What Stakeholders Think About CER & Other Questions You Might Have Missed

We had a lively conversation on May 19 during our webinar, “Comparative Effectiveness Research and the Environment for Decision-making.” You can watch the archived webinar, featuring NPC President Dan Leonard, Health Services Research Director Kimberly Westrich, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Executive Director Dr. Joe Selby, and Mathematica Policy Research Senior Fellow Dr. Gene Rich, below.

 

Unfortunately, we weren’t able to answer all of the questions that were under consideration during the hour, so we wanted to follow up and address those additional queries on our blog. We also wanted to share some links to resources that were mentioned during the discussion.

Is there a good source/consensus on what methodologies are most credible and useful to payers?

Payers are increasingly looking to new types of evidence, and many payers are welcoming efforts to provide greater uniformity and transparency in the evaluation and use of evidence for coverage and health care decision-making.

One effort is being led by the CER Collaborative, a partnership among the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy, the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research and NPC. The CER Collaborative developed an online toolkit that enables decision-makers to assess individual studies and synthesize the evidence from multiple studies, view training materials, and access additional resources.

Is there a valuable case study demonstrating how an effective CER study can impact treatment decisions?

Yes. “When is Evidence Sufficient for Decision-Making,” published in the July 2013 issue of the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, outlined influential factors that impact how quickly new medical evidence is adopted and put into practice by health care decision-makers. The factors they noted include:

• Validity, reliability, and maturity of the science: Is the current understanding of the particular condition and its treatment understood well enough so that new information can be taken into account?
• Economic drivers that might influence adoption: Who is paying for the treatment? Is it being reimbursed? What marketing or detailing efforts were influential?
• Rapid (or slow) incorporation into practice guidelines: How quickly—or slowly—were the results accepted by groups that develop guidelines?
• Communication: Are the results being amplified by major media outlets, celebrities or social media?
• Patients’ and providers’ ability to apply results to their needs: Can patients or providers apply published evidence to their decisions?

Who were the CER survey respondents and how were they selected? Will we include consumers/patients more specifically in our next survey?

We surveyed representatives from researchers/thought leaders; government; insurers/health plans; employers; business coalitions; and associations (including patient organizations). Survey respondents typically included directors of relevant offices, or those who are most likely to be involved in CER in some way (eg, chief medical officers, benefits directors, executive directors). Additional details are included in the survey booklet.

Now that there is a broader awareness and understanding of CER, it would be interesting to hear patient and consumer perspectives about CER and its use in decision-making. We have heard that other organizations might be looking into such an evaluation.

Dr. Rich mentioned an upcoming webinar about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and CER—could you please share the details?

The Mathematica Policy Research briefing and webinar, “The Recovery Act Investment in CER: Interim Assessment & Implications,” will be held on May 29, 2014, from 12 pm – 1:30 pm ET. Details and registration information are available on Mathematica’s website.

Have additional questions about the survey? Feel free to email us or engage with us on Twitter @npcnow.