Gov't readies $1.1B 'comparative effectiveness' center for summer

For years--heck, for decades--providers have argued over what treatments are most effective for a given condition. You might assume that doctors could just look up this information in some reference guide, but to date, such a guide hasn't been created, as studies comparing the outcomes of common treatments for key conditions are scarce.

Now, however, the Institute of Medicine is gearing up to spend an unprecedented $1.1 billion in comparative effectiveness research that should evaluate treatments side-by-side. Right now, the IOM is looking at where its initial research should focus, and should have recommendations to report by this summer.

In theory, doing such research should make everyone happy--after all, who wants treatments that don't work?--but there's already some controversy over the plan. Drug companies and devicemakers worry that their products might not look good when all is said and done. Other observers contend that such research will lead to cost-comparisons, which will lead to rationing of medical care.

These complaints are understandable, given the interests of parties involved, but even with the possibility of unintended side effects, it seems likely that comparative effectiveness studies will become a more-standard part of medicine going forward regardless. After all, they just make sense.

To learn more about the IOM's plans:
- read this Chicago Tribune piece

Related Articles:
Drugmakers offer performance-based pricing
Women, minority groups concerned over 'comparative effectiveness'
SPOTLIGHT: Debate blows up over comparative effectiveness research