U.S. to Study Effectiveness of Treatments

[Pirate Smile]

Source: The New York Times

WASHINGTON — The $787 billion economic stimulus bill approved by Congress will, for the first time, provide substantial amounts of money for the federal government to compare the effectiveness of different treatments for the same illness.

Under the legislation, researchers will receive $1.1 billion to compare drugs, medical devices, surgery and other ways of treating specific conditions. The bill creates a council of up to 15 federal employees to coordinate the research and to advise President Obama and Congress on how to spend the money.
The program responds to a growing concern that doctors have little or no solid evidence of the value of many treatments. Supporters of the research hope it will eventually save money by discouraging the use of costly, ineffective treatments.

The soaring cost of health care is widely seen as a problem for the economy. Spending on health care totaled $2.2 trillion, or 16 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product, in 2007, and the Congressional Budget Office estimates that, without any changes in federal law, it will rise to 25 percent of the G.D.P. in 2025.

Dr. Elliott S. Fisher of Dartmouth Medical School said the federal effort would help researchers try to answer questions like these:

Is it better to treat severe neck pain with surgery or a combination of physical therapy, exercise and medications? What is the best combination of “talk therapy” and prescription drugs to treat mild depression?
How do drugs and “watchful waiting” compare with surgery as a treatment for leg pain that results from blockage of the arteries in the lower legs? Is it better to treat chronic heart failure by medications alone or by drugs and home monitoring of a patient’s blood pressure and weight?



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/health/policy/16health.html?hp

---

So Obama-like - Mr. Facts, Science, Research, Evidence - all that crazy stuff that has been missing for eight years.

Guess who else gets lots of credit: Hillary Rodham Clinton, as a senator, was an early champion of “comparative effectiveness research.” Mr. Obama, who is expected to sign the stimulus bill Tuesday, endorsed the idea in his campaign for the White House.

I knew Republicans and Business would find a reason to be against this and, of course, they did: As Congress translated the idea into legislation, it became a lightning rod for pharmaceutical and medical-device lobbyists, who fear the findings will be used by insurers or the government to deny coverage for more expensive treatments and, thus, to ration care.

In addition, Republican lawmakers and conservative commentators complained that the legislation would allow the federal government to intrude in a person’s health care by enforcing clinical guidelines and treatment protocols.

Surprise! Surprise!

[defendandprotect]

1. We should move from "sick care" to PREVENTIVE health care . . .

[Mind_your_head]

2. ABSOLUTELY!!!!

Preventive Health Care/diet/eating habits/CORN ~ too many SUBSIDIZED corn products entering our food stream ~ which has negative impacts on health (and healthcare)....it's all related.

Attacking the very roots of this problem will have tremendous positive impact on people ("IF" we can get past the 'braking mechanisms'/conniving of 'special interests'. It's herculean job, no doubt).

[Juche]

3. I know how we can do (some of) it for free

Steal the ideas other OECD nations have come up with doing the same thing. I know the UK has the NICE program.

http://www.nice.org.uk/

Ah socialism. If it weren't for the fact that their health care is half the cost of ours and covers everyone I would swear they were a miserable communist dictatorship.

[DesertDiamond]

4. Having been a medical transcriptionist for many years I had a bird's eye view

I found the U.S. medical system to be so ineffective that I only use it now for diagnosis, and that is not always accurate. What I saw was that the U.S. medical system has no cure for most diseases; diseases are under "maintenance" programs, in other words, they are not cured, rather the patient is kept on medication until the day she or he dies (often after years of a poor quality of life). Meanwhile, any holistic solutions that could get the patient well are sloughed off with evasive action such as "we'll try that if all else fails" (but they never do) or "that's an untested treatment" (false) or "I've never heard of that, I'll look into it," (they don't) or "our treatment is the only way" (again, false).

The problem is doctors are trained in medical schools funded by the big pharmaceutical companies, and when they get out, they get their advice on treatment from the pharmaceutical companies, who are free to promote their products via information provided by their self-serving "studies."

I am all for a truly unbiased study of what treatments are actually effective. I am going to write to President Obama urging him to include holistic treatments in that comparison. If that is truly done, it could open up a lot of eyes.

[cpamomfromtexas]

6. You are so right!

I've spent 10 yrs trying to get proper diagnosis and treatment. The only way I survived was getting lucky and learning about holistic treatment before I found a team of competents to care for me.

[eridani]

5. Clean living has little effect on health care costs

That's because 5% of the population accounts for 50% of the costs, and 15% of the population for 85% of the costs. It therefore makes no financial difference what the healthy majority does in this respect--though it will undoubtedly raise the overall quality of life for society as a whole.

Any financial benefits of prevention will be cancelled out by the fact that it will also help people with lousy genes live longer.