scholarly journals Linkage of a De-Identified United States Rheumatoid Arthritis Registry With Administrative Data to Facilitate Comparative Effectiveness Research

2014 ◽  
Vol 66 (12) ◽  
pp. 1790-1798 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey R. Curtis ◽  
Lang Chen ◽  
Aseem Bharat ◽  
Elizabeth Delzell ◽  
Jeffrey D. Greenberg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
United States ◽  
Administrative Data ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness Research ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness ◽  
Effectiveness Research

Enhanced Data to Accelerate Complex Patient Comparative Effectiveness Research, 2006-2009 [United States]

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A. Chrischilles ◽  
Kathleen Schneider ◽  
Brian O'Donnell ◽  
Gregory Lessman ◽  
Brian Gryzlak ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness Research ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness ◽  
Effectiveness Research ◽  
Complex Patient

Enhanced Data to Accelerate Complex Patient Comparative Effectiveness Research, 2006-2009 [United States]

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A. Chrischilles ◽  
Kathleen Schneider ◽  
Brian O'Donnell ◽  
Gregory Lessman ◽  
Brian Gryzlak ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness Research ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness ◽  
Effectiveness Research ◽  
Complex Patient

scholarly journals Facts, Fallacies, and Politics of Comparative Effectiveness Research: Part 2 - Implications for Interventional Pain Management

2010 ◽  
Vol 1;13 (1;1) ◽  
pp. E55-E79
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness Research ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness ◽  
Clinical Excellence ◽  
The United States ◽  
Effectiveness Research ◽  
Interventional Pain Management ◽  
Care Costs

The United States leads the world in many measures of health care innovation. However, it has been criticized to lag behind many developed nations in important health outcomes including mortality rates and higher health care costs. The surveys have shown the United States to outspend all other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries with spending on health goods and services per person of $7,290 – almost 2½ times the average of all OECD countries in 2007. Rising health care costs in the United States have been estimated to increase to 19.1% of gross domestic product (GDP) or $4.4 trillion by 2018. CER is defined as the generation and synthesis of evidence that compares the benefits and harms of alternate methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition or to improve the delivery of care. The, comparative effectiveness research (CER) has been touted by supporters with high expectations to resolve most ill effects of health care in the United States providing high quality, less expensive, universal health care. The efforts of CER in the United States date back to the late 1970s and it was officially inaugurated with the enactment of the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA). It has been rejuvenated with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 with an allocation of $1.1 billion. CER has been the basis of decision for health care in many other countries. Of all the available agencies, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) of the United Kingdom is the most advanced, stable, and has provided significant evidence, though based on rigid and proscriptive economic and clinical formulas. While CER is taking a rapid surge in the United States, supporters and opponents are emerging expressing their views. Since interventional pain management is a new and evolving specialty, with ownership claimed by numerous organizations, at times it is felt as if it has many fathers and other times it becomes an orphan. Part 2 of this comprehensive review will provide facts, fallacies, and politics of CER along with discussion of potential outcomes, impact of CER on health care delivery, and implications for interventional pain management in the United States. Key words: Comparative effectiveness research, evidence-based medicine, Institute of Medicine, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, interventional pain management, interventional techniques, geographic variations, inappropriate care.

scholarly journals Facts, Fallacies, and Politics of Comparative Effectiveness Research: Part I. Basic Considerations

2010 ◽  
Vol 1;13 (1;1) ◽  
pp. E23-E54
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Medical Care ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness Research ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness ◽  
Clinical Excellence ◽  
The United States ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Effectiveness Research ◽  
Care Costs

While the United States leads the world in many measures of health care innovation, it has been suggested that it lags behind many developed nations in a variety of health outcomes. It has also been stated that the United States continues to outspend all other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries by a wide margin. Spending on health goods and services per person in the United States, in 2007, increased to $7,290 – almost 2½ times the average of all OECD countries. Rising health care costs in the United States have been estimated to increase to 19.1% of gross domestic product (GDP) or $4.4 trillion by 2018. The increases are illustrated in both public and private sectors. Higher health care costs in the United States are implied from the variations in the medical care from area to area around the country, with almost 50% of medical care being not evidence-based, and finally as much as 30% of spending reflecting medical care of uncertain or questionable value. Thus, comparative effectiveness research (CER) has been touted by supporters with high expectations to resolve most ill effects of health care in the United States and provide high quality, less expensive, universal health care. CER is defined as the generation and synthesis of evidence that compares the benefits and harms of alternate methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition or to improve the delivery of care. The efforts of CER in the United States date back to the late 1970’s even though it was officially born with the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) and has been rejuvenated with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 with an allocation of $1.1 billion. CER has been the basis for health care decision-making in many other countries. According to the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessments (INAHTA), many industrialized countries have bodies that are charged with health technology assessments (HTAs) or comparative effectiveness studies. Of all the available agencies, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) of the United Kingdom is the most advanced, stable, and has provided significant evidence, though based on rigid and proscriptive economic and clinical formulas. While CER is making a rapid surge in the United States, supporters and opponents are expressing their views. Part I of this comprehensive review will describe facts, fallacies, and politics of CER with discussions to understand basic concepts of CER. Key words: Comparative effectiveness research, evidence-based medicine, Institute of Medicine, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, interventional pain management, interventional techniques, geographic variations, inappropriate care.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document