The proposal to include $1.1 billion for comparative-effectivenessresearch (CER) in the federal stimulus package encountered avigorous and well-coordinated backlash. The campaign to gutthis funding ultimately failed, but the debate it engenderedand the resonance of the opposition's arguments in both layand policy circles reveal much about the issues that will surroundsuch research and its application in the coming years.
The contested provisions were designed to support studies comparingthe efficacy and safety (and, by extension, the cost-effectiveness)of alternative ways of addressing common clinical problems.Interventions to be evaluated will include pharmaceuticals,devices, procedures, and . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Source Information
Dr. Avorn is a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, chief of the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women's Hospital, and director of the Harvard Interfaculty Initiative on Medications and Society — all in Boston.
This article has been cited by other articles:
Antiel, R. M., Curlin, F. A., James, K. M., Tilburt, J. C.
(2009). Physicians' Beliefs and U.S. Health Care Reform -- A National Survey. NEJM
361: e23-e23
[Full Text]
Iglehart, J. K.
(2009). Prioritizing Comparative-Effectiveness Research -- IOM Recommendations. NEJM
361: 325-328
[Full Text]
Wilensky, G. R.
(2009). The Policies And Politics Of Creating A Comparative Clinical Effectiveness Research Center. Health Aff (Millwood)
28: w719-w729
[Abstract][Full Text]
Ferner, R E, McDowell, S. E
(2009). A model for NICE in the US. BMJ
338: b2221-b2221
[Full Text]
Previous
