like the idea of an independent panel of physicians reviewing the presidential candidates’ and vice-presidential candidates’ entire medical records— yes, all of it —and then reporting those findings to the public. The public may demand full access; so be it, not because the public will learn more, but because it is the transparent thing to do.
Interestingly, the Federal Election Commission currently requires no statement on health. Here’s an idea: the commission should modify the rules and require candidates to make their full medical records available to the commission within seven days of becoming the nominee. The Election Commission would be responsible for choosing the physicians to serve on the review panel, and the panel would release the results one month after the candidates are chosen. The commission could decide whether to release all the medical records to the public.
If we do this, candidates will know the rules in advance—as it is, with the murky rules, disclosure has become a political football. It is time we take a different approach that ensures a consistent and independent analysis of our candidates’ health, relying on professional opinions rather than those of political pundits.
Originally published by The Hill
Our new, national survey explores how patients and doctors believe we can work together to improve the nation's health care system. RSVP for our FREE discussion of the results Nov. 12 at the @TXMedCenter https://t.co/CPE6Li96NV #healthpolicy
Our new, national survey explores how patients and doctors believe we can work together to improve the nation's health care system. RSVP for our FREE discussion of the results Nov. 12 at the Texas Medical Center. https://t.co/PxrBf6RsR6 #healthpolicy https://t.co/2iezf0KXUT
What do consumers think of Medicare-for-all? How much do doctors want to get paid? And how can we REALLY fix U.S. health care for good? Hear the results of our annual survey Nov. 12 in Houston #healthpolicy https://t.co/CPE6Li96NV https://t.co/43OdNIyoKj
We'll be speaking with @KPRC2Khambrel at 10:30 a.m. this morning on @KPRC2 in Houston. Can't wait to share findings from our new book, "Exposing the Medical Myths: Why Everything You Know about Health Care Is Wrong and How We Can Make It Right." #healthpolicy
Thanks for hosting us, @KPRC2Khambrel ! Be sure to watch Houston Newsmakers on @KPRC2 at 10:30 a.m. Sunday. We'll discuss our brand new book, "Exposing the Medical Myths: Why Everything You Know about Health Care Is Wrong and How We Can Make It Right." #healthpolicy https://t.co/VMQOadhvIL
The big day is here! Join us TONIGHT in Houston at the @TXMedCenter for a discussion of our institute’s brand new book that busts myths about US health care. More info and free registration at https://t.co/MRV3Ns7nwe #healthpolicy
Thanks for hosting us, @KOAColorado. Learn more about the book at https://t.co/MRV3Ns7nwe https://t.co/ga25VzsPQa
An American MRI costs 14 times an Australian one. An American hip replacement costs 80% more than a British one. Why the big difference? Join us Oct. 15 in Houston to discuss: https://t.co/MRV3NsoYnM https://t.co/iwk3drB6dl
Our brand new book highlights 20 big, pervasive myths about U.S. health care policy. What would you include on the list? Tell us using #healthcaremyths and join us at our book event in Houston Oct. 15 https://t.co/MRV3Ns7nwe https://t.co/7vtyoXZVUq
One of the big myths about US health care is that if you have a job, you can get insurance. What do you think are other myths and misunderstandings about US health care? Join us and discuss Oct. 15 in Houston https://t.co/MRV3Ns7nwe #healthcaremyths https://t.co/2t8JeWGA9T
Our new book’s title is a mouthful because we want you to know exactly what it's about. Learn more about “Exposing the Twenty Medical Myths: Why Everything You Know about Health Care Is Wrong and How to Make It Right” and RSVP for our talk in Houston. https://t.co/MRV3Ns7nwe https://t.co/qcgOblvad9
If you think the market can fix health care, think again. Without perfect information & perfect competition, this will be a challenge. Learn more in our new book published by @RLPGBooks https://t.co/MRV3Ns7nwe #healthpolicy https://t.co/uDc2gqVNWM
How much of US health care spending is wasteful? 10 percent? 25 percent? Try nearly a THIRD. We’ll discuss why it's so much at a discussion of our new book in Houston Oct. 15 https://t.co/MRV3Ns7nwe https://t.co/PulyEJeeZz
“The best way to increase the physician supply is to decrease retirement,” says Tim Garson, director of the @TXMedCenter Health Policy Institute. Hear the rest of our discussion with @HoustonPubMedia about the looming doctor shortage: https://t.co/uEtgi1KokE #healthpolicy https://t.co/aYfvW7cwtt
If you think the uninsured get adequate health care through the ER, think again. We bust that myth — and many more — in our new book “Exposing the Twenty Medical Myths.” Join us Oct. 15 in Houston to learn more: https://t.co/MRV3Ns7nwe https://t.co/wGxkThYxxZ