Critics of comparative effectiveness research, which the government has been funding for decades, claim that it will lead to treatment being approved or denied based on costs. Proponents say it will improve the quality of care and can, in some cases, show that more costly treatments aren't as effective as less expensive alternatives.
We can't predict what will happen in the future, but we can say that several claims being made about the impact of ...
Full Story »
As FactCheck.org makes crystal-clear, McCaughey is up to her old tricks — misrepresenting health-care reform in a way that provides fodder to conservative critics. Given her track record, McCaughey's Bloomberg commentary never should have been taken seriously in the first place.
“[S]he gets some facts wrong, and often gives the incorrect impression that her view of what the bill could mean is what the bill actually says…. But that’s not true either…. We’re not the only ones to note McCaughey’s misrepresentations…. But her analysis is full of errors.”
Much of this was brought out weeks ago by Eric Boehlert at Media Matters, which I have added to the Links. And it gets worse. Though FactCheck doesn't note this, McCaughey's think tank, the Hudson Institute, receives considerable funding from the pharmeceutical industry. In Links.