Health reform fever is spreading throughout Capitol Hill, and up and down Pennsylvania Avenue. Among the topics consuming the health intelligentsia is comparative effectiveness research (CER). (For examples, click here or here.)

AHRQ, The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, has defined CER as:

A type of health care research that compares the results of one approach for managing a disease to the results of other approaches. CER usually compares two or more types of treatment, such as different drugs, for the same disease. CER can also compare types of surgery or other kinds of medical procedures and tests. The results are often summarized in a systematic review.

The American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA) allocated $1.1 billion for comparative effectiveness research. It also established a 15 member Federal Coordinating Council.

Like most things in health policy, CER is more complex than it may appear at first blush. While supporters herald its ability to save money and provide information on the most appropriate treatments for patients, others raise a number of cautions that policymakers and legislators would be wise to consider.

Given the multi-faceted nature of this issue, I have reached out to several of our bloggers to write about the topic, each from their unique perspective and area of expertise. While much has been written about the benefits of CER, we wanted to remind our health policy brethren to address some of the thorny issues.

We look forward to hearing your thoughts as we wrestle with this particular health policy challenge. Here then, is our line up:

• June 22nd: Phyllis Greenberger—CER and sex differences
• June 23rd: Liz Scherer—CER and limitations of Western methodology as applied to Eastern alternative medicine (utilizing the best of both worlds)
• June 24th: Elena Rios, MD—CER and health disparities
• June 25th: Stephanie Mensh—CER from the caretaker viewpoint
• June 26th: Randel Richner—CER and manufacturer/developer/innovator concerns
• June 29th: Sharon Terry—CER from the genetic disease/rare disease community perspectives
• June 30th: Glenna Crooks, PhD—CER: a summary of key policy perspectives and questions for legislators and other decision makers to consider.

To learn more about these Disruptive Women, click here.

Related posts:

1. Disruptive Women’s Comparative Effectiveness Research eBook Is Available
2. Comparative Effectiveness Research: What a Difference an X Should Make
3. Comparative effectiveness research: do we need to reevaluate research ills?
4. Comparative Effectiveness Research from the Health Care Provider Perspective – A Glass Half Full
5. Comparative Effectiveness Research: Thinking outside the box

This entry was posted on Thursday, June 11th, 2009 at 8:59 am and is filed under Comparative Effectiveness Research, Innovation, Policy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.