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
|