Much of the criticism of the $787 billion stimulus bill is
focused on its cost. But what’s really at issue is a matter of
life and death. Buried deep in the package, there is an expensive
new healthcare program that could jeopardize the health, even the
lives, of millions of patients.
The bill funnels about $1 billion into government-run
“comparative effectiveness research” (CER). Sounds innocuous
enough — that’s a relatively paltry sum given the package’s $800
billion-plus price tag. But CER will have profound effects on the
availability of top-notch treatments in this country. Stripped of
bureaucratic jargon, it is the precursor for a national
healthcare rationing board.
CER basically involves comparing different pharmaceutical drugs,
medical devices, and other treatments in order to determine which
is most cost-effective for fighting a particular disease.
Theoretically, that sounds like a good program. But, in practice,
CER will likely be used to justify rationing and restrict patient
treatment options.
That’s been precisely the result of CER programs in other
countries.
Britain’s comparative effectiveness agency, the National
Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), recently
denied approval for the osteoporosis drug Protelos. NICE
officials claimed that it was too pricey to be covered by the
country’s public insurance system. Never mind that research shows
that Protelos’s cheaper alternatives aren’t effective for one out
of every five osteoporosis patients. Countless Britons will now
suffer from preventable bone fractures.
Canada’s government-run healthcare system is equally stingy about
approving state-of-the-art medical treatments. One recent
example: A 57-year-old man living in Alberta went in for
treatment for an arthritic hip. A specialist recommended he
receive a cutting-edge surgery known as “Birmingham” hip
resurfacing. Public bureaucrats denied the man coverage for the
procedure, claiming he was “too old” for it. Worse still, they
forbade him from paying for the procedure himself on the private
market.
Virtually every government-run CER program ends up closing off
patient access to the best treatments in the name of “cost
consciousness.” When bureaucrats are put in charge of medical
care, cutting down on bills is prioritized over fighting disease.
So it’s imperative that this CER proposal be closely scrutinized
and that, at the bare minimum, appropriate checks be put in place
to insure the program doesn’t compromise patient health. The
deeper the government’s involvement in the healthcare sector, the
more life-or-death decisions are handed over to callous budget
analysts instead of individual physicians and patients.
It’s important to note that CER wouldn’t just determine the care
options for patients covered under public health insurance. The
program’s determinations will affect everyone. The federal
government is the single biggest buyer of pharmaceutical drugs in
the country. If, based on CER findings, the government decides to
stop covering a particular medicine, public programs will stop
buying it from its manufacturer. But medical companies will have
a hard time turning a profit on a particular treatment if the
government isn’t a customer, and many will be forced to simply
stop producing it altogether.
There are plenty of proposals included in the stimulus package
that aren’t actually tied to economic recovery. But CER is the
only one that threatens the lives of countless Americans. It’s
too dangerous to be ignored.
