Safety and Cures vs Cost: The Government Picks Sides

In the days before ObamaCare, there was a clear delineation between the American medical industry and the government. The industry would invest – often with the assistance of government policy initiatives — in finding cures and the government would ensure the new drugs were safe. It was a simple equation that worked and helped make American medicine the envy of the world.

Since the election of President Obama and the enactment of his government takeover of our health care system, the emphasis is no longer on finding cures but limiting cost. In fact, limiting cost is taking precedent over protecting the safety of patients.

The foundation of this effort was laid in the president’s ill-fated stimulus plan. A provision in the bill set aside over $1 billion for “comparative effectiveness” research – certainly a “shovel ready project” if we every saw one – but that is a debate for a different day. Betsy McCaughey of the Hudson Institute warned that the provisions “treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry.” Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., (R-LA) a heart surgeon, warned that it would lead to “denying seniors and the disabled lifesaving care.” Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) unsuccessfully proposed amendments to bar the federal government from using the research to eliminate treatments for the elderly or deny care based on age. How right they were.

The National Institute of Health will release their first high profile multi-million study next week to determine whether the drug Avastin (the same drug the Food and Drug Administration is trying to deny to breast cancer patients) can be injected into the eye to combat wet age related macular degeneration instead of the FDA approved drug Lucentis. Avastin was never approved for this purpose but the cost of Avastin is cheaper than the cost of Lucentis.

Leaked news of the study has the government rationers proclaiming victory. Headlines are proclaiming that the two drugs are equally effective for eyes but the federally funded study also found a higher rate of “serious systematic events” among those treated with the non-approved drug. Great news, huh?

The bottom line is that each patient is different. Doctors and not bureaucrats should make the determination as to which is the best way to proceed.

Will the government push forth with their efforts to substitute cheaper drugs for more effective – and safer drugs – in order to save money? It’s clear that is the driving force behind “comparative effectiveness research.” The markers have shifted and cost – not safety and finding cures – is the driving forced behind America’s new health care policy. In the end, patients will suffer in this Brave New World.