The Milbank Memorial Fund is an endowed operating foundation that publishes The Milbank Quarterly, commissions projects, and convenes state health policy decision makers on issues they identify as important to population health.
We focus on a number of topic areas identified by state health policy leaders as important to population health.
The Center for Evidence-based Policy at Oregon Health & Science University is a national leader in evidence-based decision making and policy design.
Keep up with news and updates from the Milbank Memorial Fund. Get the latest from thought leaders, including Christopher F. Koller, president of the Fund.
We publish The Milbank Quarterly, as well as reports and issues briefs on topics important to population health.
September 2009 (Volume 87)
September 2009 | Danielle M. Whicher, Kalipso Chalkidou, Irfan A. Dhalla, Leslie Levin, Sean Tunis
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)
Published in 2009
The Revolution in Health Care Antitrust: New Methods and Provocative Implications
Commentary: Public Health and Health Care Quality Assurance—Strange Bedfellows?