Matthew Yglesias flags a bizarre argument by the Heritage Foundation’s Dan Holler against comparative effectiveness research on health care:

Second, the administration is pushing for Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) to be primarily organized by the government. The type of information collected by CER could eventually be used inappropriately if a “Federal Health Board” was created to decide which types of treatment would be available to whom and when. Most Americans, and many people who are on government-run health care, are skeptical that unaccountable and unreachable government bureaucrats can improve the quality of their health care.

Is Holler aware that there is a “Federal Health Board” that “decide[s] which types of treatment would be available to whom and when”? It’s called the Food and Drug Administration. (One can’t take policy expertise as a given when it comes to Heritage staff and “experts.”)

Assuming that Holler is aware of the FDA, he appears to be attempting to imply that more draconian medical regulations are going to be implemented as a result of comparative effectiveness research. But as Yglesias and Ezra Klein point out, this hypothetical scenario is both unlikely and poorly thought out. How, exactly, does research on the costs and benefits of health care lead to restrictive bans on medical practice?