Editorial: Health care leaves itself open to comparison

‘ ‘ ‘ Tucked inside the $787 billion economic stimulus package is an interesting provision that… ‘ ‘ ‘ Tucked inside the $787 billion economic stimulus package is an interesting provision that allocates about $1.1 billion to the federal government to compare the effectiveness of different treatments for the same illness or condition. Government researchers would be able to use the money to compare drugs, medical devices, surgery and other treatments, according to The New York Times. ‘ ‘ ‘ This allocation is the first time that the federal government has directly financed comparative medical research. While other countries have bodies that perform the same sort of comparisons, the United States is relatively late getting into the game. ‘ ‘ ‘ Part of this is because of medical industry lobbyists, who, not surprisingly, are opposed to this part of the stimulus package. One of their main criticisms is that comparing the effectiveness of treatments and publishing the results could allow insurance companies to ration care based on the cost of treatments with similar effectiveness ‘mdash; in other words, a more expensive treatment that works only as well as a cheaper one might not be covered. ‘ ‘ ‘ For the most part, though, this seems like a good plan. U.S. health care consumers are insulated from the costs of procedures by insurance companies, not to mention a lack of evidence on the relative effectiveness of different medical procedures. ‘ ‘ ‘ Really, there are few downsides to a plan designed to compare the effectiveness of medical treatments, at least for consumers. Rather than be swayed by potential costs, people will finally have solid evidence about the relative strengths and weaknesses of different treatment options. This will allow people to make more informed decisions about their own health. ‘ ‘ ‘ The plan should also help to decrease insurance costs, because insurance companies will not have to pay for expensive treatments without assurance that they would be no better than a simpler or less costly one. ‘ ‘ ‘ It will also keep them from spending extra money on unnecessary therapy or extra medicines, saving both consumers and the companies themselves the extra costs. ‘ ‘ ‘ Problems do exist in the proposal, though. One major concern is that the research will not differentiate between sexes or ethnic groups, instead opting for testing across a generalized swath of the population. Insurance companies willing to save money could potentially ignore that different treatments work better in certain minority groups, or for one sex over the other. ‘ ‘ ‘ Insurance companies might also refuse to cover treatments that are similar in effectiveness but different in recovery time or the amount of support involved. For instance, physical therapy might be just as good as surgery, but it could take longer to be effective. ‘ ‘ ‘ Overall, this provision looks like it’s aimed toward benefiting the consumers of health care, which is an admirable goal in any circumstance. Hopefully, it will be carried out in a way that actually helps the people who need it the most.