From an economic perspective, health reform will fail if we can't sometimes push back against the try-anything instinct. The new agencies will be hounded by accusations of rationing, and Medicare's long-term budget deficit will grow.
So figuring out how we can say no may be the single toughest and most important task facing the people who will be in charge of carrying out reform. "Being able to say no," Dr. Alan Garber of Stanford says, "is the heart of the issue." ...
None of these steps will allow us to avoid the wrenching debates that are an inevitable part of health policy. Eventually, we may well have to decide against paying for expensive treatments with only modest benefits.
So there will be "new agencies" who "can (will) say 'no'" to treatments. It will be up to the agencies to decide if the benefits are "expensive" and deliver "modest" benefits.And up to the
HT: PowerLIne
4 comments:
I think you forgot to close a strikethrough tag.
On a more positive note, you do a great job of calling attention to news that the "news" agencies neglect.
God bless!
Yeah, everything after the last 1/5 of this post is struck through - including your side bar.
Where can Sarah Palin go for apologies from her "death panel" critics?
"So there will be "new agencies" who "can (will) say 'no'" to treatments. It will be up to the agencies to decide if the benefits are "expensive" and deliver "modest" benefits."
Here here! It's about time. There is (and never has been) any logical reason that we spend billions and billions of dollars on tests and/or procedures that either indicate the obvious or provide little or no benefit to the patient's health and well-being. There is a big difference between rationing care and providing more effective care. Anyone who works in a health care profession knows exactly what i'm talking about.
I find it typical that the same people who clammer about waste and ineffeciencies in government spending are the ones who can't see this glaring contradiction in regards to our health care system.
Umnnnhhhh....
Actually, the argument is NOT 'whether "expensive" and "[marginally useful]" treatments should be given or not.
The argument is "WHO MAKES THE DECISION?"
Nice sidestep, but you'll have to try again.
Post a Comment