The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 invested $1.1 billion in federal initiatives to begin the important and necessary work of comparative effectiveness research (CER), a key building block in health care reform. However, whether CER can fulfill expectations of better quality, outcomes, and value in health care will depend on how it is implemented.
A forum hosted by the Engelberg Center for Health Care Reform and The Hamilton Project addressed many of the key questions surrounding CER and featured remarks from Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag. Discussion papers released at the event focus on how research questions should be prioritized, what methods and data infrastructure are needed for CER, and how CER findings can be used to improve clinical and health policy decisions.
Discussion Papers:
- “Comparative Effectiveness Research: Will It Bend the Health Care Cost Curve and Improve Quality?” by Mark McClellan, MD, PhD and Joshua Benner, PharmD, ScD
- “Setting Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research” by Alan M. Garber, AM, PhD, MD and David O. Meltzer, MD, PhD
- “Strategies to Improve Comparative Effectiveness Research Methods and Data Infrastructure” by Sean R. Tunis MD, MSc
- “From Better Evidence to Better Care: Using Comparative Effectiveness Research to Guide Practice and Policy” by Steven Pearson, MD
Edited by The Hamilton Project and the Engelberg Center for Health Care Reform at Brookings
