Inflating the Deficit with Futile Health Therapies

Merrill Goozner

Published 2/27/12 in The Fiscal Times

Cynics say Washington is the city where good ideas go to die. A promising strategy for holding down health care costs in the Obama administration’s reform bill – providing patients and doctors with authoritative information on what works best in health care – should provide a classic test of that proposition, assuming the law survives the next election.

Experts estimate anywhere from 10 to 30 percent of the health care that Americans receive is wasted. It is either ineffective or does more harm than good. To put that in perspective, waste costs anywhere from $250 billion and $750 billion a year, or as much as three-fourths of the annual federal deficit.

Continue reading “Inflating the Deficit with Futile Health Therapies”

How Politically Unpopular Research Helps Us Make Better Medical Decisions

Kenneth Lin

First published 7/13/11 on the Healthcare Headaches Blog at USNews.

When a new drug goes on the market for, say, diabetes, doctors are typically bombarded by advertising messages that promote it. Patients may see television commercials touting the new drug’s advantages over older ones and advising them to “talk to your doctor” about obtaining a prescription. But since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration only requires drug companies to prove that new drugs work better than placebos (sugar pills), there’s often little or no reliable information about whether a new drug is actually an improvement over existing therapies.

Continue reading “How Politically Unpopular Research Helps Us Make Better Medical Decisions”

The FDA Should Add A Comparative Effectiveness Arm To Its Final Trials

Merrill Goozner

First published 6/16/11 on Gooz News

The Food and Drug Administration’s Prescription Drug User Fee Act is up for reauthorization next year, and so is the consumer and drug industry face-off over the contentious issue of comparative effectiveness research (CER). Consumers, patients and some physicians are demanding that CER be required of all new drugs coming to market when there are already FDA-approved therapies for the same condition. They say it will give payers and patients immediate feedback on the relative worth of the latest drugs, which are always more pricey than what preceded them, especially if the older drugs are coming off patent.

Industry opposes including CER arms in final efficacy trials. The companies claim it will place additional costs on the already expensive new drug development process; provide inadequate information for actually divining the relative worth of two competing therapies; and dissuade companies from investing in follow-on drug research, which can turn up drugs that are significantly better than older drugs.

Continue reading “The FDA Should Add A Comparative Effectiveness Arm To Its Final Trials”

More Can Also Be Less: We need a more complete public discussion about comparative effectiveness research.

JESSIE GRUMAN

Originally Published 12/1/10 on the Prepared Patient Forum

Jessie GrumanMedia coverage of the government’s new investment in comparative effectiveness research leans heavily toward the effects of such research on new drugs and technologies: Will such evaluations lead to restricted access to the latest innovations?  Will insurance no longer cover a drug that might give my aunt another year to live? Will such research hinder the development of a drug that could cure my nephew of type 1 diabetes?

Continue reading “More Can Also Be Less: We need a more complete public discussion about comparative effectiveness research.”