Search

The United States is undertaking a major investment in "comparative effectiveness research" (CER) to learn more about what medical treatments work best for different patients. CER has the potential to reduce wasteful health care spending and promote the quality of care, but its political sustainability remains uncertain. During the health reform debate, conservative elites argued that CER would lead to "death panels" and "one-size-fits-all" medicine. Previous public opinion surveys have shown that the public generally supports funding of CER but remains anxious about the use of study results to restrict treatment options. An unresolved question is what factors might boost public support for CER. In this paper, we investigate one potential source of support: the public's trust in physicians as faithful agents of patient interests. We conducted two national surveys on Americans' confidence in doctors relative to other groups, beliefs about the motivation of medical societies when such organizations make public policy recommendations, and willingness to support a generic health reform proposal when told that it is endorsed by a physician association. The study features a survey experiment that permits examination of how much cues from doctors' groups affect public opinion relative to cues from partisan and bipartisan political groups. Our results demonstrate that the medical profession has a significant influence over public opinion in this area, and suggests that advocates of CER should recognize that the medical profession's support may be the strongest available weapon to combat claims that CER is simply a pretext for health care rationing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]