NCPA - National Center for Policy Analysis


January 20, 2009

In Britain, a government agency evaluates new medical products for their "cost effectiveness" before citizens can get access to them.  The agency has concluded that $45,000 is the most worth paying for products that extend a person's life by one "quality-adjusted" year.  By their calculus, a year combating cancer is worth less than a year in perfect health, says Dr. Scott Gottlieb, a resident fellow with the American Enterprise Institute.

Here in the United States, President-elect Barack Obama and House Democrats embrace the creation of a similar "comparative effectiveness" entity that will do research on drugs and medical devices.  They claim that they don't want this to morph into a British-style agency that restricts access to medical products based on narrow cost criteria, but provisions tucked into the fiscal stimulus bill betray their real intentions, says Gottlieb:

  • The centerpiece of their plan is $1.1 billion of the $825 billion stimulus package for studies to compare different drugs and devices to "save money and lives."
  • Report language accompanying the House stimulus bill says that "more expensive" medical products "will no longer be prescribed."
  • The House bill also suggests that the new research should be used to create "guidelines" to direct doctors' treatment of difficult, high-cost medical problems.

The bill gives incoming Health Secretary Tom Daschle wide discretion to set priorities, and he's long advocated a U.S. approach modeled on the British agency, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).   Daschle argues that the only way to reduce spending is by allocating medical products based on "cost effectiveness."  He's also called for a "federal health board" modeled on the Federal Reserve to rate medical products and create central controls on access.

Such calculations can't account for all the variation in disease and patient preference that drive medical decisions, says Gottlieb.  So it's no surprise that in Britain there's vocal dissent against NICE constraints, especially among cancer patients who are denied many effective new drugs that, for now, are widely prescribed in the United States.  The rich, of course, are able to opt out of the British controls.  But the rest of the country has to appeal to politicians -- rather than their doctors -- to gain access to restricted medicines.

The biggest flaws in the House Democratic plan aren't just political, explains Gottlieb, they're scientific.  Key comparative medical questions usually hinge on when doctors should escalate care to include more invasive measures -- not on bare comparisons between otherwise similar technologies, which is the focus of the House proposal.

Source: Scott Gottlieb, "Congress Wants to Restrict Drug Access; A bill in the House could tie your doctor's hands," Wall Street Journal, January 20, 2009.

For text:


Browse more articles on Health Issues