> Interesting, Simon.
The irony is that, in the USA, those on the Right who point to the spectre
of NICE as some kind of commie rationing are those whose health policies
deny care to millions; whereas in 'England', NICE is sometimes seen
through the lens of campaigning local newspapers as a betrayal of a fully
comprehensive NHS (even when these newspapers are owned by the Right!)
That said, we should be careful. It is vital that US citizens (including
those currently quite well-covered) see National Health Insurance - or the
Obama plan; or whatever - as compatible with generously-funded,
'unrationed' care. Otherwise it's dead in the water (even without the best
efforts of fiscal conservatives and/or powerful provider and employer
lobbies.) In that vein, health economists who imply that NICE is too
generous are not aiding progressive reform..... 'objectively', as Marxists
used to say!
Another (provocative) thought. It seems, earlier this week, that ending
'tax-expenditures' for private/employer care is now dead in the water.
Maybe just as well......for destabilising the largest part of the current
'system' without a clear, progressive alternative being politically
available could be dangerous......In a perfect world, I's like to see all
that cash mobilised for a single-payer system, but.....
All the best, Calum Paton
In case you didn't see it, attached is a constructive intervention in
> the comparative effectiveness debate from 62 medical societies. They've
> apparently now written to the Senate in defense of the idea...
>
>
>
> Simon
>
>
>
>
>
> Simon Stevens
>
> UnitedHealth Center for Health Reform
>
> www.unitedhealthgroup.com/reform
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>>From: Anglo-American Health Policy Network [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ]
>>On Behalf Of Jost, Timothy
>>Sent: July-08-09 8:45 AM
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: WSJ attacks NICE again
>
>
>
>
> This e-mail, including attachments, may include confidential and/or
> proprietary information, and may be used only by the person or entity
> to which it is addressed. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended
> recipient or his or her authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified
> that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is
> prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the
> sender by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately.
>
|