Comparative effectiveness research has shown that significant cost reductions are possible.

The core question of comparative effectiveness research is which treatment works best, for whom, and under what circumstances.

Its leadership on comparative effectiveness research of prescription medications is respected within the industry.

The Recovery Act contains $1.1 billion for comparative effectiveness research.

The Recovery Act authorized a little more than $1 billion to support comparative effectiveness research.

Such scenarios offer the opportunity to maintain or improve the quality of care, while significantly reducing costs, through comparative effectiveness research.

Several groups have emerged to provide leadership in the area of Comparative Effectiveness Research.

The stalking horse for this dangerous shift in policy is what is known as "comparative effectiveness research."

Scott Gottlieb has expressed concern about relatively unreliable comparative effectiveness research being used to restrict treatment options under a public plan.

The inverse benefit law highlights the need for comparative effectiveness research and other reforms to improve evidence-based prescribing.

Comparative effectiveness research would be one of many tools used by the IMAC.

To provide this information, comparative effectiveness research must assess a comprehensive array of health-related outcomes for diverse patient populations and subgroups.

These arguments prevailed in the recent debate over comparative effectiveness research (CER) in healthcare reform.

"Comparative effectiveness research" and Kindred Delusions.

Nevertheless the Health and Human Services Department has said that comparative effectiveness research "will not recommend clinical guidelines for payment, coverage or treatment".

There is a $700 million allocation for "comparative effectiveness research," to accelerate understanding of what kinds of medicine and treatment can be scientifically established to work best.

For the purposes of this initiative, the definition of comparative effectiveness research adhered to that adopted by the Federal Coordinating Council.

A Tale of Two Diseases: Repairing Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Held symposium in Washington, DC, highlighting VA's 30-year track record in comparative effectiveness research.

A non-profit Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute is established, independent from government, to undertake comparative effectiveness research.

The 15-member Comparative Effectiveness Research Council will assist federal agencies in coordinating comparative effectiveness and related health services research.

Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER)

Topics include electronic health records, genomic and observational research, central IRBs, comparative effectiveness research and research training.

Comparative effectiveness research is conducted by AHRQ through its Effective Health Care Program http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/.

"Payers Step in With 'Real-World' Comparative Effectiveness Research" Managed Care Magazine.