Apparently the NYT thinks that an organization that evaluates medical devices for insurance companies and Medicare is less conflicted than the doctors seeking to help their patients. Does the NYT understand that head to head comparisons of most diagnostics and devices particularly for cancer have no use because of the increasingly personalized nature of treatment and the role such products play in seeking to increase the predictiveness and effectiveness of such technologies. Or that the only way to do so is not through randomized clinical trials but through clinical observation? Certainly insurance companies and ECRI (the comparative effectiveness outfit that works for insurance companies) would benefit from longer reviews before a product is paid for. But what about patients and doctors? Is there any evidence that delaying accessing to innovation for the sake of cost containment is any more efficient in finding the right treatment for the right patient than other patient-centered approaches developing knowledge?
Read New York Times Article here
Read New York Times Article here
