At the recent Center for Medcine in the Public Interest conference, "Physician Disempowerment: A Transatlantic Malaise," Francois Sarkozy, MD (yes, the brother of the guy who didn't really call Sarah Palin) presented a videotaped interview with the real French Minister of Health, Roselyne Bachelot. Her topic, "The evolution of the practice of medicine."
To view the interview, click here.
And to view Dr. Sarkozy's PowerPoint presentation, click here.
This issue is becoming ever more urgent when you consider today's news from the UK that NICE (the National Institute for health and Clinical Excellence) has extended until January its assessment of four kidney cancer drugs, none of which was deemed cost-effective in a draft appraisal issued in August .
NICE, which "assesses" technology for the national health service in England and Wales, said that bevacizumab (Roche's Avastin), sorafenib (Bayer's Nexavar), sunitinib (Pfizer's Sutent) and temsirolimus (Wyeth's Torisel) did not represent the best use of NHS resources when used to treat advanced and/or metastatic RCC, despite acknowledging their clinical effectiveness in some settings and the narrow choice of other treatment options.
Is this what we want in the US? Because this is what (at least in the current context) "comparative effectiveness" means.
What we need are 21st century assessment tools for a personalized approach to the "4 rights" -- the right medicine in the right dose for the right patient at the right time. In other words, tools for patient-centric rather than cost-based comparative effectiveness.
To view the interview, click here.
And to view Dr. Sarkozy's PowerPoint presentation, click here.
This issue is becoming ever more urgent when you consider today's news from the UK that NICE (the National Institute for health and Clinical Excellence) has extended until January its assessment of four kidney cancer drugs, none of which was deemed cost-effective in a draft appraisal issued in August .
NICE, which "assesses" technology for the national health service in England and Wales, said that bevacizumab (Roche's Avastin), sorafenib (Bayer's Nexavar), sunitinib (Pfizer's Sutent) and temsirolimus (Wyeth's Torisel) did not represent the best use of NHS resources when used to treat advanced and/or metastatic RCC, despite acknowledging their clinical effectiveness in some settings and the narrow choice of other treatment options.
Is this what we want in the US? Because this is what (at least in the current context) "comparative effectiveness" means.
What we need are 21st century assessment tools for a personalized approach to the "4 rights" -- the right medicine in the right dose for the right patient at the right time. In other words, tools for patient-centric rather than cost-based comparative effectiveness.
