The US government is investing heavily in research on the comparative effectiveness of various medical treatments and drugs, dedicating $1.1 billion in stimulus funds and earmarking $286 million in the proposed 2011 budget toward related projects. But many policy experts worry that researchers' historical reliance on white male subjects could lead to far too generalized recommendations for one treatment over another, which could warp decisions on which therapies should be covered by insurance.

“You can say something is more effective, but you can't necessarily apply it to everyone if the finding was based mostly on men,” says Jo Parrish, vice president of institutional advancement for the Society for Women's Health Research in Washington, DC.

Two separate reports issued last year by the US Institute of Medicine and the newly established Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research called on researchers using taxpayer-backed funds to include more women, people of racial and ethnic minority backgrounds, people with disabilities and other underrepresented populations in their trials.

But even if more minorities are included in research, many advocacy groups are concerned over how the findings will be implemented in health care reform. A bill proposed last June by two Democratic senators would establish a public-private comparative effectiveness institute charged with taking minority and women's concerns into account and then adjusting recommendations to insurers appropriately.