President-elect Barack Obama has nominated former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) to become the new Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services--a.ka., the new "health care czar." Since losing his Senate seat 2004, Daschle has been promoting health care reform proposals. His most comprehensive plan is outlined in his new book Critical: What We Can Do About the Health Crisis.
One of Daschle's more ambitious proposals is the creation of a Federal Health Board (Fed Health) modeled loosely on the Federal Reserve Board. Like the Federal Reserve, Daschle's Fed Health "would be composed of highly independent experts insulated from politics."
| That's worked so well for our economy ... |
One of the central goals of Fed Health would be to compare the effectiveness of various medical procedures and drugs. Daschle asserts that such research into comparative effectiveness would produce substantial cuts in health care costs.
| It's not a bad idea in theory: the NIH already is sponsoring some comparative trials and much more could be done. I just don't trust Daschle to get it right and keep it 'insulated' from politics ... |
For example, in Critical, Daschle argues that Fed Health "could help define evidence-based health benefits and lower overall spending by determining which medicines, treatments, and procedures are most effective--and identifying those that do not justify their high price tags."
| Sounds like the Oregon plan a few years back, which made decisions on peoples lives based strictly on dollars. Of course that's what you expect from the progressive community -- you certainly won't get any compassion. |
Daschle adds, "We won't be able to make a significant dent in health-care spending without getting into the nitty-gritty of which treatments are the most clinically valuable and cost effective. That means taking a harder look at the real costs and benefits of new drugs and procedures."
Notice that Daschle is conflating two kinds of comparisons--clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness. Determining clinical effectiveness--that is, comparing different treatments to find out which ones work better--is certainly an appealing idea. After all, no patient would want an inferior treatment when a better one is available. However, determining cost-effectiveness is a much more fraught activity. How much is an extra few months of life worth? How much more should be spent on treatments that have fewer nasty side effects?
Much more at the link. I wouldn't buy Tom Daschle's book but your local library may have a copy. This is the Blueprint for "National Health Care". |