National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research
This article was originally published in RPM Report
Executive Summary
The Institute of Medicine appointed a 20-person committee to make recommendations on priorities for government investment in comparative effectiveness research. IoM received $1.1 billion for comparative effectiveness research in the economic stimulus package, and will issue a report by June 30. The panel includes many familiar names in comparative effectiveness research.
You may also be interested in...
Cost Effectiveness in the US? Round One Goes Against Pharma
The stimulus bill provides an unprecedented $1.1 billion for comparative effectiveness research-and does so with none of the key provisions biopharma companies hope to see as the US federal government takes a more active role in the field. The good news: this is only the first round, and there is reason to believe the field is evolving as most pharma companies would want. But this isn't the time for manufacturers to let their guard down.
Comparative Effectiveness: Knowledge Not Coverage
The health industry's trade association supports a more formal and expanded federal comparative effectiveness research effort, with one caveat: the effort must be devoted to collecting and disseminating informaiton and not be tied directly to coverae or payment decisions. That aligns the health plans with Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus and creates a potent base for getting comparative effectiveness into upcoming health reform efforts.
Comparative Effectiveness: The Next Gatekeeper to Commercial Success
The hot new buzzword with policymakers is comparative clinical effectiveness, and everyone has an idea on how to make it work. But major questions remain: what might a national effort look like? And will payors use it to restrict access to new drugs?