Yes, there is tons of good poll evidence. But you can start with the
attached, from perhaps the leading Republican pollster.
-----Original Message-----
From: Anglo-American Health Policy Network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Alan Maynard
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 4:55 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: WSJ attacks NICE again - but 62 US Medical Societies speak out
in favor of CER
Thanks for your vote Ricardo! What do the other 299,999,999 Americans want?
Any GOOD poll evidence? Alan
On Jul 14 2009, Richard Scheffler wrote:
>I have listened to enough about what Americans want
>From
>Non Americans
>We donot want explicite
>Rationing of any kind
>Don't ask don't tell
>Richard
>Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Adam Oliver <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 09:23:05 To: <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re:
> WSJ attacks NICE again - but 62 US Medical Societies speak out in favor
> of CER
>
>
>I know all this Alan. I've written about it quite a bit, sometimes with
>you (I think). But it seems to me that you have to stay within the
>bounds of the politically possible. Many, probably most, Americans,
>don't want 'economics'-based rationing (heck, most Brits don't want it
>either). That partly explains the late 1990s backlash against HMOs. I
>guess, sometimes, it might not be an elephant, but if it looks like an
>elephant, smells like an elephant, walks like an elephant, is afraid of
>mice and has a great memory, it might as well be a bloody elephant
>(that's my Sarah Palin-ism for the day).
>
>Best,
>Adam
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Anglo-American Health Policy Network [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>On Behalf Of Alan Maynard
>Sent: 14 July 2009 03:31
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: WSJ attacks NICE again - but 62 US Medical Societies speak
>out in favor of CER
>
>Adam Rationing is universal! The Americans ration by willingness and
>ability to pay.They discriminate against the poor whereas Europeans try
>to
>discriminate on the basis of whether medical care is any use to you as a
>
>patient and taxpayer. Those who argue only UK-EU states ration care
>should
>be confined to institutions for the care of folk with unsound minds!
>Alan
>
>On Jul 13 2009, Adam Oliver wrote:
>
>>Hi
>>
>>I think this is quite interesting. We have Alan telling us that
>>cost-effectiveness analysis is the only way to go, and Calum telling us
>>that if we (or rather you, Americans) go that route then the spectre of
>>'rationing' will undermine major reform effort.
>>
>>Perhaps we should worry about value for money only when everyone is
>>covered? But, then, neither Congress nor the CBO would allow that,
>would
>>they?
>>
>>I think I would say focus on comparative effectiveness for the time
>>being, and remove from the system (if you can, and if there are any)
>any
>>ineffective interventions. It would be a start.
>>
>>Best,
>>Adam
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Anglo-American Health Policy Network
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>On Behalf Of Alan Maynard
>>Sent: 11 July 2009 09:16
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: WSJ attacks NICE again - but 62 US Medical Societies speak
>>out in favor of CER
>>
>>As ever necessary but not sufficient Simon! EBM stands for economics
>>based
>>medicine, not mere evidence based medicine! But gather the CBO
>>interprets
>>comparative effectiveness as cost effectiveness Alan
>>
>>
>>On Jul 10 2009, Stevens, Simon L wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>
>> Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
>> communications disclaimer:
>> http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/secretariat/legal/disclaimer.htm
>
> Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
> communications disclaimer:
> http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/secretariat/legal/disclaimer.htm
|