According to the Pink Sheet, “Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., plans to propose patient protections for federal comparative effectiveness research that draw a clear line separating information gathering and coverage decisions. The "pro-patient safeguards," as they're being called, would take the next step after previous Baucus statements that seek to distance comparative effectiveness from insurance coverage decisions, according to Finance Committee staffer Shawn Bishop.”
Further, “One provision would bar CMS from having ‘automatic links to a study’ in a coverage decision, Bishop said. Creating safeguards via legislation suggests Baucus is taking seriously opposition to comparative effectiveness research and is sensitive to criticism that comparative studies could lead to a "one-size-fits-all" health care system.”
This news from an event sponsored by our good friend the very smart Ellen Sigal of Friends of Cancer Research.
Friends of Cancer Research makes four key recommendations:
1) A comprehensive comparative effectiveness research program should be developed to identify the most effective health options.
2) The program should link data from public and private entities.
3) CER studies should support the development of personalized medicine.
4) Processes should be developed to ensure information from CER is incorporated into clinical practice.
Ellen's not the only Sigal who knows how to build from the ground up.
Another of our smart friends,
"I have a lot of experience in this," Woodcock said. "A clinical trial network needs to be set up" in order to increase the number of trial investigators participating in CER studies.
"We need to lower those barriers in order to get more participants," Woodcock said, adding that a "first-time investigator is also a last-time investigator" due to the red tape involved in conducting a clinical study in the
Okay – it’s a start. And the more people calling for a Critical Path for Comparative Effectiveness the better.
