WAPO Backs Elmendorf In Call To Cut Cost By Stopping Medical Technological Improvements

July 26, 2009 (LPAC)—Today's lead editorial in the Washington Post, entitled "The Health-Care Sacrifice; What President Obama needs to tell the public about the cost of reform," attacks Obama for taking an "all-gain-no pain stance," because "Mr. Obama's soothing bedside manner masks the reality that getting health costs under control will require making difficult choices about what procedures and medications to cover."

The editorial then goes on to identify the real culprit in driving up health-care costs as technological invention. "The fundamental driver of health-care inflation is technological innovation. The CBO [Congressional Budget Office] estimates that new technology accounts for about half the increase in health-care costs over the past several decades."

How can this be dealt with? The Washington Post gives a full endorsement of "comparative effectiveness research" and the fraudulent Dartmouth study, but says neither is sufficient: "There are reasons to hope that 'comparative effectiveness research' — spending to determine what treatments work best — can make inroads on health spending. A Dartmouth study of regional variations in Medicare costs found no correlation between higher spending and better outcomes. Knowing more about which treatments are effective is essential, but, without a mechanism to put that knowledge into action, it won't be enough to bend the cost curve."

The editorial then cites CBO Director Elmendorf as the authority for reducing spending on technological investment:

"As CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf testified in February, 'Given the central role of medical technology in cost growth, reducing or slowing spending over the long term would probably require decreasing the pace of adopting new treatments and procedures or limiting the breadth of their application.' "

"In other words, you can't always get what you want — at least not if you want costs to be lower. This would require an enormous change from current practice, particularly in Medicare, which under existing rules covers all treatments with net medical benefits, regardless of cost."

The same issue of the Washington Post runs a front page story that documents the incredible advance that has been made since the 1960s in saving people who have suffered a heart attack. "In the 1960s, the chance of dying in the days immediately after a heart attack was 30 to 40 percent. In 1975, it was 27 percent. In 1984, it was 19 percent. In 1994, it was 10 percent. Today, it's about 6 percent. Over the same period, the charges for treating a heart attack marched steadily upward, from about $5,700 in 1977 to $54,400 in 2007 (without adjusting for inflation)."

This advance in the quality of health care due to technological invention, is what the Washington Post stresses must be stopped if costs are to be curbed. And this is the truth about Obama's health policy, which they criticize him for masking, in his "all-gain-no-pain" bedside manner.r.