JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for AAHPN Archives


AAHPN Archives

AAHPN Archives


AAHPN@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

AAHPN Home

AAHPN Home

AAHPN  July 2009

AAHPN July 2009

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Post New Message

Post New Message

Newsletter Templates

Newsletter Templates

Log Out

Log Out

Change Password

Change Password

Subject:

Re: WSJ attacks NICE again - but 62 US Medical Societies speak out in favor of CER

From:

"Starfield, Barbara" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Starfield, Barbara

Date:

Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:07:40 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

Reply

Reply

BTW: Apologies to all of my colleagues for the vast number of typos in my message; my typing is bad enough but on a blackberry it's hopeless. 
 
-----Original Message----- 
From: Anglo-American Health Policy Network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Starfield, Barbara 
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:49 AM 
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Re: WSJ attacks NICE again - but 62 US Medical Societies speak out in favor of CER 
 
Well I guess that Joe is right-iin part.  The Dartmoiuth group has been railing about overuse for almost forty years. But, you know, if you listen to people interviewed on NPR, even they don't mention primary care and overuse as issues. And no one--no one!i-iwill dare to say that a big culprit is academic medicine. The news today is of Harvard oncologist(s) calling for stronger linkages between medical schoools and industry--as if we didn't already have it. Perhaps the press does report it but in the context of ethics rather than effectiveness and safety i.e. health services reform.  There are 3 reasons for high costs--one-third each: prices, adminoistrative, and overuse. They are all tied together.  I don't think that the media get it and if they don't get it, they don't convey it. 
 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Joe White <[log in to unmask]> 
To: Starfield, Barbara; [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> 
Sent: Tue Jul 14 09:25:21 2009 
Subject: RE: WSJ attacks NICE again - but 62 US Medical Societies speak out in favor of CER 
 
So much of this debate, I guess, is informed by one's own views of what the 
result should be. 
 
It seems to me that Barbara and many others start from the premise that the 
world should be changed in a certain way, and then, since the world hasn't 
been changed in that way, conclude that their message isn't getting out.  I 
remember listening to the Brookings economists back in the 1980s complain 
that nobody was paying any attention to the budget deficit, presumably 
because it wasn't getting fixed.  It certainly couldn't have been for a lack 
of media coverage and elite focus on the issue -- Aaron Wildavsky and I 
wrote a book about how it dominated American politics in the 1980s, and Bob 
Reischauer described the entire policy debate as "fiscalized."  But it is 
hard for advocates to accept the alternative theory that their truthful 
message is being propagated broadly but rejected. 
 
To me, being more of a skeptic of the delivery reform agenda, it seems that 
delivery reform dominates the debate, at the expense of what to me seem more 
easily implemented measures such as better price regulation (Barbara and I 
would agree, I believe, that the relative payments for primary and specialty 
care need to be adjusted to improve the relative payments for primary care, 
though there are definitional issues there.  But I'm more interested in 
paying specialists and hospitals less than in promotion of primary care per 
se).  I look at the policy debate, for example common claims that the public 
is not supportive of cost control, and get aggravated because common 
arguments seem to associate cost control entirely with restrictions on 
delivery (public opinion broadly favors paying less per service). 
 
At any rate, if you want to see what politicians are hearing, check out the 
Senate Finance Committee's hearing in May: 
http://finance.senate.gov/hearings/48952.pdf .  You will find lots and lots 
of references to delivery system reform.  As for the press, there was a 
whole New York Times series on overuse earlier in the year.  And if you want 
an indicator of conventional wisdom, there is nobody more conventional than 
David Broder, the "Dean" of Washington political journalists (and co-author 
of a major book on the last reform debacle); so check out his column on July 
12. 
 
To me, it seems like the "unnecessary care" argument permeates elite 
discussions of cost control.  If mass opinion doesn't buy it, that's not 
because the message isn't being sent. 
 
Best, 
Joe 
 
-----Original Message----- 
From: Anglo-American Health Policy Network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On 
Behalf Of Starfield, Barbara 
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 7:34 AM 
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Re: WSJ attacks NICE again - but 62 US Medical Societies speak out 
in favor of CER 
 
The crux of it---in my view---is to get across the notion that more is not 
better.  That is why the literature on adverse events and the importance of 
avoiding unnecessary specialist visits and interventions has to be a big 
message.  There is lots of evidence out there but it hardly gets any 
big-time press. Guess why. 
 
Barbara 
 
-----Original Message----- 
From: Anglo-American Health Policy Network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On 
Behalf Of Adam Oliver 
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 4:41 AM 
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Re: WSJ attacks NICE again - but 62 US Medical Societies speak out 
in favor of CER 
 
Richard 
 
Who does? But, you're right - more Americans should contribute to the 
list. I hope you've spurred them on. But you've got to admit - it makes 
a change from Americans telling the rest of the world what they want... 
 
-----Original Message----- 
From: Anglo-American Health Policy Network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
On Behalf Of Richard Scheffler 
Sent: 14 July 2009 09:38 
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Re: WSJ attacks NICE again - but 62 US Medical Societies speak 
out in favor of CER 
 
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 
 
Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic 
communications disclaimer: 
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/secretariat/legal/disclaimer.htm 
 
 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JISCMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008


WWW.JISCMAIL.AC.UK

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager