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...
For journalists and other media professionals
Inclusion of patient representatives praised by PIPC Chairman Tony Coelho
A letter-to-the-editor from Partnership to Improve Patient Care (PIPC) Chairman Tony Coelho was recently 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.