Comments on: Will comparative effectiveness research really save money?

By: A surgeon

A surgeon — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:31:03 +0000

Something that is comparatively effective, evidence-based (or whatever BS you want to call it) that fails to diagnose or treat properly still equals a malpractice suit in this country. I agree with Danimal: med-mal reform needs to come first. This will never happen though because lawyers run our government.

By: Danimal

Danimal — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 14:05:39 +0000

Forgive me for stating the obvious, but wouldn’t it make more sense to first reform the medical legal system before we worry about such things? I think reducing defensive medicine may cut costs just a bit more than the rest of Obama’s buffoonery. Then again, that’d hurt the trial lawyers, and they’re sacrosanct.

By: Michael Kirsch, M.D.

Michael Kirsch, M.D. — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 13:50:17 +0000

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is an essential element of health care reform. See http://mdwhistleblower.blogspot.com/2009/05/comparative-effectiveness-sound-policy.html
The quagmire will be in its operation. Special interests will use all of their power and resources to influence the process and the outcome. Careers and industries hang in the balance and they will not stand idly by.

By: Skepticu

Skepticu — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 23:38:44 +0000

“Evidence Based Medicine” is a term which makes about as much sense as “Sex-based intercourse”–Were we practicing based on zodiac signs before EBM came along?

I’m afraid lots of doctors were/are. The conservative, training-based approach doctors apply to solving problems is so pervasive and so well documented it need not be rehashed.

EBM is not a buzzword but a change in the way medicine is done, as revolutionary and important and medicine’s (it is important to note grudging and belated and confrontational) acceptance of the germ theory of contagion.