You Say You Want Comparative‐Effectiveness Research?
Over at CongressDaily, Julie Rovner has a great piece on the difficulties involved in generating and using comparative‐effectiveness research (read: evidence that can improve the quality and reduce the cost of medical care). Rovner cites a recent New England Journal of Medicine article about the obstacles to conducting CER, and a recent article from Health Affairs that finds consumers tend to trust their doctor’s judgment more than evidence‐based treatment guidelines.
In a paper titled, “A Better Way to Generate and Use Comparative‐Effectiveness Research,” I explain how a string of government interventions — from state licensing of medical professionals and health insurance, to the tax preference for job‐based health insurance, to Medicare and Medicaid — have reduced both patients’ demand for evidence about which medical interventions work best, as well as the market’s ability to supply that evidence. In that paper, I predict that efforts like the CER funding in the “stimulus” bill and ObamaCare’s “Patient‐Centered Outcomes Research Institute” will fail, just as all such government efforts have failed in the past.
If you want to generate evidence about which medical interventions work best, and have people use that evidence, then you need to liberalize the U.S. health care sector.
