National Center for Health Research

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages) This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. Please remove or replace such wording and instead of making proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance. (August 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message) This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "National Center for Health Research" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (August 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

National Center for Health Research

Founded	1999
Founder	Diana Zuckerman
Type	Think tank
Focus	Conducts and scrutinizes research to improve the health and safety of adults and children.
Location	Washington, D.C.
Product	Health and medical information and assistance
Key people	Diana Zuckerman, President
Website	www.center4research.org

The National Center for Health Research (NCHR) is a Washington, D.C.based non-profit organization founded in 1999. Its stated mission is to conduct, analyze, and explain health research to the public.^[1] Diana Zuckerman is President of the NCHR.

In 2014, the organization changed its name from the National Research Center for Women & Families to the National Center for Health Research.

In February 2011, NCHR staff concluded a study into the various alternative approval processes for medical devices at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Authors associated with the NCHR published a study "examining how often the different approval or clearance processes were used for medical devices that were subsequently recalled for life-threatening problems."^[2] The study recommended that the FDA needed to apply stricter criteria for approving implanted medical devices and those used to diagnose serious illnesses. This recommendation was also supported by an editorial at the same subject.^[3] The study resulted in a hearing by the U.S. House of Representatives.^{[citation needed]}

In April 2011, President Diana Zuckerman testified before the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging about the study's findings.^{[4][failed verification]}

In 2014, the organization published a study in the JAMA Internal Medicine journal about the scientific evidence submitted to the FDA to support the marketing of implanted medical devices under the agency’s 510(k) review process. The study concluded that most of the implanted devices were not required to submit data from clinical trials or scientific evidence of safety or effectiveness before they could be sold.^[5]

In 2017, the NCHR staff published a paper in Milbank Quarterly criticizing the FDA for its failure to safeguard electronic health records and other device software from hacking and other cybersecurity threats. They stated, "current regulations are necessary but not sufficient for ensuring patient safety by identifying and eliminating dangerous defects in software currently on the market".^[6] They added that legislative changes resulting from the law entitled the 21st Century Cures Act "will further deregulate health IT, reducing safeguards that facilitate the reporting and timely recall of flawed medical software that could harm patients."

The NCHR published another study in Milbank Quarterly in 2018 called "Diversity in Medical Device Clinical Trials: Do We Know What Works for Which Patients?".^[7] The study investigated whether new, high-risk medical devices had been proven safe and effective for women, minorities or patients over 65 years of age. The paper concluded that most studies did not conduct subgroup analysis on all these major demographic groups, thus providing no information about safety or effectiveness for most patients.^[7]

Two awards are given by the Center each year:

• The Foremother Lifetime Achievement Award "recognizes women who expanded women’s horizons, improved our communities, and made remarkable contributions to our country".^[8]
• The Health Policy Heroes Award "honors men and women (and sometimes boys and girls) who have changed the public debate and public policies in ways that help to improve the lives of adults and children nationwide".^[8]

• Fox-Rawlings, Stephanie R.; Gottschalk, Laura B.; Doamekpor, Laurén A.; Zuckerman, Diana M. (September 2018). "Diversity in Medical Device Clinical Trials: Do We Know What Works for Which Patients?". The Milbank Quarterly. 96 (3): 499–529. doi:10.1111/1468-0009.12344. PMC 6131322. PMID 30203600.
• Ronquillo, Jay G.; Zuckerman, Diana M. (September 2017). "Software-Related Recalls of Health Information Technology and Other Medical Devices: Implications for FDA Regulation of Digital Health". The Milbank Quarterly. 95 (3): 535–553. doi:10.1111/1468-0009.12278. PMC 5594275. PMID 28895231.
• Zuckerman, Diana; Doamekpor, Laurén Abla (June 2015). "More data are needed for Essure hysteroscopic sterilization device". Contraception. 91 (6): 520. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2015.02.027. PMID 25779602.
• Gonsalves, G.; Zuckerman, D. (25 March 2015). "Commentary: Will 20th century patient safeguards be reversed in the 21st century?". BMJ. 350 (mar25 7): h1500. doi:10.1136/bmj.h1500. PMID 25814537. S2CID 19510018.
• Zuckerman, Diana; Brown, Paul; Das, Aditi (1 November 2014). "Lack of Publicly Available Scientific Evidence on the Safety and Effectiveness of Implanted Medical Devices". JAMA Internal Medicine. 174 (11): 1781–7. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.4193. PMID 25265047.
• Zuckerman, Diana M.; Brown, Paul; Nissen, Steven E. (13 June 2011). "Medical Device Recalls and the FDA Approval Process". Archives of Internal Medicine. 171 (11): 1006–11. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.30. PMID 21321283.

• Official website