PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. (text of measure as introduced: CR S7961-7966)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 31, 2008
Comparative Effectiveness Research Act of 2008 - Amends title XI (General Provisions, Peer Review, and Administrative Simplification) of the Social Security Act to provide for a program of comparative effectiveness research for health care. Defines "comparative effectiveness research" as research evaluating and comparing the implications and outcomes of two or more health care strategies to address a particular medical condition.
Establishes the Health Care Comparative Effectiveness Research Institute as a nonprofit, nongovernmental, corporation to conduct research on the effectiveness of health care treatments, including pharmaceuticals, medical devices and procedures, and other therapies. Requires the Institute to: (1) identify national priorities for comparative clinical effectiveness research; (2) establish and update a research project agenda and provide for peer review of research; (3) collect data on health care treatments; (4) establish a standing methodology committee for developing the science of comparative effectiveness research; and (5) disseminate research findings.
Amends the Internal Revenue Code to establish in the Treasury the Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund. Provides revenues for the Trust Fund by transferring amounts from the General Fund and the Medicare Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds and by imposing a fee on certain accident or health insurance policies and self-insured health plans. Requires the Comptroller General to review financial audits of the Institute and assess the adequacy and use of funding. Terminates all funding for the Trust Fund after FY2018.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Comptroller General to report to Congress on the process for making national coverage determinations under the Medicare program.
People & committees
Sen. Baucus, Max [D-MT] · D–MT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. (text of measure as introduced: CR S7961-7966)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S7960-7961)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.3408 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.3408 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.3408 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.3408 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.