Two comparative effectiveness 'experts' (defined by a lack of experience in developing or using the technology they pontificate about) demonstrate how CER will and is being used to slow down and ration use of new technologies by requiring randomized clinical trials that 1) will take years to design and conduct and 2) and will be organized according to government goals.
The 'experts' give away their bias when they assert (without resort to the same randomized clinical trials they impose on any innovation) that consumer and doctor choice of less painful and time consuming procedures is due to marketing. Meanwhile, the authors have no problem with government spending millions marketing CER based guidelines that have not, unlike robotic surgery, been evaluated for clinical benefit in subpopulations. Indeed, the authors assert, without qualification, that doing nothing for prostate cancer is just as good.
The We Know Best arrogance is lethal as is the willingness to use a double standard when it comes to CER claims. Those who control CER cannot be trusted with our health. The authors included.
