Tweet
This is a fairly long article discussing the pros and cons of the legislation. Here's the very last paragraph, which could probably serve as a summary (keep in mind Mr. Witty is the ce of Glaxo) and I hope it doesn't translate to wasted money:
?Comparative effectiveness is a useful tool in the tool kit, but it?s not the answer to anything,? Mr. Witty said in an interview. ?Other countries have fallen in love with the concept, then spent years figuring out how on earth to make it work.?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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?
For nearly a decade, economists and health policy experts have been debating the merits of research that directly tackles such questions. Britain, France and other countries have bodies that assess health technologies and compare the effectiveness, and sometimes the cost, of different treatments. (Is it working well in those countries?)
Read the full article:
?Comparative effectiveness is a useful tool in the tool kit, but it?s not the answer to anything,? Mr. Witty said in an interview. ?Other countries have fallen in love with the concept, then spent years figuring out how on earth to make it work.?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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?
For nearly a decade, economists and health policy experts have been debating the merits of research that directly tackles such questions. Britain, France and other countries have bodies that assess health technologies and compare the effectiveness, and sometimes the cost, of different treatments. (Is it working well in those countries?)
Read the full article:
