WSJ falsely suggested that comparative effectiveness research provision in House bill dictates certain treatments "will no longer be prescribed"
SUMMARY: A Wall Street Journal article mischaracterized a section of H.R. 1, stating: "In a staff report describing the bill, the House said treatments found to be less effective and in some cases more expensive 'will no longer be prescribed.' " However, neither the House discussion draft nor the House bill implements federal requirements banning the use of "treatments found to be less effective and in some cases more expensive." In fact, the section of the bill the article referenced establishes a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research and calls for funding to "be used to accelerate the development and dissemination of research assessing the comparative effectiveness of health care treatments and strategies."
In a February 9 Wall Street Journal article, staff writer Alicia Mundy mischaracterized a section of H.R. 1 in writing: "The House version of the stimulus package sent shudders through the drug and medical-device industry. In a staff report describing the bill, the House said treatments found to be less effective and in some cases more expensive 'will no longer be prescribed.' " But contrary to Mundy's suggestion, neither the House discussion draft in which the quote appears nor the House bill implements federal requirements banning the use of "treatments found to be less effective and in some cases more expensive." In fact, the section of the bill Mundy referenced establishes a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research and calls for funding to "be used to accelerate the development and dissemination of research assessing the comparative effectiveness of health care treatments and strategies" and for the Health and Human Services secretary to "consider any recommendations" by the council.
The quote that Mundy ascribes to a "staff report describing the bill" appears in a section of a House Discussion Draft of the legislation regarding "Comparative Effectiveness Research." The draft language does not state that the bill would implement a federal ban on "treatments found to be less effective and in some cases more expensive" but rather states: "By knowing what works best and presenting this information more broadly to patients and healthcare professionals, those items, procedures, and interventions that are most effective to prevent, control, and treat health conditions will be utilized, while those that are found to be less effective and in some cases, more expensive, will no longer be prescribed." From the draft:
AGENCY FOR HEALTHCARE RESEARCH AND QUALITY
HEALTHCARE RESEARCH AND QUALITY
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Comparative Effectiveness Research
Recovery funding: $1.100 billion
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) began a Comparative Effectiveness Research program after passage of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 to conduct, support, or synthesize unbiased research about the comparative effectiveness of different healthcare interventions. By knowing what works best and presenting this information more broadly to patients and healthcare professionals, those items, procedures, and interventions that are most effective to prevent, control, and treat health conditions will be utilized, while those that are found to be less effective and in some cases, more expensive, will no longer be prescribed. Substantially increasing the Federal investment in comparative effectiveness research has the potential to yield significant payoffs in reducing health care expenditures and improving quality.
Similarly, the corresponding section of the bill provides for no federal ban on treatments, regardless of effectiveness or cost-efficiency:
AGENCY FOR HEALTHCARE RESEARCH AND QUALITY
HEALTHCARE RESEARCH AND QUALITY
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
For an additional amount for ''Healthcare Research and Quality'' to carry out titles III and IX of the Public Health Service Act, part A of title XI of the Social Security Act, and section 1013 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, $700,000,000 for comparative effectiveness research: Provided, That of the amount appropriated in this paragraph, $400,000,000 shall be transferred to the Office of the Director of the National Institutes of Health (''Office of the Director'') to conduct or support comparative effectiveness research: Provided further, That funds transferred to the Office of the Director may be transferred to the national research institutes and national centers of the National Institutes of Health and to the Common Fund established under section 402A(c)(1) of the Public Health Service Act: Provided further, That this transfer authority is in addition to any other transfer authority available to the National Institutes of Health: Provided further, That the provisions of section 1103 of this Act shall not apply to the peer-reviewed grants awarded under this paragraph: Provided further, That the amount set aside from this appropriation pursuant to section 1106 of this Act shall be not more than 1 percent instead of the percentage specified in such section.
In addition, $400,000,000 shall be available for comparative effectiveness research to be allocated at the discretion of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (''Secretary''): Provided, That the funding appropriated in this paragraph shall be used to accelerate the development and dissemination of research assessing the comparative effectiveness of health care treatments and strategies, including through efforts that: (1) conduct, support, or synthesize research that compares the clinical outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of items, services, and procedures that are used to prevent, diagnose, or treat diseases, disorders, and other health conditions; and (2) encourage the development and use of clinical registries, clinical data networks, and other forms of electronic health data that can be used to generate or obtain outcomes data: Provided further, That the Secretary shall enter into a contract with the Institute of Medicine, for which no more than $1,500,000 shall be made available from funds provided in this paragraph, to produce and submit a report to the Congress and the Secretary by not later than June 30, 2009, that includes recommendations on the national priorities for comparative effectiveness research to be conducted or supported with the funds provided in this paragraph and that considers input from stakeholders: Provided further, That the Secretary shall consider any recommendations of the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research established by section 9201 of this Act and any recommendations included in the Institute of Medicine report pursuant to the preceding proviso in designating activities to receive funds provided in this paragraph and may make grants and contracts with appropriate entities, which may include agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services and other governmental agencies, as well as private sector entities, that have demonstrated experience and capacity to achieve the goals of comparative effectiveness research: Provided further, That the Secretary shall publish information on grants and contracts awarded with the funds provided under this heading within a reasonable time of the obligation of funds for such grants and contracts and shall disseminate research findings from such grants and contracts to clinicians, patients, and the general public, as appropriate: Provided further, That, to the extent feasible, the Secretary shall ensure that the recipients of the funds provided by this paragraph offer an opportunity for public comment on the research:
[...]
SEC. 9201. FEDERAL COORDINATING COUNCIL FOR COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT.--There is hereby established a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (in this section referred to as the ''Council'').
(b) PURPOSE; DUTIES.--The Council shall--
(1) assist the offices and agencies of the Federal Government, including the Departments of Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, and Defense, and other Federal departments or agencies, to coordinate the conduct or support of comparative effectiveness and related health services research; and
(2) advise the President and Congress on --
(A) strategies with respect to the infrastructure needs of comparative effectiveness research within the Federal Government;
(B) appropriate organizational expenditures for comparative effectiveness research by relevant Federal departments and agencies; and
(C) opportunities to assure optimum coordination of comparative effectiveness and related health services research conducted or supported by relevant Federal departments and agencies, with the goal of reducing duplicative efforts and encouraging coordinated and complementary use of resources.
[...]
(d) REPORTS.--
(1) INITIAL REPORT.--Not later than June 30, 2009, the Council shall submit to the President and the Congress a report containing information describing Federal activities on comparative effectiveness research and recommendations for additional investments in such research conducted or supported from funds made available for allotment by the Secretary for comparative effectiveness research in this Act.
(2) ANNUAL REPORT.--The Council shall submit to the President and Congress an annual report regarding its activities and recommendations concerning the infrastructure needs, appropriate organizational expenditures and opportunities for better coordination of comparative effectiveness research by relevant Federal departments and agencies.
From the Wall Street Journal article:
The drug and medical-device industries are mobilizing to gut a provision in the stimulus bill that would spend $1.1 billion on research comparing medical treatments, portraying it as the first step to government rationing.
The fight over the provision is highlighting the tensions behind President Barack Obama's plan to overhaul the health-care system. The administration hopes to expand coverage while limiting use of treatments that don't work well, but any efforts that might reduce coverage are politically sensitive.
The House version of the stimulus package sent shudders through the drug and medical-device industry. In a staff report describing the bill, the House said treatments found to be less effective and in some cases more expensive "will no longer be prescribed."
A Senate version backed by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D., Mont.) doesn't mention cost as a subject to be studied. And the industry won a battle to add the word "clinical" in describing the research -- adding to the implication that the comparison studies won't look at bang for the buck. The final language is likely to be hammered out later this week in a House-Senate conference committee.
I stand by my prediction. The Troglodytes sense that they've lost the Stimulus Bill fight; they're sharpening their propaganda for the Health Care reform smackdown.
As bad as they hate the Stimulus Bill, the Social Darwinists will fight tooth and nail to stop any meaningful Healthcare reform.
I think you're right. They have no choice but to try and convince the public that Obama screwed up his first real test thus throwing into doubt his ability to do another good job on his next real test. Too bad he isn't a republican, we'd be hearing all about you're either with us or you're against us. Republicans really have become traitors...
The example I heard on the radio is that 'grandma needs a liver, but her life expectancy isn't as long as a younger person, who also needs a liver, and the younger will be given priority over grandma.'. Is this how the new system will work? Will 'grandma' be left out in the cold if she isn't worthy of a used liver? With "worthy" being determined by a panel of experts?
How it works now is that if grandma doesn't have good enough insurance, she won't be covered for her liver transplant. Happy with that reality?
It also works (now) if grandma has enough cash she will be able to get it done. Under the stimulus package plan, that will not be allowed if the person is 'too old to be viable' for further health care. I used viable because I know how you liberals love to use that word when describing the worthlessness of human life.
Why don't you stick to how it WILL work? Or is that to demeaning to your mind...to actually discuss the question! Instead of (again) going to something unrelated.
The example I heard on the radio
Everything after that should have been disregarded by me.
That shows how closed minded you are. What if I told you I heard it on randy rodes show? Would you believe it then?
The thing is that insurance companies already do this.
The difference being: the doctors (government employees) will not be allowed to perform the procedure. And the envisionment of this program is to have all doctors on the government payroll, right? Or, are there going to be a couple 'hold-outs' that don't join this super conglomeration of doctors, who don't have to obey government directives? OR ... is Obama's plan just to have a 'government aspect' involved in health care as a direct competitor within the current system of medicine? Thereby allowing government doctors to compete monetarily against private sector doctors?
Who will be making those choices again?
Show me the part of Obama's proposals that divides the medical profession into "government" and "private sector."
There is in the stimulus package. http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88457 It's called 'rationing' health care. When you get old, you don't need as much because you won't be living that much longer.
I think Obama's plan is to offer govt sponsored medical insurance to people who don't have insurance. Just like private insurance and current govt programs doctors would have a choice whether or not to accept it. If they do they will treat patients the same way they do now: if the patient's insurance company won't pay for a certain treatment they won't offer it to that patient or they will offer it but tell the patient that their insurance won't cover it. Any treatment you want will be available. You just might have to pay for it out of your own pocket. Just like now. But this is al beside the point since there is nothing about this in either the House or the Senate bill. It's another false controversy.
Who will be the doctors in this plan? Are they going to be the current VA doctors? Is the government going to charge the same 'rate' other doctors charge? And, if the government is simply offering a different insurance plan, why does it need to be in the stimulus package?
The scum vote's backs are against the wall and they don't come any scummier than the lunatic-fringe likes of the wsj-ed page.
Obama was right to compromise, get a stimulus bill passed, keep the gops limited to "Barack the Magic Negro" nonsense, apologizing for criminally-negligent, corporate peanut butter killers and cluelessly claiming that FDR caused the Depression. They'll go the way of the Whigs and all the fixed-news nitwits in the world won't be able to prop them up no matter what they do.
Gee, now that'd be a shame.
I'm down with that..... as long as they take Rush Limbaugh and his horde of imitators with them.
Be careful saying "I'm down with that...", didn't you just use "fixed-news" as a source to complete your conversation with me, the other day? If you use them, you're one of them. ;)
Here's a fun editorial about the current state of the GOP:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/president-obama-is-litera_b_166152.html
I work with a live Republican talking point. I printed out the article and accidentally left it on the printer; I'm sorry you missed the show. It was worth watching.
The drug and medical-device industries are mobilizing to gut a provision in the stimulus bill that would spend $1.1 billion on research comparing medical treatments, portraying it as the first step to government rationing.
That says it all... When was the last time drug and medical-device industries put the interests of consumers ahead of profits?
I love how they always go to RATIONING as a criticism. As if that's not happening now. As if the cost of insurance, or of the care, or the basic funstion iof the FREE MARKET in general does not RATION things. That's what the amrket does!!! It makes sure that some can/will gets certain things while guarenteing that other won't. These people are just afraid that medical care will be given based on MEDICAL NEED as opposed to ABILITY TO PAY.
I'm happen to be for explicit rationing that is transparent as opposed to the implicit rationing in the system that isn't. But I don't think this belongs in a stimulus bill which has been turned into a convenient vehicle to pushing legislative goals without the scrutiny they would be subject to on their own. It's not my idea of what open and freely debated democracy is about.
This lie by the right is not all that surprising. It's about scientific and medical research. They've been fighting research and science since (at least) 1988. One of the few truly senseless things Bush'41 ever did (and I say that as one who supported him) - the banning of fetal tissue reasearch. (This did nothing to stop abortions, BTW, just made sure that no goo dcould ever possibly come from one.) Bush'43 continued this with his utterly senseless limitations on EFTR. (Come on Obama, when are you going to lift that ban?! It's a no-brainer!) Add in their views on Evolution and Global Warming and it doesn't take one a long time to relaize that if it's not about nuclear power or nuclear bombs, Republicans, Conservatives and religious whacko's the world over all HATE scientific research. THEY DON'T WANT TO KNOW that what they've thought worked this whole time really didn't. The FEAR finding out that they were wrong.
THIS is my biggest problem with the modern republican party - you just can't be a SCIENTIST and a REPUBLICAN while remaining true to both. Granted that Lib's have some issues with science as well - just look at all these anti-vaccine idiots who followed (and continue to follow) Andrew Wakefield, causing outbreaks of disease the world over driven by little more than there fears of "big pharma." (Yes some con's fell for that crap too, but the whole product liability industry is inherently liberal and largely anti-scientific.) But liberalism inherently involves questioning and examining. Conservativism involves accepting, clinging to dogma and never changing. The former is far more compatible with science than the latter.