Giving Teeth to Comparative-Effectiveness Research — The Oregon Experience

Abstract

Experts believe that comparative-effectiveness research (CER) can substantially reduce future health care spending and improve the quality of care.1,2 Their analyses indicate that CER can control costs if its results are used to inform coverage, payment, and cost-sharing policies that provide incentives for appropriate and cost-effective care.1,2 But the proposed approach to CER in the United States would constrain these uses of the research, to avoid any implication that health care will be rationed. Though the word elicits fear and opposition, “rationing” is simply the equitable, or rational, distribution of resources; it involves delivering health care services according . . .