Economic Stimulus Bill
By: State: Pennsylvania | Source: AARP.org
The economic stimulus bill which recently passed Congress contained a wide range of provisions. One was funding of an initiative to research the "COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS" of different health care treatments, including the effectiveness of prescription drugs.
Background
Comparative effectiveness research evaluates the effectiveness of two or more medical treatments. This research can be used by the medical community to provide better care, resulting in better outcomes and lower health care costs. Critics, including former New York Lieutenant Governor Betsy McCaughey and radio host Rush Limbaugh claim the provision in the economic recovery package could lead to rationed health care, particularly for older Americans.
Some of this research is already done by the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health. But this provision would greatly increase the volume of the research and allow more physicians to get more information about how treatments for specific medical conditions compare to each other. The result would be better care for patients and cost savings for our health care system, as unnecessary and ineffective treatments wouldn't take place as often.
Unfortunately, not everyone thinks this is a good idea. Some pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers feel threatened by this research. But instead of making a case that their research shows other results, or working to improve their products, it appears that opponents of the provision are resorting to scare tactics to convince consumers their health might be threatened.
AARP CEO Bill Novelli stated "Opponents of health reform are now using scare tactics in a misguided attempt to stop progress in its tracks…. they won't tell you that this research could save your life by giving your doctors better information so they can prescribe the best treatments available to you."
Some of these scare tactics have been repeated on talk radio shows and in various publications. But the legislation is not drafted to "ration" health care, or deny treatment. It intends to allow doctors to better understand how different treatments impact certain medical conditions.
We're facing an important debate on the future of health care in the United States in the coming months. As we start to consider the issues involved, it is troubling to see this type of rhetoric substituted for facts. Reasonable people may have different views about how to improve our health care system. But we must continue to debate issues and solutions, instead of trying to frighten people.
AARP'S POSITION ON COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH
- Opponents of health reform have begun using scare tactics to defend the status quo and keep us from fixing our broken health care system.
- "Comparative effectiveness research" is an "insider" term that means the ability to compare different kinds of treatments to find out which one works best for which patient.
- Both houses of Congress included funding for this important research in their economic recovery plans because lawmakers understand the need to improve the quality and performance of our health system.
- AARP would strongly oppose any attempts to limit doctors and hospitals from providing the best possible care to their patients—the provisions in these bills don't make any such attempt.
- In fact, this research would do the opposite—giving doctors the best information available to make health care decisions with their patients.
- This research is designed to also empower patients—giving them more and better information so they can make better decisions with their doctors.
- This is a common sense idea that is, unfortunately, not happening now. Some estimates say that only about half of all therapies that patients receive have been backed up by head-to-head comparisons with alternatives.
- While our country spends more than $2 trillion a year on health care, we spend less than 0.1 percent on evaluating how that care works compared to other options.
- The economic recovery package being considered by Congress contains a provision which will provide $1.1 billion for comparative effectiveness research. The bill does NOT authorize use of the research to ration health care.
- It is patently false to say the economic recovery bill now before congress will lead to rationing of care or euthanasia.
- Health spending varies wildly by geographic region: Medicare spends 50-percent more on patients in Louisiana than it does in South Dakota. But there's no evidence that patients in Louisiana get better care. Comparative effectiveness research will help us determine what care is best and provide it to every American.
- Despite what opponents are saying, comparative effectiveness research funding was in the economic recovery package in both house of Congress from the very beginning. That's because lawmakers understand the need to improve the quality and performance of our health system.
Related Articles
preview