Taxpayer money should be spent to "compare the effectiveness of innovative strategies for preventing unintended pregnancies," according to a federal advisory committee. The "innovative strategies" to be studied include over-the-counter access to oral contraceptives and providing free contraceptive methods at public clinics and pharmacies.
Background
The Democrat-passed stimulus bill includes $1.1 billion to be spent on comparative effectiveness research, which a federal advisory panel defines as a way to identify "what works for which patients under what circumstances."
Specifically, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 called on the Institute of Medicine – part of the National Academy of Sciences -- to come up with a list of topics that will serve as a starting point for deciding which health care approaches work best.
A committee convened by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) says it received 1,268 unique topic suggestions from health professionals, consumer advocates, policy analysts, and others who submitted nominations through an online form.
That list has now been narrowed to 100 topics, divided into four quartiles (groups of 25).
Included in the highest priority group – the first quartile – is pregnancy prevention. The sentence reads as follows:
"Compare the effectiveness of innovative strategies for preventing unintended pregnancies (e.g., over-the-counter access to oral contraceptives or other hormonal methods, expanding access to long-acting methods for young women, providing free contraceptive methods at public clinics, pharmacies, or other locations)."
The complete list of national priorities for comparative effectiveness research can be found here.
Advocates say comparative effectiveness research will improve the quality and efficiency of health care.
"Health care decisions too often area matter of guesswork because we lack good evidence to inform them," said Harold C. Sox, editor of Annals of Internal Medicine, who co-chaired the IOM committee. "For example, we spend a great deal on diagnostic tests for coronary heart disease in this country, but we lack sufficient evidence to determine which test is best."
Critics, however, warn that comparative effectiveness research will be used to ration health care and minimize costs.
As CNSNews.com previously reported, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) has pledged to take those rationing concerns seriously.
"We need to address the very real concern that this research (comparative-effectiveness) might be used to quote 'ration health care,'" Baucus told a Brookings Institution audience last month. "This is serious and needs to be addressed with integrity," he added.
In its report, the Institute of Medicine committee said comparative effectiveness research will fall short of its potential without vigorous efforts by the Department of Health and Human Services to promote adoption of the findings by health care providers and organizations.
The IOM study was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, the Institute of Medicine is a nongovernmental agency that provides "independent, objective, evidence-based advice to policymakers, health professionals, the private sector and the public."
Contact: Susan Jones
Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: July 2, 2009
Link to this article
Send this article to a friend.
