Comments on: Should the U.S. get NICE? http://healthcare-economist.com/2009/03/09/should-the-us-get-nice/ Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:19:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Healthcare Economist · Medicare Oversight http://healthcare-economist.com/2009/03/09/should-the-us-get-nice/comment-page-1/#comment-5728 Healthcare Economist · Medicare Oversight Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:04:08 +0000 http://healthcare-economist.com/?p=2051#comment-5728 [...] the British government has NICE, recreating this in the U.S. will be difficult.  The history of the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) proves this.  Further, if the findings of an objective scientific finding concerning mammograms [...] [...] the British government has NICE, recreating this in the U.S. will be difficult.  The history of the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) proves this.  Further, if the findings of an objective scientific finding concerning mammograms [...]

]]> By: The Healthcare Economist on Comparative-Effectiveness Research | Think Tank West http://healthcare-economist.com/2009/03/09/should-the-us-get-nice/comment-page-1/#comment-5677 The Healthcare Economist on Comparative-Effectiveness Research | Think Tank West Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:44:36 +0000 http://healthcare-economist.com/?p=2051#comment-5677 [...] Shafrin agrees with me that the public-goods case for government-funded comparative-effectiveness research is [...] [...] Shafrin agrees with me that the public-goods case for government-funded comparative-effectiveness research is [...]

]]> By: Healthcare Economist · Does The Economist magaizine have the right healthcare Rx? http://healthcare-economist.com/2009/03/09/should-the-us-get-nice/comment-page-1/#comment-3735 Healthcare Economist · Does The Economist magaizine have the right healthcare Rx? Tue, 30 Jun 2009 06:27:17 +0000 http://healthcare-economist.com/?p=2051#comment-3735 [...] Get NICE.  The Economist believes that America could use a cost-effectiveness agency like the UK’s NICE.  I agree. [...] [...] Get NICE.  The Economist believes that America could use a cost-effectiveness agency like the UK’s NICE.  I agree. [...]

]]> By: Healthcare Economist · Do we need a Health Care Fed? http://healthcare-economist.com/2009/03/09/should-the-us-get-nice/comment-page-1/#comment-3669 Healthcare Economist · Do we need a Health Care Fed? Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:32:21 +0000 http://healthcare-economist.com/?p=2051#comment-3669 [...] No: Michael Cannon, the Cato Institute’s Director of Health Policy Studies I agree with Weiner. [...] [...] No: Michael Cannon, the Cato Institute’s Director of Health Policy Studies I agree with Weiner. [...]

]]> By: Healthcare Economist · $1.1 billion for Comparative Effectiveness Research http://healthcare-economist.com/2009/03/09/should-the-us-get-nice/comment-page-1/#comment-915 Healthcare Economist · $1.1 billion for Comparative Effectiveness Research Wed, 11 Mar 2009 01:51:20 +0000 http://healthcare-economist.com/?p=2051#comment-915 [...] my post on Monday, Obama’s stimulus package–a.k.a. the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act [...] [...] my post on Monday, Obama’s stimulus package–a.k.a. the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act [...]

]]> By: Michael F. Cannon http://healthcare-economist.com/2009/03/09/should-the-us-get-nice/comment-page-1/#comment-914 Michael F. Cannon Tue, 10 Mar 2009 21:18:39 +0000 http://healthcare-economist.com/?p=2051#comment-914 I wouldn't say that I'm out to “form institutions from scratch.” More like, “break the chains that bind us.” Also, eliminating or reforming licensing would promote CER, but not because elimination/repeal would enable plans to use labor more cost-effectively. Elimination/repeal would promote CER because licensing particularly inhibits those plans that are most likely to conduct CER. (As it happens, they are most likely to conduct CER for the same reason they use labor more cost-effectively: prepayment & integration.) I wouldn’t say that I’m out to “form institutions from scratch.” More like, “break the chains that bind us.”

Also, eliminating or reforming licensing would promote CER, but not because elimination/repeal would enable plans to use labor more cost-effectively. Elimination/repeal would promote CER because licensing particularly inhibits those plans that are most likely to conduct CER. (As it happens, they are most likely to conduct CER for the same reason they use labor more cost-effectively: prepayment & integration.)

]]>