Moreover, many studies suggest that, when patients have good evidence on clinical effectiveness, they tend to make different decisions about what they think is the best course, including choices that, in some cases, can lead to lower utilization.
Question: Comparative effectiveness research was controversial when the ACA was being debated. Has that died down now that PCORI is up and running?
Dr. Selby: Comparative effectiveness research, or CER, has been carried out in the United States for years, mainly through the sponsorship of the National Institutes of Health, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. CER has traditionally had bipartisan support. We are mindful of concerns that the results of these studies not be used to inappropriately limit patient or physician choices. The expansive involvement of stakeholders in PCORI’s activities and its independence from government as a private nonprofit make it ideally suited to lead the way in this important field of health research.
Since PCORI has been increasing its activities, we’ve received a lot of interest and feedback from many stakeholders who have become actively involved in our work. We’re hearing a lot of enthusiasm from health care professionals, the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, patients and patient advocates, clinical researchers, and many others.
I believe that, as people follow PCORI’s ongoing work and the efforts of our many partners across the health community, they will gain ever greater assurance that patient-centered CER is providing data and evidence that will help them make better decisions about their health and health care.
Dr. Selby is a family physician, clinical epidemiologist, and health services researcher who has worked on comparative effectiveness research for many years. Before PCORI, he was the director of the division of research at Kaiser Permanente, Northern California.
