Subjects: Health policy
This post first appeared on the Practice Fusion Blog.
Last week, the venerable Institute of Medicine released a list of 100 research priorities designed to provide a roadmap for the comparative effectiveness agenda mandated by the Big O’s January Hail Mary otherwise known as ARRA.
At the top of the list are treatment strategies for common conditions like obesity and back pain and the prevention of falls in hospitalized patients. The list also includes mechanisms by which medical research findings are disseminated to the bedside and to the public.
The full list is here.
Congress allocated $1.1 billion of its $787 billion stimulus package to comparative effectiveness research, assuming such research can improve the quality of health care, though such an impact would be years away.
This “is a program about improving decisions for patients,” Harold Sox told the Wall Street Journal. Sox co-chaired the IOM committee that established the list.
Sox’ team distilled the final 100 from more than 2,600 suggestions submitted by professional groups, policy experts and the public.
Although the products of medical device and pharmaceutical companies will be the primary focus of the research, the former contributed only 11 suggestions and the latter managed just 17. “For whatever reason, we didn’t get many suggestions from them,” Sox understated.
“Right now, the winners and losers (among the various drugs and devices in extant) are based on which company has the best marketing department, rather than who has the best product,” said University of Pennsylvania professor Brian Strom.
“If we show that in certain drugs, the more expensive one is better than the cheaper one, the answer is use the expensive one,” added Strom. “The focus of comparative effectiveness research is that it leads to better care, not cheaper care.”