Congress, Industry Executives Take on Wasteful Healthcare Spending

Increased cost = publicly traded insurance companies

The simple equation to know in evaluating rising health care costs is Increasing cost = Publicly traded insurance companies. The true source of rising health care costs is the insurance industry. Many insurance companies are publicly traded, profit driven entities. Before managed care was introduced in the late 1970's health care was 7.7% of the country's GDP. Now health care is 16% of GDP. The vast majority of doctors are making less money now than twenty years ago. Yes, there are problems with over-utilization. In many cases over utilization results from doctors trying to maintain income in the face of constantly decreasing reimbursement by doing more procedures. Insurance companies have not been a friend to doctors or patients. I can't emphasize enough the fact that many doctors are struggling to pay overhead, repay student loans and prepare for retirement. Doctors have not benefited from the last twenty years of rising health care costs.

One issue nobody seems to talk about is that many doctors will not tolerate having the government control patient care. If you go to school for 10 years after college, you would like the freedom to prescribed the best indicated medical treatment. I promise that many physicians will leave the profession if things turn much worse. If you think there is a physician shortage now, just wait for more government control. There will be no need for rationing of care because there won't be enough doctors to provide the care we are accustomed to . I am currently a resident physician and many of my colleagues discuss alternative careers on a daily basis. It just isn't worth it.

Sickness industry

We do not have a 'health industry' it is better called a 'sickness industry' who profits handsomely from expensive non-cures of 'chronic diseases'. All you hear about is 'managing a disease' not curing it. Guess which is more profitable.

This industry supports neither vaccines which prevent disease not disease cures which, if successful, cut off revenue from a previously profitable 'customer'.

Lets stop kidding ourselves, privatization of health care isn't working any better than so called 'socialized medicine'.

While we're at it, lets stop talking about "health insurance". Treatment of disease is a service, not a casualty loss. Services aren't insurable - it's like trying to insure against your cell phone bill. We need a national health service.

Run correctly, it would reduce health costs by 50% while covering everyone - and probably improving the health of the country.

Universal Medical Care

DON'T LET THE FOX GUARD THE CHICKEN COOP!!! It would be a great mistake to rely on any entity that profits from the results of medical evaluations in any way, to conduct or influence such evaluations.

Also, we need a separate medical care option run by the government to compete with current providers (HMOs, Insurance companies, etc.) to ensure that they stop using gate-keeping tactics to improve their bottom line at the expense of affordable, guaranteed care for all patients. In addition, proper behavior by providers should be defined and enforced.

Look behind the Curtain

DanIf one looks into Sean Tunis's Center for Medical Technology Policy, you will find that they are staffed by former high-ranking executives of for-profit health insurance companies. Moreover, they are financially backed by those same companies.

Anyon find it fishy that companies that set record profits under the Bush II administration now wants taxpayers to fund studies that basically eliminate treatment and test options in favor of a streamlined HMO-like approach?

Remember how Big Tobacco sponsored science that slandered the cancer causing effects of tobacco? CMTP is a psuedo non-profit.

Look into why Tunis and his staff doesn't ever disclose that they hve an inherent conflict of interest... there is a deeper story here.

Comparative Effectiveness Research

The advantage of comparative effectiveness research is if it reflects the same thinking that evidence based medicine does - that research on medical practice, protocols, outcomes conducted by practioners who work in the field and hospitals.

The disadvantage of comparative effectiveness research would be if research is conducted by companies who are selling product or funding research. Bias is not removed and the nuances of patient care are left out of how outcomes are presented. Other concerns would be if research is treated as situationally specific rather than as a body of work. Healthcare outcomes and the overall health of a community or a nation cannot be treated, in all cases, as individual rules that apply to all cases.

The presentation of "independent" research based on real-life practice should be a key driver in comparative effectiveness research.

I would agree with comments that "Comparative Effectiveness Research" needs to be considered within the context of the origin and process of conducting the research.

You can bet your booties

that insurance companies would LOVE some "comparative effectiveness research" (paid for with YOUR tax dollars) in a database they could use to deny claims for anything but the cheapest.

If you think that their terms of "not medically necessary" and "usual, reasonable and customary" and "experimental treatments not covered" have been a pain and a crock for you, wait 'till someone gives them THIS.

No, no, no. Not without a concurrent public plan option (a thing which, by the way is single payer in slow motion). No electronic medical records either. Not without a public plan option.

Why, you say? Because private insurance companies do not have to gather the will of the people to make changes to coverage. They just force policy amendments down your throat any ole time they like. Do not give them these tools without demanding an alternative choice for yourself and you fellow citizens.