Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Comparative Effectiveness ResearchEvidence, Medicine, and Policy$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Carol M. Ashton and Nelda P. Wray

Print publication date: 2013

Print ISBN-13: 9780199968565

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: September 2013

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199968565.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2019. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 09 December 2019

The Structure, Financing, and Processes of Federally Mandated Comparative Effectiveness Research and Why They Matter

The Structure, Financing, and Processes of Federally Mandated Comparative Effectiveness Research and Why They Matter

Chapter:
(p.208) 10 The Structure, Financing, and Processes of Federally Mandated Comparative Effectiveness Research and Why They Matter
Source:
Comparative Effectiveness Research
Author(s):

Carol M. Ashton

Nelda P. Wray

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199968565.003.0010

Throughout the legislative odyssey of federal policy on comparative effectiveness research from 2002 to 2008, the specifics of the policy took many different forms. While opponents to federally-mandated comparative effectiveness research objected to the policy entirely, proponents of the policy were divided as to where the function should be housed (inside the federal government or outside); how it should be financed (congressional appropriations or fees levied on public and private health insurers and health plans), and how it should be governed (how much representation should each stakeholder have on a governing board). Every specification has its advantages and disadvantages. The two federal mandates currently in force for comparative effectiveness research—the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act and the 2010 Affordable Care Act—differ markedly in placement, financing, governance, research priority-setting methods, and processes, illustrating the fact that every alternative is a balance between advantages and disadvantages.

Keywords:   Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, Section 6301, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Government Accountability Office, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research back surgery guidelines, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Federally-funded research and development center, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund, Research priority-setting

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .