- 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
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.
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.
The House of Representatives passed their health reform package - the Affordable Health Care for America Act - last Saturday night by a vote of 220 to 215. With all of the provisions packed into the 2,000-page bill, what's in this historic legislation for comparative effectiveness research (CER)?
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."