Doc-blogger Kevin Pho -- no liberal, and no fan of government action -- writes in defense of federally-funded comparative effectiveness research. "Physicians need an authoritative source of unbiased data, untainted by the influence of drug companies and device manufacturers," he writes. "With treatments and medications announced daily, having an entity definitively compare these newer, and often more expensive, options with established treatment regimens will be particularly useful in everyday practice."The fight over comparative effectiveness research is really a fight over who controls information. Right now, the pharmaceutical industry pays for most of the research and funds the most effective research distribution service (this service, incidentally, comes in the form of leggy former-cheerleaders and Miss America contestants, like the rep pictured at right). That's good for the pharmaceutical industry, which can emphasize the research aligns best with their business strategy.The threat of comparative effectiveness review is that Pharma loses control of the information. An alternative information pipeline opens up. This one, to use Kevin's evocative sentence, would be "untainted by the influence of drug companies and device manufacturers." (It also won't be delivered by former cheerleaders.) The sudden controversy over the comparative effectiveness money in the stimulus was a well-orchestrated backlash funded by the pharmaceutical industry. As one plugged in consultant told me today, "I've never seen anything like the pharmaceutical industry's mobilization over the language in the House bill." But don't begrudge Pharma its efforts. As Kevin says, "their motives in attempting to quash comparative effectiveness research could not be more obvious." The current regime is good for profits. And protecting profits is Pharma's job. But it's not good for the public. And protecting the public welfare is the government's job. KNOWLEDGE MAY BE POWER, BUT INFORMATION IS PROFIT.
Doc-blogger Kevin Pho -- no liberal, and no fan of government action -- writes in defense of federally-funded comparative effectiveness research. "Physicians need an authoritative source of unbiased data, untainted by the influence of drug companies and device manufacturers," he writes. "With treatments and medications announced daily, having an entity definitively compare these newer, and often more expensive, options with established treatment regimens will be particularly useful in everyday practice."The fight over comparative effectiveness research is really a fight over who controls information. Right now, the pharmaceutical industry pays for most of the research and funds the most effective research distribution service (this service, incidentally, comes in the form of leggy former-cheerleaders and Miss America contestants, like the rep pictured at right). That's good for the pharmaceutical industry, which can emphasize the research aligns best with their business strategy.The threat of comparative effectiveness review is that Pharma loses control of the information. An alternative information pipeline opens up. This one, to use Kevin's evocative sentence, would be "untainted by the influence of drug companies and device manufacturers." (It also won't be delivered by former cheerleaders.) The sudden controversy over the comparative effectiveness money in the stimulus was a well-orchestrated backlash funded by the pharmaceutical industry. As one plugged in consultant told me today, "I've never seen anything like the pharmaceutical industry's mobilization over the language in the House bill." But don't begrudge Pharma its efforts. As Kevin says, "their motives in attempting to quash comparative effectiveness research could not be more obvious." The current regime is good for profits. And protecting profits is Pharma's job. But it's not good for the public. And protecting the public welfare is the government's job. 
