The Recovery Act authorized a little more than $1 billion to support comparative effectiveness research.
Clinical effectiveness research finds answers to the question "What works?"
Such scenarios offer the opportunity to maintain or improve the quality of care, while significantly reducing costs, through comparative effectiveness research.
Comparative effectiveness research has shown that significant cost reductions are possible.
The core question of comparative effectiveness research is which treatment works best, for whom, and under what circumstances.
Scott Gottlieb has expressed concern about relatively unreliable comparative effectiveness research being used to restrict treatment options under a public plan.
Jenkins (1987) describes effectiveness research so far as a 'limited concept, primarily relating to the intervention process' and with little validity in the 'macro area'.
The Recovery Act contains $1.1 billion for comparative effectiveness research.
Its leadership on comparative effectiveness research of prescription medications is respected within the industry.
The stalking horse for this dangerous shift in policy is what is known as "comparative effectiveness research."
