View Full Version : UK's medical comparative-effectiveness studies

09-16-2009, 04:58 PM
Here is a link from a short editorial on it:
Link (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7262/full/461315b.html)

Here is the full article (Need Subscription):
Link (http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090916/full/461336a.html)

My question is, how is health care rationing dealt with now? How would it be dealt with under the different proposed plans? How would comparative cost/effectiveness studies be integrated into our future system?

One part of it that caught my eye:

An immediate solution for the cancer drugs would be to bring down the cost of the drug. But NICE is not allowed to engage in direct debates with drug companies about the cost of their products, although there are various schemes that allow manufacturers who are keen to have their drug approved by NICE to offer 'discounts' to the NHS. Pfizer, for example, offered a deal in which the first cycle of sunitinib would be free to the NHS. NICE's chairman, Michael Rawlins, says it "gets up my nose a bit" when the agency is criticized for rationing when pharmaceutical companies escape criticism for their pricing

09-16-2009, 05:01 PM
How does all my previous questions relate to Medicare? Is Medicare allowed to bargain with the Pharmaceutical companies for lower prices, using the stick of not approving some procedure/drug if the private market does not work with them? If not, why are they not allowed to?

09-16-2009, 05:22 PM
i may be wrong...

but it think that medicare does not bargain, and is explicitly denied the ability to bargain by the medicare part D expansion under bush - it was a big debate, and the GOP won by getting that provision in.

09-18-2009, 07:35 AM