GOP Introduces Bill To Derail Comparative Effectiveness Research
GOP Introduces Bill To Derail Comparative Effectiveness Research
On Monday, Sens. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Pat Roberts (R-KS) introduced the “Preserving Access to Targeted, Individualized, and Effective New Treatments and Services (PATIENTS) Act of 2009,” a new bill prohibiting Medicare or Medicaid from using “comparative effectiveness research to deny coverage.”
For Kyl, fear mongering about the consequences of government-takeover of health care or medical research is a part time job. He actively rallied against medical research during the stimulus debate, Kathleen Sebelius’ confirmation, and today, he took to the Senate floor to attack Democrats of seeking to “ration care”:
Watch it:
Pharmaceutical representatives currently instructs doctors on the effectiveness of medications, and the industry opposes research that would lead the government to eschew coverage for ineffective or unnecessary treatments. Fewer prescriptions translate into lower profits and the industry lobbied hard to pare down the cost effectiveness language in the House and Senate versions of the stimulus bill. In fact, the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have donated $1,971,968 to Kyl’s career election efforts and ran ads on Kyl’s behalf in 2006. Moreover, according to recently released 2008 personal finance disclosures, Kyl invests heavily in pharmaceutical companies.
His latest effort prohibits the government from using “data obtained from the conduct of comparative effectiveness research…to deny coverage of an item or service under a Federal health care system.” The language compliments the GOP’s larger argument that Obama’s health care reform would usher in the era of European-style socialized-medicine and rationed care, but it ignores the government’s existing ability to make coverage decisions.
As Thomas Scully, the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) from 2001-2003 pointed out in an interview with ThinkProgress, “you know, Medicare makes decisions on coverage all the time. I made decisions on coverage all the time….You got to do it the right way. But I think – I’ve always been a big fan of comparative effectiveness research if done correctly.”
In reaching coverage decisions the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services relies on an evidence-based process, conducts internal research and consults outside assessments. Upon CMS’s request, fifteen experts on the the Medicare Evidence Development and Coverage Advisory Committee review, evaluate, and collect medical literature and technological assessments and examine the data based on effectiveness and appropriateness. Only then, does the panel of experts issue a coverage decision.
It’s unclear why Kyl and his conservative colleagues would deny Americans the fruits of scientific research. The Food and Drug Administration oversees the safety of food, drugs, and cosmetics and bans the use of harmful products. If the government can ban harmful lipstick, why can’t it deny coverage for a dangerous drug or medical devise and protect access for patients who need experimental treatments? As Peter Orszag pointed out during recent Congressional testimony:
There also are a lot of less extreme ways of guiding medical practice. For example, simply paying more for the things that work than the things that don’t….And so it doesn’t need to be a simple on-off switch.
After all, “there is no reason we cannot set up reasonable procedures, overseen by independent health professionals, to protect patients who can demonstrate a special need for a treatment that is not normally cost-effective.”
3 Responses to “GOP Introduces Bill To Derail Comparative Effectiveness Research”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
Speaking as a former and longtime resident of Arizona, as one who initiated correspondence with and received responses from John Kyl on several occasions, as one who has long appreciated the process of gaining factual basis to support personal opinion, I can say one thing with absolute frankness: John Kyl is both a political crackpot AND an enemy of the people he pretends to represent.
June 17th, 2009 at 11:51 amHow many physicians are in Govt? Most are lawyers and therefore don’t know anything about “best practice”. Kyl is getting his talking points from business concerns, not healthcare research experts.
Note the decrease in funding and staffing of the FDA during the last administration, and then blaming them when they were inefficient. Why are physicians using so many drugs “off label”? Research has not supported the use of drugs for a disease process, but Pharmaceutical companies push their use for these non-researched used, only to assure that they increase their own profits.
Why should a patient receive treatment that is less effective, why should a patient be given drugs that mask symptoms but do not address a cure (yes I know sometimes there is not cure)…but if there is, it only makes sense to cure an ailment that to perpetuate a faux treatment.
If a specific procedure cost $5k to cure, but only $200/month to treat symptoms, there is a tipping point where the more expensive one time cost to cure outweighs the lower cost symptomatic treatment. And that is only the medical side, if the one time cost allows the individual to have a better quality of life, be able to work / contribute to the society instead of drain the system, that is what Cost Effective Research / Treatment is about.
Kyl is only looking at short term political rhetoric and looks pretty stupid doing that. He is WRONG!
June 18th, 2009 at 9:11 amSounds like Kyl needs to get back on his meds! Seriously, why isn’t the discussion more about the reason WHY he gets 2 million in campaign support? We have legalized bribery, legalized by the people that benefit: the law makers. Why don’t we have discussions about single payer? Single payer doesn’t contribute to anyone’s campaign fund. Single payer is a concept, not a corporate institution or coalition representing corporations. Unless we make the discussion about legalized bribery a fundamental issue (well, it effects everything that lawmakers do), we will only be chatting and bitching about symptoms sans the cure.
Side note: several years ago, Obama, while a senator, made a public statement aired on a documentary about Darfur. He said, basically, that we (congressional members) can do something about Darfur if Americans write letters to their representatives. It all seemed so reasonable until I began to think about it more. You see, congressional members have better access and better information to the Darfur crisis then we did/do, hence the reason Obama is there talking about the confict. Yet Obama wants politicians to be told that they need to prioritize the conflict. Ok, still sorta reasonable. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized what exactly is the conflict being prioritized against? I mean, our congressional members are human, with a conscience, with all available information at hand and are aware of the crisis via the media, like us. Our representative form of Democracy gives them the authority to act on their own conscience. So the question that begs is: What exactly is preventing them from having empathy for and then acting on the disaster that is Darfur? Something has to have some serious teeth in it to be so entrenched that Obama thinks we need to write letters for. Long story short, the only thing I can come up with is financial support of and personal contact with those that support their “profession” of being a lawmaker. Their campaign promises really don’t have that much teeth, but in-person handshake commitments to persons that represent money given are huge. Citizen letters are the only thing an elected official would feel he/she needs to put aside financial commitments made to campaign supporters. In other words, the real first amendment to the constitution is: 0.8.2b) we the people must also write letters to our elected officials so that they can act on our behalf; otherwise, they must take care of money interests first.
My point is: Kyl is doing his duty. Hurray for America!
June 18th, 2009 at 5:08 pm