ComparingtheEffectivenessofHealthCare.pdfVIP

Comparing the Effectiveness of Health Care Fulfilling the Mission of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute By Neera Tanden, Zeke Emanuel, Topher Spiro, Emily Oshima Lee, and Thomas Huelskoetter January 24, 2014 In our current health care system, physicians, insurers, and patients must often choose between several treatments without knowing which works better or whether the higher- priced treatment provides added value. Research that evaluates the effectiveness of two or more prevention, diagnosis, or treatment options—known as comparative effective- ness research, or CER—can address this evidence gap. Funding for CER was an impor- tant feature of the Affordable Care Act because this research has the potential to lower health care costs over the long term while maintaining or improving the quality of care, according to the independent Congressional Budget Office, or CBO.1 The Affordable Care Act created a new independent nonprofit, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, or PCORI, to fund and disseminate CER. Our analysis finds that four years into its 10-year existence, the institute has dedicated less than 40 percent of its research funding to CER. Moreover, PCORI has not initiated a single CER study of medical devices, launched only a few CER studies of drugs, and produced only a handful of analyses that synthesize existing CER studies. Few studies focus on the priority areas identified by the Institute of Medicine, or IOM. If PCORI is to truly fulfill its mission, the Center for American Progress urges the institute to rapidly scale up its investment in CER to at least 80 percent of its research funding by fiscal year 2016. This investment should focus on studies that: ? Address important gaps in evidence on treatments for common and high-cost conditions ? Can produce actionable results in one to three years ? Synthesize existing CER studies 1? Center for American Progress? |? Comparing the Effec