Yesterday, I talked a bit about the need for a National Comparative Effectiveness Review Board -- a public, well-funded entity that would produce legitimate data on the cost-effectiveness of competing treatments. It's data we don't have now, and that leaves us unable to make evidence-based judgments on how to treat in a value-driven way. Commenter Wisewon, however, points to this blog post that digs into the complexities of a Comparative Effectiveness Review Board -- namely, how is the data used, and by who? Are we comfortable if insurers simply refuse to cover marginally less effective treatments because some government body said they were no good, or not good enough? What is good enough, anyway? When I have a bit more time, maybe I'll sit down and write a longer post on these issues. The concerns and complexities outlined in the post are important ones. But the basic lay of the land is that the troubles we face implementing the recommendations of a CER Board are nothing compared to the troubles we face trying to run a system where there's no CER Board providing data or guidance.
