- The Issue
- The Solutions
- News & Media
- Case Studies
- Policy Center
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
The actions taken by the Patient Centered Outcomes and Research Institute (PCORI) Board of Governors at their Washington, D.C., meeting made many in the patient and health care communities more confident that the Board is working to be truly-patient centered. The Board members, with the help of the public, came up with a consensus on an improved definition for patient-centered outcomes research that focuses on how CER should be conducted in order to properly focus on patients.
Several prominent figures have discussed patient-centered outcomes research over the past couple of weeks, including Richard Gliklich, M.D., President and CEO of Outcome, who recently posted an article on KevinMD.
The term "patient-centered outcomes research" keeps popping up these days - for example, it's used by FDA in the agency's new 5-year strategic plan. And it's been a popular term among researchers and policymakers ever since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act created the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI).
But what exactly does it mean?
Dr. Harold Sox, co-chair of the Institute of Medicine Committee that developed CER priority recommendations for HHS last year, has a new article providing a CER progress report in this week's Annals of Internal Medicine.
We've all read the quotes about how the new CMS Administrator Don Berwick thinks we should "ration with our eyes open" and is romantic about the U.K.'s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, or NICE. But, agree or disagree with the way he was appointed, there’s another side to Berwick worth looking at. It is a side that is zealously devoted to putting the patient at the center of health care. Dr.
On Saturday, May 22, The Washington Post published my letter to the editor on the opportunity we have in CER to answer the full range of questions that are important to improving patient care and health care quality. The letter responded to a commentary from physicians Jim Yong Kim and James N. Weinstein, who called for a research program to help us learn about what works best in health care delivery and patient management.
This is just one of the important strengths of the comparative effectiveness research (CER) provisions of the healthcare reform law.
A recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by Dr. Leonard Zwelling, illustrates why treatment decisions must stay between a patient and their doctor and reinforces the importance of the comparative effectiveness research (CER) language included in the recently passed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Zwelling, an oncologist, explains the challenges of using CER to set rigid national policy requirements. He highlights how cancer care is continually evolving in that it allows doctors to better address the individual needs of cancer patients whose bodies react to their forms of cancers in different ways than those of other patients:
A recent article by Jerome Groopman, M.D, provides some valuable, first-hand insight as to what can go wrong when policy makers “give teeth” to comparative effectiveness research (CER) studies by translating results into “best practices.” Groopman’s understanding of the limitations of CER and the complexities of delivery high quality care to each patient, lead him to caution against blunt application of CER in ways that do not give physicians the ability to deviat
A few days ago, I posted about what I saw as one of the key lessons from the controversy over the new U.S. Preventive Services Task Force’s (USPSTF) mammography guidelines, namely, that expert panels can sometimes come to different conclusions based on the same evidence.
Agree or disagree with the recent changes to mammography guidelines by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), one thing is clear – two sets of highly qualified experts can come to very different conclusions when looking at the same evidence. This holds big implications for provisions of health care reform like comparative effectiveness research (CER).