Testimony on Comparative Effectiveness Research

Jim Harvey

On April 3, 2009, public testimony on comparative effectiveness research was given at a meeting of the National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality. The testimony represents the views of the presenter and not necessarily those of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) or the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Delivered Via Electronic Mail

Here are my thoughts regarding comparative effectiveness research programs:

  1. Disease and injury registrars—Determine if disease and injury registrars similar to the cancer registrars should be established in order to track the effectiveness of various treatment approaches for diseases and injuries other than cancer. Which new registrars to establish could depend upon the total healthcare expense for a disease/injury and the uncertainty as to which treatment is best for the disease/injury.
  2. Best practices adoption success—Determine to what extent best practices that are already known have been successfully adopted by facilities that have tried to adopt them.
  3. Determine reasons for not following good practices—Investigate to find some key areas of deficiencies and why the deficiencies occur.  For instance, if infusion start/stop times are not recorded is it because staff does not know the correct practice, there is some morale issue at the facility, there are insufficient staff, etc.  It may be that having more monitoring of best practices, providing availability of instructions as to what the best practice is, making incentive payments for following best practices and recognizing staff for following best practices will promote following best practices.

Jim Harvey

Current as of April 2009
Internet Citation: Testimony on Comparative Effectiveness Research: Jim Harvey. April 2009. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. http://www.ahrq.gov/news/newsroom/speech/harvey.html