- 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
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).
Last week, PIPC Chairman Tony Coelho sat down with the Sudden Cardiac Arrest Association (SCAA) to talk about comparative effectiveness research (CER) and how this research and other aspects of health reform will affect patients.
Will government-supported comparative effectiveness research (CER) come between doctors and patients in making treatment decisions? The jury, I think, is still out.
We all can agree, as stated in a recent blog post by the Center for American Progress (CAP), that the goal of CER is to "permit patients and their health providers to make better decisions about care based on evidence."
As the nation continues to focus on the health care debate, PIPC is maintaining its commitment to ensuring patient care – not cost – is the driving force behind new efforts to implement comparative effectiveness research (CER).
In a recent op-ed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer outlined some important components of health care reform, including their support for “research on health outcomes to better inform the decisions of patients and doctors.”