The Institute of Medicine panel slated to make recommendations for the $1.1 billion earmarked for comparative effectiveness research has no representation from broad-based consumer or patient advocacy groups, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest. The legislation, which gave IOM $1.5 million to conduct the three-month study of how to spend the comparative effectiveness money contained in the stimulus package, required that the quasi-government agency’s final report consider “input from stakeholders.”

While the proposed 16-member panel included five physician specialists, three medical technology assessment experts, three insurers (two of which are also provider networks), and three officials currently or formerly associated with Medicare, the only patient or consumer representative named to the panel’s tentative roster was from the Alzheimer’s Association, a single-issue patient advocacy group that receives substantial support from the drug industry.

Comparative effectiveness research compares the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of competing approaches to treating and preventing disease. Information generated by the research could be used by payers and providers to improve health care quality and outcomes while holding down costs. “More research on what works and what doesn't, tied to financial incentives to provide the higher-value care, could help to reduce costs without harming quality," said Peter Orszag while head of the Congressional Budget Office. He’s now President Obama’s budget chief and a major player in the administration’s health care reform efforts.

Some patient advocacy groups that receive financial support from industry and conservative leaders such as talk show host Rush Limbaugh and Hudson Institute senior fellow Betsy McCaughey launched a major campaign to eliminate comparative effectiveness research from the stimulus bill. They alleged it would lead to “bureaucrats” telling doctors what to do and be a first step toward medical rationing. The stimulus bill did not require use of the information generated through comparative effectiveness research.

Setting priorities for the $1.1 billion that will be spent on such research over the next two years could be similarly contentious. Comments on the IOM’s proposed panel will be accepted until March 23rd and can be filed here.

This story first appeared in Integrity in Science Watch, an email newsletter published by the Center for Science in the Public Interest.