1 / 14

Comparative Effectiveness Research: Key Issues and Controversies Consumer-Purchaser Disclosure Project Discussion Forum

This discussion forum addresses key issues and controversies surrounding comparative effectiveness research (CER) and its impact on healthcare spending. It highlights the importance of considering costs alongside clinical effectiveness in decision-making and explores different approaches to incorporating cost-effectiveness into CER. The forum also examines the potential applications of CER, including its role in guiding patient-clinician decision-making, reimbursement policies, value-based insurance design, and physician group compensation. For more information, contact spearson@icer-review.org or visit www.icer-review.org.

carlotta
Download Presentation

Comparative Effectiveness Research: Key Issues and Controversies Consumer-Purchaser Disclosure Project Discussion Forum

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Comparative Effectiveness Research:Key Issues and Controversies Consumer-Purchaser Disclosure Project Discussion Forum May 5, 2009 Steven D. Pearson, MD, MSc, FRCP

  2. Background • Policy givens: • Unsustainable cost increases • Unexplainable variation in practice patterns • Not enough evidence for decisions about new treatments • International efforts (health technology assessment) • NICE in England • “Comparative Effectiveness” • Stark bill • Baucus bill • American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) stimulus bill funding for Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) 2

  3. 10-Year Impact on Spendingof a Center for Comparative Effectiveness Dollars in billions SAVINGS COSTS Source: Based on estimates by The Lewin Group for The Commonwealth Fund, 2007.

  4. Chief remaining questions on CER • Stimulus spending • Priorities for spending at AHRQ and NIH • Secretary of HHS $400 million • Inclusion of cost and/or cost-effectiveness • CER 2.0 • Structure • Governance • Funding • Priority Setting • Research Methods (cost-effectiveness) • Implementation 4

  5. Stimulus spending • Priorities for spending at AHRQ and NIH • Mix of systematic reviews and prospective studies • Framing of topics as “drug vs. drug” or broader pathways of care • Studies of health plan policies such as prior authorization • Secretary of HHS $400 million • Inclusion of cost-effectiveness 5

  6. High extra costLow gain New treatmentless effective, more costly Low extra costHigh gain New treatmentmore effective, less costly Weighing up costs and effects Cost ($) Effectiveness

  7. Why Costs? • “Not to consider costs is delusional” • Costs should be considered transparently and always in the context of clinical effectiveness • Without consideration of cost • No societal support for explicit cost considerations in clinical decisions and medical policies • All explicit health plan efforts will be suspect • Continued difficulty negotiating prices in relation to evidence of incremental benefit • Marginal benefit at high price will continue to be a dominant market signal for manufacturers

  8. How to do Costs? • Carve-out • Commissioned by individual payers, including Medicare • Arms’ length • Funded as part of CER stream but function delegated to an allied yet separate organization • Carve-in • Distrust of clinical effectiveness judgments if mixed with costs • More efficient to nest within same effort to generate a systematic review of the clinical evidence • Benefits from the objectivity and transparency of a federal comparative effectiveness initiative to gain broad acceptance

  9. Legislation for CER 2.0 • Structure • Inside or attached to government vs. independent? • Governance • Stakeholders on the Governing Board or only on Advisory Committees? • Funding • How much from private health plans and purchasers? • Priority Setting • Who and how? • Research Methods • Cost-effectiveness yea or nea? • Implementation

  10. http://www.politico.com/singletitlevideo.html?bcpid=1155201977&bctid=21157881001http://www.politico.com/singletitlevideo.html?bcpid=1155201977&bctid=21157881001

  11. How will CE information be used? • Concerns • Limit access to life-saving treatments just because of cost • “One-size-fits-all” methodologies and applications to coverage policies • Cost-effectiveness applied as a strict cut-off for coverage • Cost-effectiveness devalues older, sicker patients • Put governmental bureaucrats between you and your doctor • Stifle innovation 11

  12. How CER should be used • “Too cold” • Dissemination of information to patients and clinicians • “Too hot” • Direct mandates for “all-or-nothing” coverage decisions • “Just right” • Providing “guidance” to patients, clinicians, and payers • Application by payers to create value-based tools and policies in support of optimal care and to ensure best use of every health care dollar • Patient-clinician decision support • Reimbursement policy • Value-based insurance design • Physician group compensation (P4P) 12

  13. Application of Cost-effectiveness • Help identify the least costly alternative among equivalent treatment options • Provide some context for the additional cost paid for very marginal clinical benefits • Help anchor initial pricing for new technologies in evidence of their marginal (if any) benefit • Tools • Patient-clinician decision tools • Reimbursement policy • Value-based insurance design • Physician group compensation (P4P) to align incentives 13

  14. For further information: spearson@icer-review.org www.icer-review.org

More Related