• SUPPORT CATO
• FOR STUDENTS
• FOR MEDIA
• FREE NEWSLETTERS

• HOME

• ABOUT

• BLOG

• CATO STORE

• CENTERS & PROJECTS

• EVENTS

• EXPERTS

• MULTIMEDIA

• PUBLICATIONS

Books

Reviews & Journals

Public Filings

Policy Studies

Opinion & Commentary

• RESEARCH AREAS

• SPEAKERS BUREAU

• SUPPORT CATO

• CATO UNBOUND

• DOWNSIZING
  GOVERNMENT.ORG

• ELCATO.ORG

• LIBERTARIANISM.ORG

February 6, 2009

Taxpayer-Funded Comparative-Effectiveness Research Won't Work

The Senate is looking for items to cut from the $900 gazillion Big Boondoggle. Cato director of health policy studies Michael F. Cannon has at least one suggestion: the $1.1 billion dedicated to comparative-effectiveness research. In a policy analysis released today, Cannon takes on the claim that the only way to generate enough comparative-effectiveness research is through government funding.

Cannon argues that although comparative-effectiveness does have many characteristics of a public good, the market provides similar public goods by selling them in innovative ways. Besides, the government alternative isn't a very realistic one: federal comparative-effectiveness agencies have a long history of getting defanged or outright killed by political pressure. He concludes that "the current lack of comparative-effectiveness research is due more to government failure than to market failure."

Doing What Works: Why the Evidence Says We Should Eliminate SCHIP

In an op-ed at National Review Online Cannon argues that if President Obama wanted to fulfill his inauguration promise to look not at the size of government, but at its efficacy, he should've vetoed the SCHIP bill when it crossed his desk. There's just no evidence that SCHIP is a cost effective way of improving health outcomes.

This evidence-based approach to SCHIP is picking up steam: in spite of the Church of Universal Coverage's persuasive advertising campaign, the Orange County Register is the latest to sign up for the Anti-Universal Coverage Club.

Debating Does the Doctor Need a Boss?

Does the Doctor Need a Boss?, the January briefing paper by Cannon and Cato adjunct scholar Arnold Kling, continues to be a subject of debate in the blogosphere. The paper, detailed in a podcast by Kling, argues that that health care sector could be improved by allowing greater competition from corporate models of health care delivery. While Paul Testa of the New America Foundation thinks the paper represents common ground with the Left, Greg Scandlen of The Heartland Institute describes it as "one of the most offensive papers I've ever read." Cannon invited Scandlen over to Cato@Liberty to debate the paper, an offer Scandlen graciously accepted. Read more reactions to paper here, and keep an eye on the Health and Welfare RSS Feed to watch the debate continue.

The Particularly Devilish Details of Health Care Reform

In an op-ed in the New York Post, Cato Senior Fellow Michael Tanner looks at a few of the issues that could derail Obama's drive to increase coverage, increase quality, and cut costs in health care. Obama's plans to increase coverage work against his plans to cut costs. Plans to increase the quality of health care may end up decreasing quality of life. There has been a lot of talk about whether or not Obama will be able to get the politics of health care reform right. Tanner reminds us that "getting the policy right may be an even harder job."

On Cato@Liberty...

The debates and analysis of the latest news continue at the Cato@Liberty blog:

• In "Stimulus Bill Would Launch Daschle's Health Care Rationing Board," Cannon highlights an op-ed he wrote on National Review Online that looks at a $1.1 billion provision in the stimulus bill.
• In "The Obamacare to Come...," Tanner makes predictions about what components we're likely to see in Obama's eventual health care proposal.
• In "Of Cab Fares and Health Care: Markets with Uncertainty Require Competition between Payment Systems," Cannon explains how government regulation of payment system hurts consumers.
• In "The Stimulus and Socialized Medicine," Tanner asks if expanding government control over health care is really going to stimulate the economy.
• And in "Atul Gawande Is Right," Cannon replies to Atul Gawande's New Yorker article on path dependence and Medicare.

Healthy Competition is a periodic newsletter produced by the Cato Institute. It features news and commentary on current health policy issues from a free-market perspective. If you wish to subscribe to this free newsletter, update your address, or be removed from our list, please click here and follow the instructions. Send feedback to healthycompetition@cato.org.