November 2007
Missing evidence
Consumers are especially vulnerable to promotional persuasion in health care, because they assume that the medical treatments
their doctors recommend, such as Ron Spurgeon’s triple bypass, are necessary and effective. They are frequently mistaken.
“About 80 percent of what we do in medicine today is not backed up by solid evidence--a clinical trial that proves it’s really superior to other therapies,” says Lee Newcomer, M.D., senior vice president for oncology at United Healthcare.
Many developed nations have some kind of national agency that objectively evaluates new treatments and technology and determines coverage policy, such as Britain’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Though insurers and medical specialty societies, among others, do such evaluations in the U.S., payment and coverage decisions here are driven mainly by pressure from manufacturers, doctors, and consumers, according to a study published in the November/December 2004 issue of Health Affairs. No one wants to be “the one on the block who doesn’t know the new technique,” a physician told the researchers.
Some health-policy experts are advocating the creation of a national center devoted to research directly comparing different medical treatments, an idea that Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports, strongly supports.
“There is clearly value to new medical technology and pharmaceuticals,” said Lichtenfeld of the American Cancer Society. “We have to understand the best way to use them, and not overuse them.”
“About 80 percent of what we do in medicine today is not backed up by solid evidence--a clinical trial that proves it’s really superior to other therapies,” says Lee Newcomer, M.D., senior vice president for oncology at United Healthcare.
Many developed nations have some kind of national agency that objectively evaluates new treatments and technology and determines coverage policy, such as Britain’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Though insurers and medical specialty societies, among others, do such evaluations in the U.S., payment and coverage decisions here are driven mainly by pressure from manufacturers, doctors, and consumers, according to a study published in the November/December 2004 issue of Health Affairs. No one wants to be “the one on the block who doesn’t know the new technique,” a physician told the researchers.
Some health-policy experts are advocating the creation of a national center devoted to research directly comparing different medical treatments, an idea that Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports, strongly supports.
“There is clearly value to new medical technology and pharmaceuticals,” said Lichtenfeld of the American Cancer Society. “We have to understand the best way to use them, and not overuse them.”
