Will Doctors or Bureaucrats Prescribe Our Health Care?

Senator Jon Kyl and a group of Senators – including Sens. Mitch McConnell (Ky.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), and Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) have introduced critical legislation that seeks to protect the doctor and patient relationship from the oncoming onslaught of ObamaCare.

Known as the PATIENTS Act, the bill works to protect the individualized relationship between doctors and patients ensuring that new government rules and mandates that put a premium on cost never interfere with the practice of quality medicine.

To better understand how that will happen if ObamaCare is not defunded or repealed, it is critical to understand the nature of “comparative effectiveness research.” In order to save money for the cost of socialist health care regimes, bureaucrats often play the “comparative effectiveness research” card to mandate that doctors provide inferior care and treatment that often does not work.

These studies, for which there is nearly a billion dollars worth of funding in the ObamaCare bill, become the basis of bureaucratic mandates that substitute the government’s judgment for that of a doctor. For instance, if a government study says that drug X is as effective as drug Y (which is cheaper), the government will often begin to deny coverage for drug X forcing the doctor to use drug Y. In some instances, patients only respond to drug X. Doctors and patients should never be forced to take drugs that don’t work. Doctor’s need to be able to make these decisions without interference from a bureaucrat. That is what the Kyl bill seeks.

This is not a theoretical argument any longer.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the National Institute of Health has been conducting a study of the drugs Avastin and Lucentis. Lucentis is an FDA approved drug that is highly effective is stopping macular degeneration – a disease of the eye. The drug was tested and found safe to inject into the eye and patients report miraculous results. Avastin, on the other hand, was never approved for such a purpose. While effective in extending the life of cancer patients, it was never approved for eye injections. But because Avastin is cheaper than Lucentis, the NIH has been studying whether the drug should be substituted for Lucentis for “off-label” use.

This effort appears to have hit a roadblock. A Johns Hopkins University Study seems to indicate the dangers of such a scheme. The Journal reports that using Avastin for this non- approved purpose showed an 11% higher risk in overall mortality and a 57% higher risk of hemorrhagic cerebrovascular accident. “Data from this Medicare claims analysis suggest differences in the safety profile of Avastin versus Lucentis,” the researchers concluded.

Quality, safety and effectiveness are paramount concerns over cost and those decisions are best made on the front line of the health care battle – in the doctor’s office. Senator Kyl and his supporters understand this implicitly and hopefully the rest of the Congress will come to their senses soon.