ShAARP Session: Observations from AARP

Kevin Pho, a primary care physician and health/medical blogger, recently mentioned AARP's Bill Novelli in an op-ed he wrote for USA Today all about comparative effectiveness research.

In the op-ed, Dr. Pho answers questions like, "How will it help patients? What are some of the obstacles that may impede the initiative? And, should it be modeled after the US Preventive Services Task Force?" Many elected officials and comparative effectiveness research nay-sayers wonder if doctors find any value in something like this...and they clearly do.

Pho goes on to say:

"As a primary care doctor, I am frequently faced with decisions where the choice is not always clear. Do the latest, more expensive drugs work better than the less costly, older medicat ions? Will ordering an MRI help me treat a patient's lower back pain? Often, the answer to these questions is, "I'm not sure."

With new drugs and technologies being introduced regularly, doctors face an increasing array of diagnostic and treatment choices. We need to realize that the latest isn't always the best, and by using data from comparative effectiveness research, physicians can provide the best care for their patients."

We're glad to hear doctors being vocal about how beneficial comparative effectiveness research can be to them, and their patients. As Dr. Pho noted, AARP has been vocal on this issue for some time now (thanks for the shout out!) and we don't plan on letting this one go anytime soon.

Kevin's blog can be found here.

Comments

Zoe says:

Agreed, that EACH patient is different, and that accumulating a list of "best choices" for standard treatment is not good, safe or smart.

In my area of the country (northeast) doctors are leaving practice. Some go to different states, some teach, some just plain give up. Regulations, insurance, paperwork, and the cost of MALPRACTICE have already taken away the ONE-TO-ONE relationship which was the case 40-50 years ago when I was young!

Work on malpractice reform. Do something about the large percenta of healthcare money spent on insurance companies, who only do paperwork. What is their function afterall? Patient sees doc. Doc treats patient. PERIOD.

And, let us not forget how important PREVENTIVE MEDICINE is. Until recently, insurance companies refused to pay for "routine" checkups... checkups which could ultimately SAVE many many dollars if a disease is caught early enough to treat easily! To say nothing about the CRUELTY of not looking for disease early.

Please, Mr. Obama! Do not make a study of most effective treatments.
One of the drugs I took for allergy was discontinued. NONE available today works as well...in fact they barely work.

One of the drugs I took for arthritis was discontinued. ALL available today wreak havoc with my stomach...ALL, including OTC. And it was not a cheap experiment to figure this out: Rx drugs are not returnable for a refund! Pfizer will not make Bextra (which worked nicely, thank you) for arthritis again...despite their recent ads about their Celebrex, which apparently has similar side effects (I spoke both to the company and the FDA). The FDA said that there was no reason that Bextra could not be made again, as long as there were warnings. Pfizer insists on sticking ONLY with Celebrex, which almost ripped out my stomach lining!

ONE DRUG DOES NOT WORK FOR ALL. ONE TREATMENT DOES NOT NECESSARILY WORK FOR ALL!!

We are all different. We all need INDIVIUAL care and attention.

MALPRACTICE should be controlled on a national scale.

INSURANCE COMPANIES should be controlled on a national scale...certainly not be allowed to dictate treatment.

Make PREVENTIVE MEDICINE A REQUIREMENT for insurance (assuming we have to keep that monster). If, instead of deciding the ideal treatment for one disease for everyone, we should establish a "best behavior" list of DIAGNOSTIC NEEDS based on family history and patient age...both for disease prevention, and health maintenance. Make health club membership a PLUS (affordable, tax-deductible?), not an extravagance which only a small percent of the population can afford.

If a patient is given 2 warnings to go for, say, a cholesterol or blood pressure or blood sugar test, and he/she does not, THEN increase their insurance premiums. With each warning, keep increasing the premium. Patients who comply should have their premiums lowered.
Why has no one even thought of something like this????

God bless America...and God bless its citizens!

03/27/09 4:35 PM

Patricia Dulisse says:

If the health reform bill is so wonderful, why is the President and Congress exempt from having to have it? I am very disappointed at the position that you are taking on this issue and cannot understand why we can't try a much more modified approach. If that doesn't work, then it can be increased. However, the President has said that he is for a single payer plan and that is what this will turn into - God bless the USA!!!

08/05/09 7:25 AM

Mr. & Mrs. Roy D. Roby says:

My wife and I are both members of AARP and often AARP does not represent our point of view such is the case with health care as we both are against Government run Health Care. You often fail to state that under the plan proposed by congress that medicare would suffer deep cuts to the people presently on medicare. As you know that is where congress plans tof get a lot of the money for Government Health Care.
Roy D. Roby & Rebecca L Roby

08/20/09 2:07 PM

sue skipworth says:

No representative should make comments on behalf of AARP without doing a poll among its members. Then the comments should reflect both sides of that poll. This is a membership organization not a board of directors organization. Personally, I am not in favor of a universal health care bill. I see everyday that people make choices about how they live their lives and spend their money. Then they want others to pick up the pieces when things don't turn out to suit them.

08/29/09 5:06 PM

Ed Chevassus says:

Regarding the article in the AARP Bulletin
"The Assault on the Truth"
I thought I was reading another speech from our president.
It was one sided, and assumed all the inaccuracies I've been hearing for months.
Who do you really think is going to pay for this?
How can you not call to attention the fact the Senate Finance
Committee says this can not be deficit neutral?
And paying for this is going to come from cutting fraud and abuse in Medicare?
Who are you preaching to morons?
Who do you think allows a program to function with so much waste and abuse?
Just think the abusers of medicare will just have a system
100 times the size to abuse.
I am very disappointed in the one sided bias half truth article.
It was very ironic it was named "Assault on the Truth"

10/07/09 1:15 AM

david says:

I resigned from AARP and will never give them another dime. They are not for America. They say they back this bill and they don't even know what's in it. Were the members of AARP informed that the stimulus package had a provision in it that inititated health care rationing panel. YES it's already in place and has just been funded a center. They will start rationing health care. Did you know the provision to fund the doctors is not in the bill that just came out of Nancy Pelosi's committee. Why? because it would increase deficit by at least 250B. They will leave that out and have to pass that bill to pay the doctors after they pass the bill that they say won't increase the deficit.

Wonder why they say they can get 300B in medicad fraud saving to pay for this. Why do they have to pass a spending bill to resolve a fraud waste and abuse problem with Medicade?

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM... your representatives care NOTHING about you.

11/04/09 6:38 PM

Jack says:

I cannot believe AARP is supporting this bill--YOU HAVE NOT EVEN read the contents!!! Who in this cooperation is getting their pockets lined with dirty Democrat money? Get me off your mailing list immediately and you better had not included my wife or I as ONE of your members supporting you!!

11/05/09 5:27 PM

Leave a comment




Previous | Next