New England Journal of Medicine · 2009 · 90 citations · 1 references
PharmacyPharmaceutical PolicyPharmacoeconomicsComparative Effectiveness ResearchCost-effectiveness AnalysisHealth Services ResearchClinical Effectiveness AssessmentComparative Effectiveness AssessmentCost-effectiveness ComparisonEfficacy EvaluationEvidence-based InterventionsTreatment EffectivenessBacklashBacklash PoliticsComparative Clinical EffectivenessComparative Cost-effectivenessEffectiveness ResearchEfficacy ComparisonMeasurement Of Treatment EfficacyTherapeutic Effectiveness
The federal stimulus proposal to allocate $1.1 billion for comparative‑effectiveness research faced vigorous backlash. The paper examines how the failed attempt to eliminate CER funding and the ensuing debate highlight future challenges for comparative‑effectiveness research. The study proposes evaluating pharmaceuticals, devices, and procedures in comparative‑effectiveness research. No other information provided.
The proposal to include $1.1 billion for comparative-effectiveness research (CER) in the federal stimulus package encountered a vigorous and well-coordinated backlash. The campaign to gut this funding ultimately failed, but the debate it engendered and the resonance of the opposition's arguments in both lay and policy circles reveal much about the issues that will surround such research and its application in the coming years.The contested provisions were designed to support studies comparing the efficacy and safety (and, by extension, the cost-effectiveness) of alternative ways of addressing common clinical problems. Interventions to be evaluated will include pharmaceuticals, devices, procedures, and . . .
1