Many critics are busy complaining that President Obama's healthcare reform plans are doomed to failure. It would be nice if they would just quit their whining and get back to caring for their polo ponies or something, because it's clear that the plan will be successful. Think about it -- as severelySee also, Kim Priestap, "Ezekiel Emanuel: Deny Coverage to Elderly and Disabled for the Greater Good."
ill people die more quickly, costs will inevitably be cut.
It's really quite simple. Take cancer treatment. If we can just make sure to treat cancer patients with older, cheaper, more ineffective treatments, then treatment will actually be more effective -- at cutting costs as more cancer patients die. We not only save the cost of more expensive medication -- we also save by relying on less expensive stays in hospices instead of more extended active treatments.
More importantly, if we can help patients die quickly now, then we can save on the cost of any future major illnesses they would've had that would have cost society a whole boatload of money. Basically, one severe potentially terminal illness is cheaper than two. Some cancer patients may try to demand more up-to-date, effective treatments, but society must obviously ignore their selfish desires to live.
The Obama plan is going to accomplish this with its billion-dollar investment in "comparative-effectiveness research." This is a coup, because it sounds so rational and scientific. A sophisticated observer can see that it will be "comparatively effective" at reducing the rate at which new, more effective treatments are utilized. The kind of large, expensive studies required to prove that newer treatments are less effective at killing off patients will be so difficult to conduct that the newly created "Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research" (or FCCCER, pronounced faux care) will have cover for many years before it's compelled to approve any new treatment.
Such is the excellent model provided by Great Britain's National Institute for Clinical Excellence, known by the wonderful acronym NICE. Indeed it was "NICE" how the agency "regrettably" found last summer that four admittedly "clinically effective" lifesaving medications for kidney cancer were not "cost-effective uses of NHS resources." NICE has been wildly successful in shortening the overall amount of time that the British medical system is forced to treat cancer patients. In Great Britain, survival rates after a cancer diagnosis range from 40.2 to 48.1 percent for men and 48 to 54.1 percent for women. The United States currently boasts an inefficiently high rate of 66 percent for men and 63 percent for women.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Obama's Health Plan Will Succeed (At Getting People to Die Faster)
From Mark Schiller, M.D., at FrontPage Magazine:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
Yeah, why can't the government just stay out of the business of taking care of old people and let Medicare take care of everything. Oh, yeah. Medicare IS a government program and is how "Obamacare" will CONTINUE to take care of our elderly. Idiots.
And since when did conservatives start complain about liberals SAVING tax dollars? Medicare is a hugely expensive program that improves the lives of old people. Yet no liberals want to get rid of it. Conservatives, on the other hand, have traditionally HATED Medicare and want to get rid of it; which would be a death sentence for many old people. I believe I've heard it described as a dreaded "handout" at this particular blog. Will there ever be ANY consistency to your ideology, Donald?
But just so you understand how stupid your post is, the purpose of comparative-effectiveness research isn't to choose the chepaest options, but the most "effective" option. That's why the word "effectiveness" is in there. As it turns out, Donald, oftentimes, the newest treatments AREN'T always the most effective; Dr. Schiller's snark to the contrary. And other times, the new treatment is BETTER than the old treatment, and doctors need to know to stop prescribing the old treatment. But they can't currently do that very well, as we currently don't DO these comparisons. So you, the taxpayer, end up paying MORE for a treatment that is LESS effective for the patient; which can cost even more money down the road. Meanwhile, patients suffer. Not just the elderly, but ALL of us.
This has nothing to do with stalling treatments. This has to do with letting doctors know what the most effective treatments are in order to better serve their patients while also saving us money. But of course, you don't care about that at all. You've been told that Obama wants to kill old people and that the government can't take care of the elderly. And you have no choice but to believe them.
Post a Comment