Bending the cost curve in the United States: the role of comparative effectiveness research. (33/390)

 (+info)

Identifying quality improvement intervention evaluations: is consensus achievable? (34/390)

 (+info)

Comparative effectiveness of screening and prevention strategies among BRCA1/2-affected mutation carriers. (35/390)

 (+info)

A cluster-randomized effectiveness trial of a physician-pharmacist collaborative model to improve blood pressure control. (36/390)

 (+info)

The promise and realities of comparative effectiveness research. (37/390)

 (+info)

What is evidence? (38/390)

 (+info)

Comparative effectiveness research: a cornerstone of healthcare reform? (39/390)

Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) has recently emerged as a major theme in health care reform. Unfortunately, there is a widespread lack of understanding about what it will do and fear that it will do more harm than good. These concerns include threats to individual physician's autonomy and professionalism, as well as fears that care will be rationed based on such findings. In this paper, we argue that the main components of the current healthcare reform (HCR) bills, which include expanding insurance while increasing efficiencies through cost containment, should embrace CER. This type of research will provide a "safeguard" against "blind" cost-containment, so that the new financial incentives being introduced can be actualized effectively and safely. Evidence for this is provided from examples from the authors' prior and current research as well as from the literature. We also argue that the requirement for data from CER will create long-term disincentives for "me-too" drugs and devices and, therefore, become a catalyst for effective innovation.  (+info)

Hospital-based comparative effectiveness centers: translating research into practice to improve the quality, safety and value of patient care. (40/390)

 (+info)