FierceHealthcare FierceHealthIT FierceMobileHealthcare FierceHealthPayer
FierceHealthFinance FierceEMR FiercePracticeManagemtn Hospital Impact

Be sure to checkout FierceEMR for Meaningful Use updates!

HHS seeks feedback on planned comparative-effectiveness database

HHS is seeking proposals on how to best build the centerpiece of comparative-effectiveness research, a database of scientific research related to medical outcomes.

The department last week issued a request for information on data sources that should feed into a central website, how to organize content and what sort of incentives the government should offer researchers to contribute to the database. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act allocates $1.1 billion to research in comparative effectiveness, or triple the previous annual budget of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the HHS office likely to coordinate much of the work.

HHS would like to build a publicly searchable site that's easy to update and to identify gaps in available evidence, NextGov reports. The site also would instruct various organizations on how to conduct comparative-effectiveness research and report their findings in ways that policymakers and healthcare decision-makers can understand.

According to a July 19 notice, the database might catalog research on pharmaceuticals, surgical procedures, medical devices, laboratory tests and healthcare delivery. HHS says it is concerned about keeping the site up to date, since medical evidence often changes and treatments once thought safe are called into question.

The HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation is accepting comments on the notice through Aug. 9.

For more information:
- check out this NextGov story
- read this Health Data Management news brief
- see the HHS request for information in the Federal Register (.pdf)

Related Articles:
SPOTLIGHT: Comparative effectiveness and cost containment
Committee makes comparative-effectiveness spending recommendations
Study: Payers, providers alike have low expectations for clinical data mining

SHARE WITH:
Email Twitter Facebook LinkedIn StumbleUpon
Get Your FREE FierceHealthIT Email Newsletter:
Comments (2) | Post a comment

Comments

Start with the Cochrane Database, the gold standard globally for collecting and evaluating research, and the UK's NICE. They both have standards for inclusion/exclusion, meta-analyses, levels of evidence, etc. In typical gringoist fashion, the US wants to go off in its own direction of unproven and non-standard methods of doing science, as long as corporations can't make money off of it. The fact that we have the worst health outcomes in the industrialized world proves that "our way" isn't necessarily the best.

HHS RFI (Request for Information) on Comparative Effectiveness Database.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.