Well, I read in a major US daily that the $1.1 billion for comparative effectiveness research (via AHRQ) had been stripped from the Senate version of the stimulus package. And opined on this accordingly.
Wrong. The monies are indeed in the Senate version.
Apologies for the mistake. But a bigger mistake would be for Congress to pass a stimulus package with this earmark for cost-effectiveness.
Once again with feeling -- here's why:
1. The additional spending does not stimulate the economy. The money would be spent on consulting contracts for health care economists.
2. The way the money would be spent is neither transparent nor clearly defined. Indeed, nearly a half a billion dollars would be spent at the discretion of the HHS secretary without outside review, establishment of research goals or methodologies.
3. The rest of the money ($700 million) is a slush fund payoff to insurance companies and health plans. The group advising the government on which research organizations should get the money is made up mostly of HMOs, insurers and Medicaid directors. And the entities that would conduct the research are run by either by the health plans themselves or by consultants who work for them directly and who want the government to take over the job of deciding what technologies consumers should get and what doctors should get paid. This is a cost-based crowd.
Giving over a billion dollars for a small cadre of appointees who could dictate and determine medical practice and the future of the life sciences industry is a risky and unwise use of tax payer dollars under any circumstance. To suggest that it would stimulate the economy only adds insult to injury.
And again, please excuse the earlier mistake. Hope springs eternal.
