The Fund supports networks of state health policy decision makers to help identify, inspire, and inform policy leaders.
The Milbank Memorial Fund supports two state leadership programs for legislative and executive branch state government officials committed to improving population health.
The Fund identifies and shares policy ideas and analysis to advance state health leadership, strong primary care, and sustainable health care costs.
Keep up with news and updates from the Milbank Memorial Fund. And read the latest blogs from our thought leaders, including Fund President Christopher F. Koller.
The Fund publishes The Milbank Quarterly, as well as reports, issues briefs, and case studies on topics important to health policy leaders.
The Milbank Memorial Fund is is a foundation that works to improve population health and health equity.
September 2009 (Volume 87)
Quarterly Article
Danielle M. Whicher
Kalipso Chalkidou
Irfan A. Dhalla
Leslie Levin
Sean Tunis
March 2024
Mar 11, 2024
Feb 27, 2024
Back to The Milbank Quarterly
Context: Comparative effectiveness research is increasingly being recognized as a method to link research with the information needs of decision makers. As the United States begins to invest in comparative effectiveness, it would be wise to look at other functioning research networks to understand the infrastructure and funding required to support them. Methods: This case study looks at the comparative effectiveness research network in Ontario, Canada, for which a neutral coordinating committee is responsible for prioritizing topics, assessing evidence, providing recommendations on coverage decisions, and determining pertinent research questions for further evaluation. This committee is supported by the Medical Advisory Secretariat and several large research institutions. This article analyzes the infrastructure and cost needed to support this network and offers recommendations for developing policies and methodologies to support comparative effectiveness research in the United States. Findings: The research network in place in Ontario explicitly links decision making with evidence generation, in a transparent, timely, and efficient way. Funding is provided by the Ontario government through a reliable and stable funding mechanism that helps ensure that the studies it supports are relevant to decision makers. Conclusions: With the recent allocation of funds to support comparative effectiveness research from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the United States should begin to construct an infrastructure that applies these features to make sure that evidence generated from this effort positively affects the quality of health care delivered to patients.
Author(s): Danielle M. Whicher; Kalipso Chalkidou; Irfan A. Dhalla; Leslie Levin; Sean Tunis
Keywords: health services research; evidence-based medicine; investigational therapies; health care reform; health policy
Read on Wiley Online Library
Read on JSTOR
Volume 87, Issue 3 (pages 585–606) DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00572.x Published in 2009
