Comparative effectiveness may not produce hoped-for savings, Study finds

One component of Democrats' health reform plan, comparative effectiveness research, would seek to improve quality and lower medical costs by identifying the most clinically and cost-effective treatments available, but a new study by the Rand Corp. finds the impact of the research may be slow to arrive, BusinessWeek reports. "In the US, where the doctor-patient relationship is sacrosanct, just because a study says a particular treatment is superior for most patients, or the most cost-effective, doesn't mean practitioners will embrace it," according to BusinessWeek.

The economic stimulus bill, passed in February, directed $1.1 billion toward this type of research, but researchers say the program may be shortchanged by restrictions on how its findings can be used. The Rand report says, according to Business Week, "Past efforts have shown that incentives or other mechanisms may be needed to change behavior. Because the stimulus bill specifically prohibits using the results of federally funded comparative effectiveness research ... to guide payment policy or benefit design, developing strong incentives that will drive down spending is considerably less likely (Arnst, 9/8).

---

This article is republished with kind permission from our friends at The Kaiser Family Foundation. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery of in-depth coverage of health policy developments, debates and discussions. The Daily Health Policy Report is published for Kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Copyright 2009 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.