Preserving Patient and Doctor Choice

Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) has introduced critical legislation that aims to stem the coming tide of rationing of America’s health care services. The PATIENT’s Act will ensure doctors and patients have the final say about medical treatment and new ObamaCare created “comparative effectiveness research” will not put a government created barrier to better treatment.

On the surface, there is nothing inherently wrong with “comparative effectiveness research.” Advocates believe it will save the taxpayers money by studying whether alternative and cheaper treatments are just as effective as currently prescribed methods of treatment. ObamaCare appropriated nearly $1 billion for such studies.

The problem, however, is when government takes that research and mandates a “one-size-fits-all” health care regimen that does not fit every patient . And with government mandated to reduce the cost of health care, these studies will assuredly become the intellectual justification of rationing. Here’s why.

Doctors have a unique relationship with their patients. They know how they respond to treatments. Government bureaucrats do not know, and frankly do not care, how an individual responds. They care about the big picture – the bottom line. If they can show cost savings by swapping a drug, they will do it. That appears to be happening with the drugs Lucentis and Avastin.

Avastin is a late-stage anti-cancer drug that is similar to a drug called Lucentis. Some argue it’s identical. Lucentis has been approved by the FDA to stop macular degeneration. Avastin has not been. But the National Institute for Health (NIH) has been studying whether non-approved Avastin can be injected into the eye instead of Lucentis. The driving force is price. Avastin is much cheaper than Lucentis.

But some doctors report that their patients with AMD do not respond to Avastin but respond greatly to Lucentis. They do not know why. If the government issues a policy that denies coverage for Lucentis – a likely outcome should the research shows they are comparative – some patients will lose their eyesight.

That’s why Kyl’s bill is so critical. Doctors and patients need the final say. Decisions should never be dictated by cost. Doctors are driven by results. Bureaucrats are not.