Feasibility and Design Options for a Potential Entity to Research the Comparative Effectiveness of Medical Treatments

Peter S. Hussey, Emily M. Gillen, Elizabeth A. McGlynn

ResearchPublished Jan 15, 2010

In 2008, the Massachusetts state legislature mandated an examination of the feasibility of the state's participation in establishing a comparative effectiveness center (CEC) and requested recommendations for the entity's design. “Comparative effectiveness” research involves the direct comparative assessment of the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of health care interventions and strategies. The center's findings would guide purchasing and payment decisions related to medical procedures, devices, drugs, and biologics by public- and private-sector organizations. The state has several options in terms of its approach to comparative effectiveness research. It could establish an interstate CEC that synthesizes existing findings for regional decisionmakers, it could establish an interstate CEC that supports new research, it could join an existing CEC, it could join the Drug Effectiveness Review Project and the Medicare Evidence-Based Decisions Project and also establish a regional center, or it could elect not to establish a CEC at all. An exploration of the options and the types of research that could be sponsored reveals that all of the options are potentially feasible, but the legislature's decision with regard to design must consider the level of prioritization of comparative effectiveness research relative to other approaches to improving health care quality and reducing spending growth.

Topics

Document Details

Citation

Chicago Manual of Style

Hussey, Peter S., Emily M. Gillen, and Elizabeth A. McGlynn, Feasibility and Design Options for a Potential Entity to Research the Comparative Effectiveness of Medical Treatments. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2010. https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR803.html.
BibTeX RIS

This publication is part of the RAND technical report series. RAND technical reports, products of RAND from 2003 to 2011, presented research findings on a topic limited in scope or intended for a narrow audience; discussions of the methodology employed in research; literature reviews, survey instruments, modeling exercises, guidelines for practitioners and research professionals, and supporting documentation; and preliminary findings. All RAND technical reports were subject to rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.