And the death panel chair is...

[AllieBaba]

"In June 2009, in an interview with Biotechnology Healthcare, Dr. Berwick made his own remark about rationing--in the context of government-funded health-care.

“We can make a sensible social decision and say, ‘Well, at this point, to have access to a particular additional benefit [new drug or medical intervention] is so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds,’” said Berwick. “We make those decisions all the time. The decision is not whether or not we will ration care--the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. And right now, we are doing it blindly.”

CNSNews.com - Gibbs Evades Question of Whether Obama Agrees With His Medicare Director That Health-Care System Must Redistribute Wealth

it doesn't get much clearer than that.

 

[Greenbeard]

Why are simple concepts made so difficult? Health care resources don't exist in infinite supply, meaning choosing the most effect treatments is important. That's a question about comparative effectiveness research (CER). From that interview:

If you take what people call CER, there are three different levels of analysis. The first level is a simple evaluation of effect: Does this drug work at all? We have the scientific enterprise to do that, but it’s not as developed, invested in, or as independent as it really should be. The nation’s investment in the continuing evaluation of new medications— including the biologics —and technologies is essential. The people who make biologics have a strong interest in showing that they are effective and not in finding out if they are effective.

The second level is comparative effectiveness, which means that when a drug, device, or treatment is offered, it is not offered against a zero status quo. Having a CER agency asking how much more do you get with B than with A, instead of with B compared with nothing, is an important enterprise. That is at the heart of what CER really ought to be — a well-informed comparative assessment, not an exercise that pretends nothing else exists.

The third level is an analysis of cost-effectiveness. If a new drug or procedure is effective, and has some advantage over existing alternatives, then does the incremental benefit justify the likely additional cost?

Comparative effectiveness research is about smarter medicine. This is one of those areas where experts and the public diverge on their understanding of the importance of this research to controlling costs:

However, comparative effectiveness research is certainly not the same as Palin's death panel:

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care.

The question Berwick is discussing is entirely about which treatment is worthy of your ailment, not whether you are worthy of treatment.

It makes no sense to slam Berwick as a socialist who wants to give health care resources to everybody (particularly through redistribution to the sickest, poorest, and oldest in society), while at the same time claiming he wants to kill off the weak in society with death panels.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's ironic that conservatives think this scores valid points for their side,

when the conservative approach to healthcare rationing is to simply take away everyone's ration book.

What conservatives don't seem to get through their fat heads is that while they're happily slamming anyone on the left who points out the reality of the limits to how much government can spend on healthcare,

they themselves have an agenda to do far more to limit how much the government spends on healthcare.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Comparative effectiveness research is just another way of saying Eugenics

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"We are God's partners in matters of life and death" -- Barack Adolf Obama, addressing a group of Rabbis and discussing Health Care "reform"

 

[Oddball]

Comparative effectiveness research is about smarter medicine. This is one of those areas where experts and the public diverge on their understanding of the importance of this research to controlling costs:

Because if it's one thing that authoritarian central controllers and their willing useful idiot accomplices believe above all else, it's that they're the smartest people to ever draw a breath.

Good job, Pinkbeard.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I wonder why there were 14 million new gun sales last year?

 

[Cuyo]

Comparative effectiveness research is about smarter medicine. This is one of those areas where experts and the public diverge on their understanding of the importance of this research to controlling costs:

Because if it's one thing that authoritarian central controllers and their willing useful idiot accomplices believe above all else, it's that they're the smartest people to ever draw a breath.

Good job, Pinkbeard.

I was looking for some nice hearty conspiracy theory to start the day with. Dude delivers.

 

[Oddball]

Those weren't my words, Gomer.

 

[Greenbeard]

I was looking for some nice hearty conspiracy theory to start the day with. Dude delivers.

Must be afraid they're going to start rationing tin-foil hats.

 

[Oddball]

I'm not the one who believes that "competition" can be directed by central authority, tovarich.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Life under a Government Run 5 year Plan, what could be better?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Comparative effectiveness research is just another way of saying Eugenics

How? How would the government not paying for a treatment that doesn't work be eugenics?

Entertain us this morning.

 

[maineman]

Why are simple concepts made so difficult? Health care resources don't exist in infinite supply, meaning choosing the most effect treatments is important. That's a question about comparative effectiveness research (CER). From that interview:

If you take what people call CER, there are three different levels of analysis. The first level is a simple evaluation of effect: Does this drug work at all? We have the scientific enterprise to do that, but it’s not as developed, invested in, or as independent as it really should be. The nation’s investment in the continuing evaluation of new medications— including the biologics —and technologies is essential. The people who make biologics have a strong interest in showing that they are effective and not in finding out if they are effective.

The second level is comparative effectiveness, which means that when a drug, device, or treatment is offered, it is not offered against a zero status quo. Having a CER agency asking how much more do you get with B than with A, instead of with B compared with nothing, is an important enterprise. That is at the heart of what CER really ought to be — a well-informed comparative assessment, not an exercise that pretends nothing else exists.

The third level is an analysis of cost-effectiveness. If a new drug or procedure is effective, and has some advantage over existing alternatives, then does the incremental benefit justify the likely additional cost?

Comparative effectiveness research is about smarter medicine. This is one of those areas where experts and the public diverge on their understanding of the importance of this research to controlling costs:

However, comparative effectiveness research is certainly not the same as Palin's death panel:

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care.

The question Berwick is discussing is entirely about which treatment is worthy of your ailment, not whether you are worthy of treatment.
It makes no sense to slam Berwick as a socialist who wants to give health care resources to everybody (particularly through redistribution to the sickest, poorest, and oldest in society), while at the same time claiming he wants to kill off the weak in society with death panels.

I have to spread rep around before I can give it to you again. No matter..this post is brilliant. Thank you.

 

[chanel]

CER makes sense. But to think that research is not going to be exploited by insurance companies to control costs, would be naïve at best. Patients make treatment decisions with their doctors; not with the government or the insurer. A double masectomy vs radiation is a personal choice. And we all know those types of choices will be limited. Unless you are rich - which is how it works in other socialist countries. And our new death panel czar loves socialist medicine.

I think this guy is dangerous.

 

[Old Rocks]

CER makes sense. But to think that research is not going to be exploited by insurance companies to control costs, would be naïve at best. Patients make treatment decisions with their doctors; not with the government or the insurer. A double masectomy vs radiation is a personal choice. And we all know those types of choices will be limited. Unless you are rich - which is how it works in other socialist countries. And our new death panel czar loves socialist medicine.

I think this guy is dangerous.

So you are saying that the other industrial nations have death panels? Is that why 36 of them, including little Costa Rica, have longer average life spans than we do?

Are you people ever going to address reality?

 

[Oddball]

Speaking of addressing reality, life spans in other nations are entirely irrelevant.

 

[EriktheRed]

It's ironic that conservatives think this scores valid points for their side,

when the conservative approach to healthcare rationing is to simply take away everyone's ration book.

What conservatives don't seem to get through their fat heads is that while they're happily slamming anyone on the left who points out the reality of the limits to how much government can spend on healthcare,

they themselves have an agenda to do far more to limit how much the government spends on healthcare.

I think the real reason the "death panels" talking point is making a comeback isn't really the appointment of Berwick, but this:

Pollster.com - Political Surveys and Election Polls, Trends, Charts and Analysis

 

[EriktheRed]

However, comparative effectiveness research is certainly not the same as Palin's death panel:

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care.

The question Berwick is discussing is entirely about which treatment is worthy of your ailment, not whether you are worthy of treatment.

It makes no sense to slam Berwick as a socialist who wants to give health care resources to everybody (particularly through redistribution to the sickest, poorest, and oldest in society), while at the same time claiming he wants to kill off the weak in society with death panels.

Yeah, but Bible Spice is so much easier on the eyes, so she has more credibility.


/sarcasm

 

[Oddball]

"Give healthcare resources" presumes that they belong to you to give in the first place.

Pinkbeard's red slip is showing.