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

March 10, 2010 |

A recent Wall Street Journal article about the use of stent procedures in the medical community and the reaction to it by blogger Burt Cohen, offers another illustration of the complexities of comparative research, and again shows why results should be used to inform doctors and patients, but not to impose broad “one size fits all” prescriptions that do not reflect the complexities of the science or the differences in individual patients.

| Read More
March 8, 2010 |

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

| Read More

For Reporters

For journalists and other media professionals

More Information

Stay Connected

PIPC Principles

Mission Statement

The mission of the Partnership to Improve Patient Care (PIPC) is to raise awareness about the value of well-designed comparative effectiveness research (CER), the important role of continued medical innovation as part of the solution to cost and quality challenges in health care, and the need to ensure that proposals to expand the government´s role in CER are centered on patient and provider needs.

PIPC members, representing a diverse, broad-based group of health care stakeholders, are dedicated to working together to promote CER that protects patient access to innovative treatment options; supports the ability of patients, doctors and other health care professionals to choose the care that best meets the individual needs of the patient; and, fosters continued medical innovation. Comparative effectiveness research can be a valuable tool to learn what works in health care and support good clinical decision-making. At the same time, such research can be misapplied in ways that restrict patient access to optimal care, undermine physician/patient decision-making, and discourage continued medical progress.

Supporting Principles

In order to put patients and providers first, any CER proposal must:

  • Define CER as a tool to improve patient care;
  • Enhance information about treatment options and about how to close the gap between care known to be effective and the care patients receive;
  • Focus on communicating research results to patients, providers and other decision-makers, not making centralized coverage and payment decisions or recommendations;
  • Provide information on clinical value and patient health outcomes, not cost-effectiveness assessments;
  • Design studies that reflect the diversity, including racial and ethnic diversity, of patient populations and communicate results in ways that reflect the differences in individual patient needs;
  • Assure that studies are technically excellent and appropriate;
  • Require open and transparent processes where all stakeholders have input into research priorities and design and have an equal voice in governance of a CER entity;
  • Examine all aspects of health care including care management, medical interventions, benefit design, and processes of care for all patients;
  • Support continued medical advances, including personalized medicine and other advances that can help improve patient care and control health care costs;
  • Recognize the unique nature and value of targeted therapies that benefit specific groups of patients with rare and orphan diseases.