Caregivers need all the help we can get in navigating the confusing and often conflicting health, medical, and financial decisions required to support a family member with severe or chronic health conditions. My husband, Paul Berger, suffered a severe stroke from a ruptured aneurysm at the young age of 36. Our insurance covered his acute medical needs—brain surgery, hospital care, and even some rehabilitation services. Reimbursement ended when he was discharged from the rehab unit of the hospital, but he still needed—and could benefit from—long term speech, occupational and physical therapy.

The first decision was how to continue care. Should we try to coordinate outpatient care through the hospital, or through independent practitioners? Should we sacrifice our savings by spending a lot of money to extend his inpatient time at the hospital or transfer to another less costly one nearby? Should we sacrifice our time together and support of local family and friends to send him out of town to the state’s only comprehensive rehab facility run by the department of vocational rehabilitation services a few hours away?

In my professional life, and intellectually, I strongly supported community-based care. My gut told me that Paul needed to stay connected in town, and find a way to make it work from home. My heart didn’t want us to be separated. I became Paul’s “case coordinator” and orchestrated his weekly therapy schedule, periodic doctor’s visits, paperwork, prescriptions, equipment, home modifications, a daytime driver/companion/homework helper (since I continued to work full time), vocational rehab assessments, contact with his employer, and many of the chores Paul had handled—taking care of our finances, among others.

This was twenty years ago. At the time, AHRQ’s predecessor agency had the ambitious goal of writing clinical practice guidelines for major conditions affecting Medicare’s budget. Cataract surgery and treatment of benign prostate enlargement were at the top of the list. Post-stroke rehabilitation made it into the mix, and Paul and I testified during a public hearing. We also coordinated testimony by speech and physical therapists to talk about the need to clinically recognize that stroke survivors – like Paul – could continue to make progress many months, indeed years, after their stroke.

These guidelines are in the archives at AHRQ. A few years ago, the Department of Veterans Affairs developed a set of post-stroke rehabilitation guidelines. I have seldom, if ever seen these guidelines provided to survivors and their families.

I believe that for comparative effectiveness research (CER) to be successful, meaningful public outreach is needed to get the information into the hands of the patients and their families. CER needs to provide advice for real life decisions in real time. Studies must be designed with the patient in mind. Myrl Weinberg, President of the National Health Council, said it best:

“Comparative effectiveness research should supply us with good evidence and data about what works and what doesn’t. However, it should not be just about one product against another, or treatment process, or combination thereof. We also need to look at how different delivery systems can be compared.” www.nationalhealthcouncil.org

This entry was posted on Thursday, June 25th, 2009 at 10:00 am and is filed under Caregiving, Comparative Effectiveness Research. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.