Senate Appropriations Cmte. clarifies comparative effectiveness language
Executive Summary
The Senate Appropriations Committee left little interpretation room regarding how $1.1 billion in funding for comparative effectiveness research will be used. In passing its portion of the economic stimulus package, committee members added an amendment that replaces the term "comparative effectiveness" with "comparative clinical effectiveness," a move that should keep discussions on cost effectiveness out of the research equation for now (1"The Pink Sheet" DAILY, Jan. 28, 2009). A report accompanying the House version of the bill raised some eyebrows as an attempt to move toward cost effectiveness decision making (2"The Pink Sheet," Jan. 26, 2009, p. 21). On Jan. 28, the House voted 244-188 to approve the economic stimulus bill, H.R. 1, with all Republicans and 11 Democrats voting against passage. A Senate vote could come during the first week in February
|
The Senate Appropriations Committee left little interpretation room regarding how $1.1 billion in funding for comparative effectiveness research will be used. In passing its portion of the economic stimulus package, committee members added an amendment that replaces the term "comparative effectiveness" with "comparative clinical effectiveness," a move that should keep discussions on cost effectiveness out of the research equation for now (1 (Also see "Senate Committee Clears Stimulus Bill With “Comparative Clinical Effectiveness” Funding" - Pink Sheet, 28 Jan, 2009.)). A report accompanying the House version of the bill raised some eyebrows as an attempt to move toward cost effectiveness decision making (2 (Also see "Comparative Effectiveness Funding In Stimulus Bill Raises Some Red Flags" - Pink Sheet, 26 Jan, 2009.), p. 21). On Jan. 28, the House voted 244-188 to approve the economic stimulus bill, H.R. 1, with all Republicans and 11 Democrats voting against passage. A Senate vote could come during the first week in February. |