We get far too much of our information about medical treatments straight from the drug companies -- and so do our doctors. Thankfully, there's money in the stimulus package to fight the onslaught of drug reps and TV ads with real science.

Democrats and Republicans alike have supported the value of independent comparative effectiveness research. The money will create good paying research jobs, and it will result in independent, unbiased findings that will improve our health

But it hasn’t taken long for the opponents – namely, Big Pharma -- to come out of the woodwork in hopes of gutting the provision before it reaches the President.
.
The Wall Street Journal reports the pharmaceutical industry has hired a big-time Washington lobbying shop to bring patient groups funded by them to Capitol Hill to make sure drug companies ‘get a seat at the table’ when deciding how the research money is spent. While industry claims to support the research in concept, theirs is the “slippery slope” scare tactic that funding comparative effectiveness research means “useful treatments will be cut because they cost too much.”

In other words, if doctors and their patients know what work best, we may not want to spend millions on their products that may not work as well.

Congress has been clear about not using comparative effectiveness research to decide who gets what treatments, or to ‘ration’ care based on cost. Sens. Max Baucus and Kent Conrad, who have introduced legislation to create a permanent institute to prioritize and provide for comparative clinical effectiveness research, have been clear that their intent is to determine which treatments and drugs are most effective.

As Sen. Mike Enzi, ranking member of the Senate Health Committee, said on the Senate floor: “(We) made sure this research will evaluate comparative clinical effectiveness, not comparative cost-effectiveness. In addition, the committee’s report language … ensure(s) that the agency developing comparative information does not use it to set national practice standards or coverage restrictions.”

And members want the research to be open and transparent, so we know who did it, how they did it, and exactly what their findings are.

Transparent, independent, unbiased research is tough medicine for Big Pharma to swallow. For years they gamed the system by publishing research studies that touted the benefits of their drugs, while downplaying those studies whose findings showed little to no benefit, or even potential safety issues.

Dr. John Santa, director of Consumer Reports Health Ratings Center and a long-time devotee to comparative effectiveness research, lays it out passionately in his blog on the Pharma opposition. “The industry rarely funded comparison studies, and when they did the comparisons did not treat less expensive but similar drugs fairly (or if they did they only published results favoring their products).

“Now the federal government proposes to level the playing field by funding studies that give consumers an answer to a question they ask every day, "How does this product compare to a similar product?" Santa writes.

Unbiased answers to that common-sense question – How do drugs, medical devices and surgeries compare? – will help you, your doctor, and ultimately our health-care system make better treatment decisions, and as a result, save countless lives and dollars.

comments (0)

Post a Comment (* indicates a required field)

*Name:

*Email Address:

URL:

*Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

*Security Code:

<<< You must enter this security code!

Remember Me? Yes No