This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Medical Practice  • Health Policy  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Prognosis/ Outcomes  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Robert H. Brook, MD, ScD

JAMA. 2009;302(2):194-195.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

With substantial support across the political spectrum, the Obama administration has included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act more than $1 billion to support comparative effectiveness research.¹ At the same time, the president has demanded reforms in the US health care system to make health care more affordable for all US citizens.² This Commentary focuses on the interaction of these 2 initiatives: what will be the cost effect of spending $1 billion on comparative effectiveness research?

First, it is important to understand what comparative effectiveness research will include. Discussions to date suggest that most of the funds will be spent comparing one clinical procedure, device, or drug with another.³ The funds are less likely to be spent testing the comparative effectiveness of one way of paying for care vs another, of organizing care using a chronic disease model vs another organizational principle, or of . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Author Affiliation: RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California, and School of Public Health, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?