Well, if not love then at least respect. Significant respect.
I had lunch today with Sir Michael Rawlins (Chairman, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) in his office today. Finger sandwiches were served – but the conversation was meaty.
Rather than sharing any particulars of a private conversation (Chatham House rules, you know), I will say that we were of a mind on many things -- not the least of which is the need for better tools for clinical effectiveness research.
My only “ask” was for Sir Michael to consider traveling to the U.S. to speak at a Center for Medicine in the Public Interest conference on the future of clinical effectiveness. He readily agreed.
Watch this space for more details.
While waiting in the NICE lobby, I picked up a brochure entitled, “How to Change Practice.” There is much in it to debate, but one thing must be stipulated – the quote at the bottom of page 4:
“Change is not made without inconvenience, even from worse to better.”
The words (via theologian Richard Hooker, 1554-1600) are right, but it’s frightening that NICE should choose to quote from Hooker, who is (arguably) best known for his belief in the doctrine of “Justification by Faith.”
But I digress.
In the meantime, have a look at this new op-ed (from the Newark Star-Ledger), "President Obama, health care and "comparative effectiveness research."
Here are the concluding paragraphs to whet your wonkish appetite:
“Another way to make sure comparative effectiveness research is used properly is to follow the Food and Drug Administration's lead in creating a Critical Path Initiative for CER. The FDA's current Critical Path Initiative aims at using the latest scientific advancements to modernize the process through which treatments are turned from laboratory discoveries into useable medical technologies.”
“This model would be just as helpful in creating a modernized comparative effectiveness research program. By utilizing the most up-to-date scientific knowledge, treatment potency could be assessed in a manner that gives the utmost attention to the genetic, clinical, and demographic factors that affect how different patients react to different treatments.”
“President Obama is right to see the potential benefits associated with comparative effectiveness research. As he moves forward with his plan, however, it's imperative that he also be aware of the serious risks that this research poses.”
I had lunch today with Sir Michael Rawlins (Chairman, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) in his office today. Finger sandwiches were served – but the conversation was meaty.
Rather than sharing any particulars of a private conversation (Chatham House rules, you know), I will say that we were of a mind on many things -- not the least of which is the need for better tools for clinical effectiveness research.
My only “ask” was for Sir Michael to consider traveling to the U.S. to speak at a Center for Medicine in the Public Interest conference on the future of clinical effectiveness. He readily agreed.
Watch this space for more details.
While waiting in the NICE lobby, I picked up a brochure entitled, “How to Change Practice.” There is much in it to debate, but one thing must be stipulated – the quote at the bottom of page 4:
“Change is not made without inconvenience, even from worse to better.”
The words (via theologian Richard Hooker, 1554-1600) are right, but it’s frightening that NICE should choose to quote from Hooker, who is (arguably) best known for his belief in the doctrine of “Justification by Faith.”
But I digress.
In the meantime, have a look at this new op-ed (from the Newark Star-Ledger), "President Obama, health care and "comparative effectiveness research."
Here are the concluding paragraphs to whet your wonkish appetite:
“Another way to make sure comparative effectiveness research is used properly is to follow the Food and Drug Administration's lead in creating a Critical Path Initiative for CER. The FDA's current Critical Path Initiative aims at using the latest scientific advancements to modernize the process through which treatments are turned from laboratory discoveries into useable medical technologies.”
“This model would be just as helpful in creating a modernized comparative effectiveness research program. By utilizing the most up-to-date scientific knowledge, treatment potency could be assessed in a manner that gives the utmost attention to the genetic, clinical, and demographic factors that affect how different patients react to different treatments.”
“President Obama is right to see the potential benefits associated with comparative effectiveness research. As he moves forward with his plan, however, it's imperative that he also be aware of the serious risks that this research poses.”
