Case Studies

An NIH study of treatments for high blood pressure, called the ALLHAT trial, shows some of the strengths and limitations of comparative effectiveness research to improve patient care. More...

Recent Blog Posts

February 3, 2012 |

On Tuesday night, PIPC Chairman Tony Coelho joined former HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson at the University of Charleston in West Virginia for a speaker series titled "Who Decides Patient Treatments" to discuss the future of health care in the United States.

| Read More
January 30, 2012 |

PCORI released a draft of their National Priorities for Research and Research Agenda for public comment. The PCORI Board, which is responsible for funding research, is asking for a 55 day public comment period to discuss and solicit feedback from patients, caregivers, professionals, and the general public on the research priorities.

In the draft, PCORI prioritized five broad research areas:

| Read More
October 18, 2011 |

When conducting Comparative Effectiveness Research it is crucial to understand the differences between the players involved in the process. In his remarks at the  2nd Annual Forum on Achieving Patient centeredness , Marc Boutin, executive vice president and COO at the National Health Council, discussed the important differences between the three major players in the process: the patient, the consumer, and the patient advocacy organization. He stated that many times when the patient is discussed they are not defined.

| Read More

For Reporters

For journalists and other media professionals

More Information

Stay Connected

September 2010

PIPC Welcomes Appointment of PCORI Board

Inclusion of patient representatives praised by PIPC Chairman Tony Coelho

Tony Coelho argues in support of health bill’s patient-centered provisions in New York Times

| Posted in:

A letter-to-the-editor from Partnership to Improve Patient Care (PIPC) Chairman Tony Coelho was recently published in the New York Times.

Tony Coelho LTE on CER published in the New York Times

To the Editor:

Creating a body with the power to enforce national guidelines for treatment based on clinical and cost effectiveness would be a serious distortion of the comparative effectiveness research (CER) provisions of the health reform law. It would confirm the fear of many that the real intent was to give government decision makers new power to cut costs by denying patients access to medically beneficial tests and treatments.

Read more at the New York Times

For patients to truly control treatment decisions, they must understand CER results

| Posted in:

The headline of a recent Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement blog poses the question: “Will CER Really Make a Difference if the Public Doesn’t Want It?”

Identifying the answer to this question could help ensure that CER really does makes the difference we all hope it will.

Patients fear that CER will decrease vital time spend with doctors

| Posted in:

A recent blog by Evan Falchuck speaks to points I recently made in a Partnership to Improve Patient Care blog on consumer skepticism regarding comparative effectiveness research (CER) in the United States. 

This Week In CER:

| Posted in:

Partnership to Improve Patient Care (PIPC) Chairman Tony Coelho was quoted in an Inside Health Policy article this week discussing his concerns on the Department of Health and Human Service’s (HHS) plans to build a CER inventory before the creation of the Patient Centered Outcomes and Research Institute, an independent board that will facilitate CER research.

Tony Coelho discusses patient centered CER in CQ

| Posted in:

The latest addition of Congressional Quarterly (CQ) features an article on comparative effectiveness research (CER) in which Partnership to Improve Patient Care (PIPC) Chairman Tony Coelho weighs in on the issue.