March 21st, 2011 by Michael Kirsch, M.D. in News, Opinion
No Comments »
Recently, every newspaper in the country reported on a landmark development in breast cancer treatment. It is now clear that certain breast cancer women do not need to undergo removal of lymph nodes from the armpit as part of their treatment. This would spare them from the risk and discomfort of an unnecessary procedure. It is welcome news, particularly for those of us who argue that in medicine, less is more. This is an example of the benefit of comparative effectiveness research, a tool that can separate what patients truly need from what the medical profession believes they must have.
Let’s hope that breast cancer breakthrough metastasizes across the medical profession. Here’s what it accomplished.
- It spares women from unnecessary surgery.
- It saves money.
- It demonstrates that physicians and medical professionals can serve the public interest.
- It gives hope that all medical specialties will critically evaluate and justify the tests and treatments that we recommend to our patients.
Ironically, when the U.S Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) published their mammography guidelines last year, also arguing that less is more, they were assailed as medical traitors against women.
When it comes to breasts
There’s a tug of war
Some want less
And some want more.
Every practicing physician, medical educator and researcher should examine their own practices and medical advice. On what basis do we recommend our treatments? Do we do so because we were taught these practices in our training years ago? Is it from habit or adhering to the community standard? Is it because patients have such a high expectation of a medical intervention that we feel obligated to act?
Can anyone argue that patients are subjected to too much/many
- Chemotherapy
- Antibiotics
- Colonoscopies
- Cardiac stents
- CAT scans and their imaging cousins Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at MD Whistleblower*
March 12th, 2010 by StaceyButterfield in Better Health Network, News
No Comments »
As one would expect from such a diverse group, comparisons were a common topic at the co-located National Medical Home Summit, National Retail Clinic Summit, and Population Health and Disease Management Colloquium this week.
During an opening session, Carolyn Clancy, head of the AHRQ, updated us on some of the comparison work her agency has been doing. Last year’s stimulus bill dedicated a lot of funds ($300 mill directly, more through the Secretary of HHS) to the agency’s work on comparative effectiveness. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at ACP Internist*
January 11th, 2010 by DrRich in Better Health Network, Health Policy, Opinion
No Comments »
As has been pointed out (pointedly) to DrRich, we do not have death panels in the United States. And indeed, considering that we’re not conducting military tribunals for Islamist terrorists who have tried (or succeeded in) killing and maiming as many of us as possible, it seems relatively unlikely that we’d assemble death panels (which sound even less due-process-friendly than military tribunals) for American patients.
What we will have, however, is a federally-mandated assembly, body, committee, commission, board, diet, parliament, or posse (but not a panel) of experts which will carefully evaluate all the objective clinical evidence regarding a particular medical treatment, and make “recommendations” to doctors about whether or when to use that treatment. The model which frequently has been offered up for our consideration, as we contemplate the workings of such a non-death-panel, is the British National Institute for Clinical Excellence, or NICE. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at The Covert Rationing Blog*
October 6th, 2009 by DrWes in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News
No Comments »
I just finished our first day at the Principle Investigator Meeting for the launch of the Catheter Ablation Versus Anti-arrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation (CABANA) trial in Philadelphia today. The trial is a 3000-patient patient trial performed at 140 centers around the world and jointly sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and industry (St. Jude Medical and Biosense Webster).
The trial will randomize 3000 previously untreated or incompletely treated patients at high risk of cardiovascular complications in the trial to two arms: 1500 patients to catheter ablation as primary therapy of atrial fibrillation and the other 1500 patients to conventional medical therapy with rate control or rhythm control strategies to determine if catheter ablation is superior to medical therapy at reducing total mortality (the primary endpoint). Secondary endpoints of a composite endpoint of mortality, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest will also be studied.
If done properly, this study stands to be a landmark trial for the field of cardiac electrophysiology and has huge ramifications for the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation. Also, it doesn’t take a lot of rocket science to know that the government will be looking closely at the results of this trial to determine which treatment strategy will receive government funding. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Dr. Wes*
August 20th, 2009 by EvanFalchukJD in Better Health Network, Health Policy, Opinion
No Comments »
As I’ve blogged about before (here, here, here and here), a big reason reform is going so badly is this: Reformers don’t understand how people react when you try to make changes to their health benefits.
Companies across America have been making changes to health benefits for years.
Reformers seem to have ignored the lessons of their experience.
Take one of the hottest trends in benefits – evidence-based plan design.
These are plans that offer better coverage if care is done based on evidence-based guidelines. It’s similar to the “comparative effectiveness” ideas that are so important to some of the reform proposals.
The National Business Group on Health published a study of challenges companies face implementing these plans. The study tried to understand how employees feel about these kinds of changes to their benefits.
Here are three of the major findings.
1. Most employees believe that more care is better care. Employees tend to view the idea that sometimes less care is the right care as “both unfamiliar and counter-intuitive.” Quality care is viewed as “trying as many things as possible, including new or alternative treatments.” In other words, you get what you pay for, and efforts to pay less are interpreted as efforts to give less.
2. Employees are suspicious of their employer’s motives. Employees tend to assume that their employer just wants to save money, and doesn’t really care about the quality of care they get. They suspect that moving to an evidence-based plan design is really just the first step toward more severe restrictions on choice and access.
3. Employees worry that employers are overstepping their bounds. Employees report worries that their employer wants to influence treatment decisions. They feel strongly that those decisions should be made by them and their doctor.
Reformers made a big mistake by focusing so intently on health care cost savings as the “single most important fiscal issue we face as a country.” It’s almost as if they decided to pick a way to promote reform that would create the most resistance.
Spend less on health care? That was almost certain to be understood as meaning you want to deny me or my loved ones the care we deserve. A panel of government experts deciding what treatments are effective? Who are they to tell me and my doctor what’s right? And don’t you dare tell me the reason you want to do all this is to make sure I get the best care.
Reformers have stumbled into a trap of their own making. Based on the continuing effort to demonize those who raise objections, they still don’t see it.
This is why reform is going so badly.
*This blog post was originally published at See First Blog*
Recently, every newspaper in the country reported on a landmark development in breast cancer treatment. It is now clear that certain breast cancer women do not need to undergo removal of lymph nodes from the armpit as part of their treatment. This would spare them from the risk and discomfort of an unnecessary procedure. It is welcome news, particularly for those of us who argue that in medicine, less is more. This is an example of the benefit of comparative effectiveness research, a tool that can separate what patients truly need from what the medical profession believes they must have.
