Republicans, please stop lying.
People are confused enough already. And now Sen. Michael Enzi, R-Wyoming is saying, “These bills would expand comparative effectiveness research that would be used to limit or deny care based on age or disability of patients.”
No, that’s not what comparative effectiveness research would do. Comparative effectiveness research would simply compare how effective one treatment is relative to another. Insurance companies could then use this information when considering reimbursal rates. Let’s try an example:
A Globodrug Corp. introduces a brand new Purple Pill to lower blood pressure. Since it is 1) safe and 2) effective it receives FDA approval. Globodrug sells its patented pill for $50 a dose. An alternative treatment, Teal Pill, is long out of patent and sels for $1 a dose. It also lowers blood pressure. The FDA does not currently ask whether the Purple Pill works better than the Teal Pill. Currently, nobody asks that question. As you might imagine, Globodrug sends out a bunch of advertisements praising Purple Pill. It maybe also ghostwrites some articles talking about how great it is. Comparative effectiveness research would simply ask whether Purple Pill actually works better than Teal Pill. It might determine that they both do the same thing. In that case, an insurance company might pay for the Teal Pill but leave a large copay for anybody who still wants the Purple Pill.
You could also get a slightly less uncontroversial case if it turned out that the Teal Pill makes you sleepy but the Purple Pill does not. Is it nondrowsiness worth a 50-fold price increase? If you’re paying for it yourself, it probably isn’t. And with Comparative Effectiveness Research, you’ll atleast have access to that information.
Nobody is trying to deny care based on age or disability.
