If one considers F.A. Hayek and his writings, one important proposition discussed at length by Hayek was the mundane, real time, applicable-on-the-spot, grand attempt to create maximum utility knowledge of the many and the plans thereof.
Hayek explained the plans of the few which are based on non-real-time, average knowledge of the "expert", regarding an impossible to calculate number of situations, calculating with the expert's average knowledge of most situations, that ends by yielding average or below average results. -Or- the plans of the many vs. the plans of the few.
Hayek's overriding point being: as an economy enlarges and becomes more and more complex, no one single mind or handful of minds, the plans of the few, can possibly comprehend let alone plan the dynamic and ever changing number of situations occurring. Conversely, as an economy enlarges and becomes more and more complex, that the spontaneous/emergent order resulting from the plans of the many, that is, the mundane, real time, applicable-on-the-spot, grand attempt to create maximum utility is the very best and very decentralized way to deal with an ever enlarging and increasingly complex economy.
Yet the "one big brain" idea persists in that some central brain can out think, out smart, out plan and basically trump the mundane, real time knowledge of the many, and the plans thereof. Further, the "one big brain" error, the classic example thereof, is the price fixing schemes of the former Soviet Union and the price planners that somehow had the knowledge to set price of every last item in every last situation. The results were beyond abysmal.
Let us also add in that not one price fixing scheme, never-ever, in all of recorded economic history, has been successful.
However, "the few" remain undeterred! Enter Federal Commission for the Coordination of Comparative Effectiveness Research (FCCER):
“For centuries, my predecessors and I have been inculcated with what has come to be called the “Hippocratic Ethic.” This tradition holds that I am ethically required to use the best of my knowledge to recommend to my patient what I consider to be in my patient’s best interests—without regard to the interests of the third-party payer, or the government, or anyone else.
But gradually the medical profession has been forced to give up this approach for what I like to call a “veterinary ethic,” one that places the interests of the payer (or owner) ahead of the patient. For example, when a pet owner is told by a veterinarian that the pet has a very serious medical condition requiring extremely costly surgery or other therapy, the veterinarian presents the pet’s owner with one or more options—from attempt at cure, to palliation, to euthanasia—with the associated costs, and then follows the wishes of the owner.
Several factors in combination are bringing this ethical approach to my profession.
Since the mid-1980s, Medicare has imposed price controls on health care providers. Over the years, in order to accommodate increasing Medicare utilization, physician payments have steadily dropped.
Meanwhile, the regulatory burden on physicians has increased. In the last few years, CMS required all providers to adopt electronic health records or face economic sanctions from Medicare. It is the ultimate goal that every health care provider, including pharmacies, will have electronic databases that will be accessible to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
In 2009, as part of the so-called stimulus bill, the Federal Commission for the Coordination of Comparative Effectiveness Research (FCCCER) was created. Its mission is to collect the data culled from all electronic health records and make recommendations regarding the comparative effectiveness of drugs, procedures, and therapies. In rendering advice, the FCCCER will essentially answer the following question: What is the most cost-effective way of allocating a fixed amount of resources among a population of roughly 310 million people?
With this same question in mind, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a committee that reports to HHS, concluded in 2009 that mammogram screenings should not be recommended to women under age 50. This caused an uproar among both private health care providers and breast cancer advocacy groups, and the task force soon backed down. Similarly, in the fall of 2011, the task force recommended the abandonment of certain routine prostate cancer screenings. Once again, health care providers and cancer advocacy groups protested, and the task force rescinded its recommendation.
In 2010 the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act established an Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). Beginning in 2014, the 15 presidential appointees on this board will determine what therapies, procedures, tests, and medications will be covered by Medicare, using advice provided by the FCCCER. Such determinations will then be used to design the coverage packages for the non-Medicare insurance offered through the government–run exchanges. The decisions of the IPAB are not subject to Congressional oversight or judicial review.
Meanwhile, in an effort to control costs now, CMS has developed practice guidelines and protocols for physicians to follow. Committees of health care academics and statisticians developed these guidelines, using data from large population samples.
These protocols govern the therapeutic decisions made by the health care practitioner—right down to the pre-operative antibiotics a surgeon may order. Despite the fact that several recent peer-reviewed studies concluded that the protocols have had no positive effect—in fact, one study showed post-op skin infections increased since the protocols were instituted—CMS imposes financial penalties on hospitals that fail to get protocol compliance from their medical staff.
Medical students and residents are now being trained to follow federally-derived protocols and guidelines as a normal part of medical practice. As a result, this new generation of doctors will be less inclined to challenge the recommendations of federal task forces and agencies. Some academics also worry that “teaching to the protocol” might discourage independent thinking and the use of intuitive knowledge, two traits essential to the practice of good medicine.” - The Coming Medical Ethics Crisis , Reason.com, Jeffery Singer, 03/15/2012