2014
Here is something you don’t see very often (or ever for that matter), me agreeing with the Center for American Progress. However, in this case they have identified a valid concern and in the process pointed out the risks in assuming throwing money around through a massive new law actually accomplishes the promised results.
If you go to the doctor and are diagnosed with a specific condition, treating that condition likely can be accomplished in different ways. The treatment you receive will be based mostly on the past practice followed by your physician. Is that the best, most effective course to follow? Who knows, certainly you don’t and in many cases neither does your doctor. In another office or another part of the country, another perhaps more effective treatment may be the norm, but you’ll never know.
This issue is important enough to receive special funding under the Affordable Care Act to conduct research into the most effective treatment. As you can see from the following, it appears they money is not being spent as intended. Obamacare promises higher quality, affordable health care. CER is one key element is improving quality. As with the healthcare.gov website and the initial rollout, the Administration would do well to focus more on making sure the Law is actually accomplishing its goals rather than creating propaganda focused on the next election.
The Administration is spending millions selling Obamacare to Americans. From my perspective measurable, positive results would sell me.
In our current health care system, physicians, insurers, and patients must often choose between several treatments without knowing which works better or whether the higher-priced treatment provides added value. Research that evaluates the effectiveness of two or more prevention, diagnosis, or treatment options—known as comparative effectiveness research, or CER—can address this evidence gap. Funding for CER was an important feature of the Affordable Care Act because this research has the potential to lower health care costs over the long term while maintaining or improving the quality of care, according to the independent Congressional Budget Office, or CBO.
The Affordable Care Act created a new independent nonprofit, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, or PCORI, to fund and disseminate CER. Our analysis finds that four years into its 10-year existence, the institute has dedicated less than 40 percent of its research funding to CER. Moreover, PCORI has not initiated a single CER study of medical devices, launched only a few CER studies of drugs, and produced only a handful of analyses that synthesize existing CER studies. Few studies focus on the priority areas identified by the Institute of Medicine, or IOM.
If PCORI is to truly fulfill its mission, the Center for American Progress urges the institute to rapidly scale up its investment in CER to at least 80 percent of its research funding by fiscal year 2016. This investment should focus on studies that:
Address important gaps in evidence on treatments for common and high-cost conditions
Can produce actionable results in one to three years
Synthesize existing CER studies
Time is running out for PCORI to make this necessary course correction. New CER studies can take several years, and the institute’s funding is more than doubling this year before expiring in 2019. PCORI did announce a plan recently to launch a new CER funding initiative in the first quarter of 2014. This plan is highly encouraging, and the institute should build on it to move further in the right direction.
via Comparing the Effectiveness of Health Care | Center for American Progress.
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 