We’ve touched on the implications of the most recent Labor/HHS bill to come out of subcommittee. I go into more detail about it today at the JAMA Forum. Go read!
Authors
-
Recent posts
- Fluoridation
- How to debate a wing nut
- Chart of the day: Cognitive ability and enrollment into public programs
- Cutting the budget for inspections of compounding pharmacies
- Sound Medicine: Why are employers offering health care incentives?
- “Body Ritual among the Nacirema”
- A conversation with Keith Humphreys on health reform, mental health, and substance abuse treatment
- Micro and macro totems
- Bias, validity, and terminology
- The sequester is hurting mental health research
Archives
For speaking inquiries
Aaron’s stuff
Austin’s stuff
-
JAMA Forum: Bill Would Gut Patient-Centered Outcomes Research
July 26, 2012 at 9:25 am
Aaron CarrollWrite a comment
Follow the blog
TIE Books
Tag cloud
AcademyHealth accountable care organizations Affordable Care Act announcement antitrust blogging books comic competitive bidding costs cost shifting deficit employer-sponsored health insurance health care costs health insurance health insurance mandates health reform hospital readmissions hospitals instrumental variables insurance exchange market power Massachusetts Medicaid Medicare mortality obesity On The Record physicians politics PPACA premiums premium support prescription drugs prostate cancer quality reading list reflex RWJF single payer spending substance use tax uninsured xkcd
Loading
by CRS on July 26th, 2012 at 10:06
I can’t get the link to work. Sure I could go google it but
I’m lazy. Thanks!
by Aaron Carroll on July 26th, 2012 at 10:35
Fixed!
by Ken Hamer on July 26th, 2012 at 12:57
Wouldn’t it just be easier to change the agency’s mission from “to improve the quality, safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of health care for all Americans” to “to improve the quality, safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of health care for wealthy Americans as selected by the Republican/Tea Party”?
That way it would likely instead receive an increase in funding.
by steve on July 26th, 2012 at 22:31
I don’t understand the opposition to cost effectiveness research. Figuring out how it became anathema to some on the right is on my to-do list.
Steve
by Pam on July 27th, 2012 at 01:27
I don’t think there is any great mystery here about why people don’t support it. The entire ACA has been a public relations disaster and people are scared. I live in a retirement community and many people are afraid that they are going to be denied care in their old age. They are afraid that some group of nameless, faceless bureaucrats are going to cut out some essential service or deny them some care because they are “too old to benefit”. Even the people who support the general concept of the ACA don’t understand outcomes research and how it will work. Even I, who spent my much of my working career doing outcomes research, don’t really understand how it will be implemented. The lack of clarity and specificity is astounding. So people are afraid.