It depends upon the way you look at it.

A little known provision included in the healthcare law includes a new tax for health insurers.  Beginning in 2012, insurers will be required to pay $1 per member as a means to finance comparative effective research.  This fee rises to $2 in 2013.

The goal of comparative effectiveness research is to determine which procedures and approaches to health management achieve the most successful and cost effective results.  Does medicine A produce better results than medicine B?  Does one procedure outperform another procedure?  Do differences exist by geographic region?  By population segment?    By medical school?  By insurance company?

These are all of course good questions that should be answered, and a tax of dollar or two doesn’t sound so bad to pay for the research.  Understanding which medications and procedures produce the best and most cost effective results would provide enormous help in controlling health costs.

Now to be sure private industry already conducts comparative research.  But a general distrust of insurance companies and the inevitable pushback from plan participants (and from politicians) of any suggestion to change or limit choice diminishes the potential investment.  It’s driven by profit margin, many say.

Now Obamacare charges the duty to the federal government.  Makes sense.  After all, federal officials don’t make decisions based upon profit margins, right?  They have no interest in steering patients to specific hospitals or to replace higher cost medications with lower cost alternatives, do they?  They wouldn’t limit choice or procedures based upon cost, would they?

Comparative effectiveness is important.  It’s necessary.  And it’s integral to the survival of the U.S. healthcare system.  Insurance companies have pursued their own research for years.  Now the federal government will lead the way.  The question is this.  What will the government do with the research?