At issue are "virtual colonoscopies," or CT scans of the abdomen. Colon cancer is the second leading cause of U.S. cancer death but one of the most preventable. Found early, the cure rate is 93%, but only 8% at later stages. Virtual colonoscopies are likely to boost screenings because they are quicker, more comfortable and significantly cheaper than the standard "optical" procedure, which involves anesthesia and threading an endoscope through the lower intestine.The debate about health care isn't simply one about costs. This is not about providing "health care" to all Americans the cheapest way possible. One could hand out vitamins to all Americans very cheaply and call this "universal coverage." Congratulations.
Virtual colonoscopies are endorsed by the American Cancer Society and covered by a growing number of private insurers including Cigna and UnitedHealthcare. The problem for Medicare is that if cancerous lesions are found using a scan, then patients must follow up with a traditional colonoscopy anyway. Costs would be lower if everyone simply took the invasive route, where doctors can remove polyps on the spot. As Medicare noted in its ruling, "If there is a relatively high referral rate [for traditional colonoscopy], the utility of an intermediate test such as CT colonography is limited." In other words, duplication would be too pricey.
This is precisely the sort of complexity that the Democrats would prefer to ignore as they try to restructure health care. Led by budget chief Peter Orszag, the White House believes that comparative effectiveness research, which examines clinical evidence to determine what "works best," will let them cut wasteful or ineffective treatments and thus contain health spending.
The problem is that what "works best" isn't the same for everyone. While not painless or risk free, virtual colonoscopy might be better for some patients -- especially among seniors who are infirm or because the presence of other diseases puts them at risk for complications. Ideally doctors would decide with their patients. But Medicare instead made the hard-and-fast choice that it was cheaper to cut it off for all beneficiaries. If some patients are worse off, well, too bad.
[...] Washington's utilitarian judgments about costs would reshape the practice of medicine.
This is also a debate about liberty--having control over the type & quality of health care one receives.
All of the efficiency gains the social scientists say we'd get from universal health care rely on rationing. Thus, if costs spin out of control, the central planners (all more intelligent and enlightened than you and me) decide which procedures, medicines, and people to cut out. They may not limit your coverage to vitamins, but you better hope you are on the ObamaCare-most-favored list.
[One group guaranteed to be on the official, funded-procedure list (though if they could speak, they'd probably opt out): The unborn.]
But even their decisions won't be pure and untainted by the touch of the lobbyist. Just like the bank and auto bailouts, those who are close to the Obama administration will be favored. In this decision making process, the most important factors will be, "how much can you donate to the campaign? How many people (unions) can you turn out to vote?"
This is what happens when government takes control of your life.
(thanks to Scott L. for the tip)
UPDATE 3:18pm BST: An alternative & the essential decision facing Americans:
Who will control the system? Doctors and patients, or politicians and regulators? That's the crux of this year's health-care debate.
