USA Today Opinion Piece Says Comparative Effectiveness Research Would Inform Doctors, Improve Care
Studies similar to those touted by the Obama administration "that compare drugs, medical devices and procedures should help determine what treatments benefit patients the most while cutting costs," Kevin Pho, a physician, a member of USA Today's board of contributors and a blogger, writes in a USA Today opinion piece. Pho writes that comparative effective research is worthwhile because physicians "rarely are sure which treatments work best" and "often prescribe the most aggressive therapy, or the newest drug or medical device, which likely will also be the most expensive."
He adds that while "comparison research is largely conceptual, and questions remain as to who will conduct the studies, what to make of data presently available and how new research will be applied," a 15-person panel created by HHS last week will be asked to "make those decisions." The piece states that the panel "might use the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force as a model," because it "provides preventive care recommendations based on rigorous assessments of the available evidence on issues such as cancer screening and heart disease prevention." According to Pho, "Although the task force is universally recognized as the 'gold standard' in preventive service research, doctors are not bound by its recommendations."
Pho continues that these studies have "limitations," including that women and minorities are not "appropriately represented." In addition, because such large-scale trials "take years to complete," the issue in question "could change, or become irrelevant, during the course of the study." Pho writes that "doctors must be willing to incorporate this new research in their daily practice." He concludes, "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" (Pho, USA Today, 3/26).
