---is conflicted and agenda driven, and if you don't realize that you're profoundly naïve. I presented irrefutable evidence of the conflict of interest straight from Pete Stark, Peter Orzag and the Congressional Budget Office here.
Last week there was more from JAMA as Robert H. Brook, M.D., wrote about what we can expect from comparative effectiveness research. He sees a very biased and conflicted agenda, though apparently sees nothing wrong with it (my italics):
The comparative effectiveness funds should be allocated according to a framework designed to identify procedures, devices, and drugs that would reduce cost but not diminish health. This would help achieve the goal of making health care more affordable. Such a framework would have 2 new required features. First, a grant or contract to spend public money must include an initial analysis to establish a business case that implementing whatever is being proposed would reduce the cost of care by a certain percentage.
A business case? Imagine the howls of protest if a drug company advanced a business case to pitch for its research agenda!