Commentary: Does oversight threaten the doctor-patient bond?
New York Times, February 27, 2009
A recent debate in healthcare reform has centered on the $1.1 billion set aside in the economic stimulus bill to compare the effectiveness of different treatments for the same illness. Supporters believe that such "comparative effectiveness" research will help to identify ineffective therapy, improve quality of care and ultimately decrease the time, effort, and money spent on treatments that don't work well. But critics say that such research could ultimately lead to a one-treatment-fits-all approach and that it would allow the government to dictate "appropriate" decisions in the doctor-patient relationship.
- Drug Pricing 'Tantamount to Greed,' Lawmaker Says
- CVS Ramps Up Retail Clinics with Provider Affiliations
- Study Puts Spotlight on Preventing Fall-Related Injuries
- Surgical Checklists Unused in 10% of Hospitals, CMS Data Shows
- Wanted: Nurse PhDs
- The Infection-Busting Treatment Payers Don’t Want to Talk About
- Contradictory Obamacare Rulings Issued by Appellate Courts
- 4 Tectonic Shifts Shaking Up Healthcare
- As HIPAA Breaches Accelerate, Tools Lag
- Doctors Feel Pressure to Accept Risk-based Reimbursement