+1 to both @JoelW. & @MichaelChernick. I want to add a detail to @JoelW.'s answer. He notes that "we almost never have a direct estimate of the SEM", which is essentially true, but it's worth explicitly recognizing a caveat to that statement. Specifically, when a study compares multiple groups / treatments (for example, placebo vs. standard drug vs. new drug), an ANOVA is typically used to see if they are all equal. The null hypothesis is that each group has been drawn from the same population, and thus, all three means are estimates of the population mean. That is, the null hypothesis in a standard ANOVA assumes that you do have a direct estimate of the SEM. Consider the equation for the variance of the sampling distribution of means:
$$
\sigma^2_{\bar x}=\frac{\sigma^2_{pop}}{n_j},
$$
where $\sigma^2_{pop}$ is the population variance, and $n_j$ is the number of groups. Although we don't usually perform the calculations in this way, we could simply use standard formulas to plug in estimated values, and with minimal algebraic reshuffling, form the $F$ statistic like so:
$$
F=\frac{n_j\times s^2_{\bar x}}{s^2_{\text{pooled within group}}}
$$
In this case, we really would be using the standard formula (only applied over the group means), that is:
$$
s^2_{\bar x}=\frac{\sum_{j=1}^{n_j}(\bar x_j-\bar x_.)^2}{n_j-1},
$$
with $x_.$ being the mean of the group means.
In that we typically believe the null hypothesis is not true, @JoelW.'s point is right, but I work through this point, because I think the clarity it affords is helpful for understanding these issues.