You wanna translate that nebulous gobbledygook into no-uncertain-terms English for the rest of us??
You obviously didn't bother to read the second part.
In other words, comparative effectiveness research will tell you whether treatment A is better than treatment B. But the bill as written won't mandate which treatment doctors and patients have to select.
So in your logical rambling, you're saying that this team of researchers (i.e. panel) will decide if a person who suffers from a fatal disease in later terms of life should receive "treatment A - a procedure to fight the disease" or "treatment B - something to ease the pain". Fighting the disease would make more sense for those who actually care, but easing the pain for someone who has already lived a long life is more humane (cost effective).
I see. Now it makes more sense.
Exactly - when COST SAVINGS is paramount - then it is simple logic to see that some patients MUST be given preference over others. The old and/or terminal will suffer...