stay connected

FrumForum Facebook FrumForum YouTube Update Twitter FrumForum Flickr

A Dissent on Comparative Effectiveness

August 9th, 2009 at 12:01 am Andrew Pavelyev | 3 Comments |

Share
| Print

Contra David Frum, I’m not sure we need “government bodies to compare the effectiveness of different healthcare practices”. We already have the National Committee for Quality Assurance and specifically this standard (also described here). And it’s not like HMOs don’t care about “effectiveness of different healthcare practices” – they constantly ask the company I work for to run computer simulations of alternative treatment guidelines. In fact, as we are now witnessing the beginning of a (long overdue) medical revolution, my biggest worry is that the government will stifle innovation.

Recent Posts by Andrew Pavelyev



3 Comments so far ↓

  • barker13 // Aug 9, 2009 at 10:23 am

    “…my biggest worry is that the government will stifle innovation.”

    Yep. Me too.

    Are you familiar with the history of the “vaccine industry” in terms of more government involvement, less innovation and production capacity?

    BILL

  • sinz54 // Aug 9, 2009 at 10:49 am

    My big worry is the possibility of political interference.

    Even the NIH is not immune to politics.

    For example, Senator Tom Harkin (ultraliberal), who believes in medical quackery, forced the National Institute of Health to set up an Office of Alternative Medicine, against the advice of America’s top scientists. Effectively putting the U.S. Government’s imprimatur on quackery. That’s a disgrace.

    There are just too many liberals who believe in medical quackery, astrology, “New Age,” illicit drugs, Tantric sex, promiscuity, euthanasia, and other such nonsense to trust that any such “National Committee” created by liberals will be immune from their baleful interference.

    A far better solution would be to simply provide a Government clearinghouse that keeps track of all the latest studies on comparative effectiveness. One stop shopping, so we patients don’t have to keep Googling to find these things out, and doctors don’t have to subscribe to a dozen different medical journals they don’t have time to read anyway.

    But no POLICY decisions should be made by the Government on anything. Anything.

  • LFC // Aug 12, 2009 at 10:43 am

    I have one question the NCQA. It is private, and as far as I can tell is mostly funded by companies seeking to be accredited. As we saw from the role that ratings agencies like S&P and Moody’s played in the current financial crisis, there can be a huge temptation to let things slide in order to increase revenue. So my question is, what outside agency monitors the objectivity of the NCQA?

    sinz54 said… My big worry is the possibility of political interference. Even the NIH is not immune to politics.

    True. Look how George W. overrode the NIH on stem cell research, trumping science with politics. Or how GW suppressed data he didn’t like coming out of the CDC on a number of fronts, including the overwhelmingly proven effectiveness of condoms in reducing AIDS transmission. Or the suppression of data that didn’t fit the political agenda from NASA … or NOAA … or the Medicare chief actuary …

    It’s true. Political interference of an unprecedented level was experienced over the past 8 years.

Leave a Comment

You must log in to post a comment.