Long before it became politically defining and hazardous to one’s career, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney were uninhibited in their expression of ideas “to fix healthcare in America.” They were particularly supportive of:
- An individual mandate of some kind;
- Comparative effectiveness research (CER);
- Some long-term care insurance solution.
Yes, there were other ideas that these front-running Republican candidates shared and promoted. But what’s ironic is that many of their ideas –the very same ideas– were part of the original incarnation of the Affordable Care Act. In fact, the Center for Healthcare Transformation, a “think tank” founded by Newt Gingrich, might have written a very similar piece of legislation had it been charged with the responsibility –at that time. It’s undeniable.
And so what? Politicians can change their minds. It isn’t a big deal that Newt and Mitt have changed their positions on the individual mandate or that, for example, our president allowed CLASS (his version of a long term care insurance solution) to go down in flames. All, however, have remain committed to funding comparative effectiveness research. They just use different language to describe the same objective, because no one can afford to be seen as being in agreement with the others.
Perhaps you might remember a previous post of mine, Optimize Your Career Path, where I talked about the movie, Money Ball? Well, I recently stumbled into an NY Times piece written several years ago by an unlikely trio: Newt Gingrich, John Kerry and yes, Billy Beane, the revered GM for the Oakland A’s and on whom the movie Money Ball was based. It was entitled, How to Take American Health Care from Worst to First. And while not a fan of the story title, I couldn’t wait to read what they had to say.
Despite the fact that Gingrich, Kerry and Beane would seem to share absolutely nothing in common, they were all in full agreement –at that time– about how hospitals and physicians should apply a similar approach to healthcare, namely, using statistical evidence for better outcomes and more cost effective treatment. Recognizing the benefits, they were talking about standardization (in supply chain parlance).
As they pointed out then and remains largely true today (save notable exceptions), it may be easier for a doctor “to get more data on the starting third baseman on his fantasy baseball team than on the effectiveness of life-and-death medical procedures.”
From the article: “Working closely with doctors, the federal government and the private sector should create a new institute for evidence-based medicine. This institute would conduct new studies and systematically review the existing medical literature to help inform our nation’s over-stretched medical providers. The government should also increase Medicare reimbursements and some liability protections for doctors who follow the recommended clinical best practices. America’s health care system behaves like a hidebound, tradition-based ball club that chases after aging sluggers and plays by the old rules: we pay too much and get too little in return. To deliver better health care, we should learn from the successful teams that have adopted baseball’s new evidence-based methods. The best way to start improving quality and lowering costs is to study the stats.”
I have to admit that I’m embarrassed for politicians who express their opposition to CER. Shouldn’t policy decisions that determine coverage and reimbursement rates be informed by research? I mean, have we arrived at a point where such practical research funding –and such a wise investment– can be demonized based on one’s political affiliation?
Opponents of CER make the following arguments:
- CER will lead to rationing healthcare;
- CER is just about saving money;
- CER will lead to cookie-cutter medicine (physicians will lose their capacity for independent thought).
For the record and/or if it matters, the Affordable Care Act states that “research findings shall not be construed as mandates for practice guidelines, coverage recommendations, payment, or policy recommendations.”
SCM professionals understand the benefits of driving standardization (eliminating as much variance in practice and supply utilization as possible). And at the same time, we’re focused on more effectively collaborating with our suppliers to ensure, among other reasons, that we’re in the loop on new technologies and innovative thinking (i.e. standardization does not mean innovation is stifled).
CER is a fundamental enabler to all of the above.
Everyone sees the benefit of electronic health records. And to add value and context for those data, providers develop clinical pathways and GPOs now aggregate and distribute the same kinds of information. Obviously, what our government could enable, as the ultimate aggregation point, would be validating, if not game changing.
—Tom Finn
Tagged as:
Affordable Care Act,
CER,
Comparative Effectiveness Research,
healthcare
Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) is Essential for Supply Chain Standardization
by Tom on December 15, 2011
in General News and Commentary, Healthcare Providers
Long before it became politically defining and hazardous to one’s career, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney were uninhibited in their expression of ideas “to fix healthcare in America.” They were particularly supportive of:
Yes, there were other ideas that these front-running Republican candidates shared and promoted. But what’s ironic is that many of their ideas –the very same ideas– were part of the original incarnation of the Affordable Care Act. In fact, the Center for Healthcare Transformation, a “think tank” founded by Newt Gingrich, might have written a very similar piece of legislation had it been charged with the responsibility –at that time. It’s undeniable.
And so what? Politicians can change their minds. It isn’t a big deal that Newt and Mitt have changed their positions on the individual mandate or that, for example, our president allowed CLASS (his version of a long term care insurance solution) to go down in flames. All, however, have remain committed to funding comparative effectiveness research. They just use different language to describe the same objective, because no one can afford to be seen as being in agreement with the others.
Perhaps you might remember a previous post of mine, Optimize Your Career Path, where I talked about the movie, Money Ball? Well, I recently stumbled into an NY Times piece written several years ago by an unlikely trio: Newt Gingrich, John Kerry and yes, Billy Beane, the revered GM for the Oakland A’s and on whom the movie Money Ball was based. It was entitled, How to Take American Health Care from Worst to First. And while not a fan of the story title, I couldn’t wait to read what they had to say.
Despite the fact that Gingrich, Kerry and Beane would seem to share absolutely nothing in common, they were all in full agreement –at that time– about how hospitals and physicians should apply a similar approach to healthcare, namely, using statistical evidence for better outcomes and more cost effective treatment. Recognizing the benefits, they were talking about standardization (in supply chain parlance).
As they pointed out then and remains largely true today (save notable exceptions), it may be easier for a doctor “to get more data on the starting third baseman on his fantasy baseball team than on the effectiveness of life-and-death medical procedures.”
From the article: “Working closely with doctors, the federal government and the private sector should create a new institute for evidence-based medicine. This institute would conduct new studies and systematically review the existing medical literature to help inform our nation’s over-stretched medical providers. The government should also increase Medicare reimbursements and some liability protections for doctors who follow the recommended clinical best practices. America’s health care system behaves like a hidebound, tradition-based ball club that chases after aging sluggers and plays by the old rules: we pay too much and get too little in return. To deliver better health care, we should learn from the successful teams that have adopted baseball’s new evidence-based methods. The best way to start improving quality and lowering costs is to study the stats.”
I have to admit that I’m embarrassed for politicians who express their opposition to CER. Shouldn’t policy decisions that determine coverage and reimbursement rates be informed by research? I mean, have we arrived at a point where such practical research funding –and such a wise investment– can be demonized based on one’s political affiliation?
Opponents of CER make the following arguments:
For the record and/or if it matters, the Affordable Care Act states that “research findings shall not be construed as mandates for practice guidelines, coverage recommendations, payment, or policy recommendations.”
SCM professionals understand the benefits of driving standardization (eliminating as much variance in practice and supply utilization as possible). And at the same time, we’re focused on more effectively collaborating with our suppliers to ensure, among other reasons, that we’re in the loop on new technologies and innovative thinking (i.e. standardization does not mean innovation is stifled).
CER is a fundamental enabler to all of the above.
Everyone sees the benefit of electronic health records. And to add value and context for those data, providers develop clinical pathways and GPOs now aggregate and distribute the same kinds of information. Obviously, what our government could enable, as the ultimate aggregation point, would be validating, if not game changing.
—Tom Finn
Tagged as: Affordable Care Act, CER, Comparative Effectiveness Research, healthcare