Comparative effectiveness approaches with arra funding and the critical role of health it
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 20

Carolyn M. Clancy, MD Director Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 37 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Comparative Effectiveness Approaches with ARRA Funding and the Critical Role of Health IT. Carolyn M. Clancy, MD Director Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Scottsdale Institute’s 2010 Spring Conference Scottsdale – April 15, 2010.

Download Presentation

Carolyn M. Clancy, MD Director Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Comparative effectiveness approaches with arra funding and the critical role of health it

Comparative Effectiveness Approaches with ARRA Funding and the Critical Role of Health IT

Carolyn M. Clancy, MD

Director

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Scottsdale Institute’s 2010 Spring Conference

Scottsdale – April 15, 2010


Comparing evidence medical vs semiconductor research

Comparing Evidence: Medical vs. Semiconductor Research

“When I was doing semiconductor device research, it was expected that I would compare my results with other people's previously published results and that I would comment on any differences. But it seemed to be different in medicine.

“Medical practitioners primarily tended to publish their own data; they often didn’t compare their data with the data of other practitioners, even in their own field, let alone with the results of other types of treatments for the same condition.”

Andy Grove

Intel co-founder, prostate cancer patient

Forbes May 13, 1996


Health care quality and reform

Health Care Quality and Reform

  • AHRQ: New Resources, Program Highlights

  • The Right Treatment for the right Patient at the Right Time

  • 21st Century Health Care

  • Q&A


Ahrq priorities

AHRQ Priorities

Patient Safety

  • Health IT

  • Patient SafetyOrganizations

  • New PatientSafety Grants

Effective HealthCare Program

AmbulatoryPatient Safety

  • Comparative Effectiveness Reviews

  • Comparative Effectiveness Research

  • Clear Findings for Multiple Audiences

  • Safety & Quality Measures,Drug Management andPatient-Centered Care

  • Patient Safety ImprovementCorps

Other Research & Dissemination Activities

Medical ExpenditurePanel Surveys

  • Visit-Level Information on Medical Expenditures

  • Annual Quality & Disparities Reports

  • Quality & Cost-Effectiveness, e.g.Prevention and PharmaceuticalOutcomes

  • U.S. Preventive ServicesTask Force

  • MRSA/HAIs


Fiscal 2011 budget proposal

Fiscal 2011 Budget Proposal

  • Obama Administration proposed FY 2011 budget includes $611 million for AHRQ – up from $397 million in FY 2010:

    • $286 million for patient-centered health research, up $261 million over the FY 2010 budget

    • $65 million for patient safety research, including $34 million to reduce and prevent healthcare-associated infections

    • $32 million for health information technology research

Plus ARRA Funding (More on This Later)


Ahrq comparative effectiveness research

AHRQ Comparative Effectiveness Research

Policymakers

Clinicians

Consumers

http//:effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov


Ahrq s priority conditions for the effective health care program

Arthritis and non-traumatic joint disorders

Cancer

Cardiovascular disease, including stroke and hypertension

Dementia, including Alzheimer Disease

Depression and other mental health disorders

Developmental delays, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism

Diabetes Mellitus

Functional limitations and disability

Infectious diseases including HIV/AIDS

Obesity

Peptic ulcer disease and dyspepsia

Pregnancy including pre-term birth

Pulmonary disease/Asthma

Substance abuse

AHRQ’s Priority Conditions for the Effective Health Care Program


An unprecedented investment

An Unprecedented Investment

AHRQ’s Effective Health Care Program created by Medicare Modernization Act of 2003

From 2005-2009, received $129 million from Congress for CER

Program has published more than 45 products, including guides for clinicians and consumers

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 includes $1.1 billion for comparative effectiveness research, including $300 million to AHRQ


Iom s 100 priority topics

IOM’s 100 Priority Topics

  • Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research

  • Topics in 4 quartiles; groups of 25.

  • First quartile is highest priority. Included in first quartile:

    • Treatment strategies for atrial fibrillation

    • Imaging technology for diagnosing, staging and monitoring patients with cancer

    • Genetic and biomarker testing

Report Brief Available At http://www.iom.edu


A framework for cer

A Framework for CER

Evidence

Generation

Strategies

Interventions

Conditions

Populations

Improvements

in

Health Care

Horizon

Scanning

Evidence

Need

Identification

Dissemination

Translation

Evidence

Synthesis

Research Platform

Infrastructure – Methods Development – Training


Recovery act cer funding investments examples

Recovery Act CER Funding Investments (Examples)

  • Data Infrastructure

    • Enhance Availability and Use of Medicare Data to Support Comparative Effectiveness Research

    • Distributed Data Research Networks, Including Linking Data

  • Dissemination and Translation

    • Dissemination of CER to Physicians, Providers, Patients and Consumers Through Multiple Vehicles

    • Accelerating Dissemination and Adoption of CER by Delivery Systems

  • Research

    • Optimizing the Impact of Comparative Effectiveness Research Findings through Behavioral Economic RCT Experiments

    • Comparative Effectiveness Research on Delivery Systems


Translating the science into real world applications

Translating the Science into Real-World Applications

  • Examples of Recovery Act Evidence Generation projects with funding available/pending:

    • Clinical and Health Outcomes Initiative in Comparative Effectiveness (CHOICE): First coordinated national effort to establish a series of pragmatic clinical comparative effectiveness studies ($100M)

    • Request for Registries: Up to five awards for the creation or enhancement of national patient registries, with a primary focus on the 14 priority conditions ($48M)

    • DEcIDE Consortium Support: Expansion of multi-center research system and funding for distributed data network models that use clinically rich data from electronic health records ($24M)


Ahrq patient engagement and the recovery act

AHRQ Patient Engagement and the Recovery Act

  • Citizen Forum on Effective Health Care

    • Formally engages stakeholders in the entire Effective Health Care enterprise

    • A Workgroup on Comparative Effectiveness will be convened to provide formal advice and guidance


Ahrq health it research funding

AHRQ Health IT Research Funding

Long-term agency priority

AHRQ has invested more than $300 million in contracts and grants since 2004

Focus on ambulatory safety, medication management, improved decision-making, patient-centered care, health information exchange

More than 200 communities, hospitals, providers and health care systems in 48 states

AHRQ Health IT Investment: $300 Million

http://healthit.hhs.gov


Reach of ahrq s health it program

Reach of AHRQ’s Health IT Program

Federal Agencies

Private Sector Collaboration

AHRQ

Office of the National Coordinator

National Quality Forum

Prevention & Care Mgmt

Effective Health Care

Patient Safety

Core

Health IT

Activities

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

The Leapfrog Group

Value

Innovations/ Emerging Issues

MEPS

American Medical Informatics Association

National Institutes of Health

Priority Populations

Healthcare Information & Management Systems Society


Two way role for health it in comparative effectiveness

‘Two-Way’ Role for Health IT in Comparative Effectiveness

In: A pathway to clinical care for comparative effectiveness research

Out:Digitizes and structures health care information for use in comparative effectiveness research


What does it really mean to be patient centric

What Does It Really Mean to Be Patient-Centric?’


Technology and consumers

Technology and Consumers

  • We create tools that make care more efficient for clinicians

  • Consumers already are comfortable with the technology; they’re leading us, not the other way around

  • Consumers are demanding tools to make their care more about them; let’s satisfy the demand!


Where to from here

Where to From Here?

Assure that research is descriptive – not prescriptive

Identify synergies – methods and infrastructure – between CER and post-marketing surveillance: identification of signals and investigations of causes

Identify incentives for participation

Anticipate unanticipated consequences


Thank you

Thank You

AHRQ Mission

To improve the quality, safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of health care for all Americans

AHRQ Vision

As a result of AHRQ's efforts, American health care will provide services of the highest quality, with the best possible outcomes, at the lowest cost

www.ahrq.gov


  • Login