Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

PAYER PERSPECTIVES ON FUTURE ACCEPTABILITY OF COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS AND RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH

  • Rachael Moloney (a1), Penny Mohr (a2), Emma Hawe (a3), Koonal Shah (a3), Martina Garau (a3) and Adrian Towse (a3)...

Abstract

Objectives: Our objective was to gather perspectives from payers on how comparative effectiveness research (CER) in the United States and relative effectiveness (RE) research in Europe will impact evidentiary standards for access decisions of new drugs by 2020.

Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with fourteen senior officials representing public and private payers, health technology assessment groups, and pricing and reimbursement bodies in the United States and Europe. An online survey assessed current use of CER/RE evidence and potential trends that might influence its use for decision making by 2020. A semi-structured interview elicited payers' definitions of CER/RE and was structured around four hypothetical cases resembling drugs expected to be more common or poised to create policy challenges by 2020. Topics included acceptance of study designs and analytic methods associated with CER/RE. A systematic content review was done to extract relevant information.

Results: According to key informants, randomization will remain an essential component for assessing comparative or relative effectiveness. They anticipate greater use of policy levers such as conditional reimbursement or prior authorization to manage diffusion of new drugs. Case studies provided important insights into situations when certain types of CER evidence may be acceptable (e.g., observational data when differences between drugs are largely convenience).

Conclusions: Industry perceptions that CER/RE will change payers' evidentiary requirements in the future are consistent with our findings. Growing investment in payers' own data and increased reliance on policy tools to control diffusion of new drugs may also influence the type of evidence industry will be required to produce by 2020.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      PAYER PERSPECTIVES ON FUTURE ACCEPTABILITY OF COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS AND RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      PAYER PERSPECTIVES ON FUTURE ACCEPTABILITY OF COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS AND RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      PAYER PERSPECTIVES ON FUTURE ACCEPTABILITY OF COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS AND RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

References

Hide All
1. President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Report to the President on propelling innovation in drug discovery, development, and evaluation. September 2012. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-fda-final.pdf (accessed November 8, 2012).
2. Mestre-Ferrandiz, J, Sussex, J, Towse, A. The R&D cost of a new medicine. (December 2012). London: Office of Health Economics.
3. Oderda, G, Sifford-Wilson, SM. Bringing Liraglutide to market: A CER case study. J Manag Care Pharm. 2012;18:S12S18.
4. Epstein, RS. The hypothetical migraine drug comparative effectiveness study: A payer's recommendations for obtaining more useful results. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012;31:22252230.
5. Schneeweiss, S, Gagne, JJ, Glynn, RJ, Ruhl, M, Rassen, JA. Assessing the comparative effectiveness of newly marketed medications: Methodological challenges and implications for drug development. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011;90:777790.
6. Chokshi, DA, Avorn, J, Kesselheim, AS. Designing comparative effectiveness research on prescription drugs: Lessons from the clinical trial literature. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29:18421848.
7. Edwards, CC. Hearing regulations and regulations describing scientific content of adequate and well-controlled clinical investigations. Fed Regist. 1970;35:72507253.
8. Schoonveld, E. Think like a payer. Pharmaceutical market Europe. http://www.pmlive.com/pharma_news/think_like_a_payer_275432 (accessed March 14, 2013).
9. Garattini, S, Bertele', V. Debate: Comparative clinical effectiveness. Eurohealth. 2009;15:411.
10. Shah, KK, Mestre-Ferrandiz, J, Towse, A, Smyth, EN. A review of health technology appraisals: Case studies in oncology. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29:101109.
11. Kleijnen, S, George, E, Goulden, S, d'Andon, A, et al. Relative effectiveness assessment of pharmaceuticals: Similarities and differences in 29 jurisdictions. Value Health. 2012;15:954960.
12. Wilsdon, T, Serota, A. A comparative analysis of the role of impact of health technology assessment. Report for EFPIA, PhRMA, Medicines Austrlia and EuropaBio. London: Charles River Associates; 2011.
13. Nelleson, D, Birnbaum, HG, Greenberg, PE. Perspectives on comparative effectiveness research: Views from diverse constituencies. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28:789798.
14. Sox, HC, Greenfield, S. Comparative effectiveness research: A report from the Institute of Medicine. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:203205.
15. European Commission Enterprise and Industry Health Care Industries Pharmaceutical Forum. http://ex.europa.eupharmaforum/docs/rea_principles_en.pdf (accessed March 14, 2013).
16. Watkins, JB. Payer perspectives on health technology assessment. J Manag Care Pharm. 2012;18:265267.
17. Wang, A, Halbert, RJ, Baerwaldt, T, Nordyke, RJ. US payer perspectives on evidence for formulary decision making. J Oncol Pract. 2012;8:22s27s.
18. Leung, MY, Halpern, MT, West, ND. Pharmaceutical technology assessment: Perspectives from payers. J Manag Care Pharm. 2012;18:256264.
19. Dean, BB, Ko, KJ, Graff, JS, et al. Transparency in evidence evaluation and formulary decision-making: From conceptual development to real-world implementation. P&T. 2013;38:465483.
20. Levy, ARR. International comparison of comparative effectiveness research in five jurisdictions: Insights for the US. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28:813830.
21. Sorensen, C. Use of comparative effectiveness research in drug coverage and pricing decisions: A six-country comparison. Issue Brief (Commonwealth Fund). 2010;91:114.
22. Ratner, J. Health care payers' views of PCT features and trade-offs: A preliminary look. International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 2010 Annual Meeting, Atlanta. http://www.ispor.org/meetings/atlanta0510/presentations/IP5-RatnerJonathan.pdf (accessed November 8, 2012).
23. Brixner, DI, Watkins, JB. Can CER be an effective tool for change in the development and assessment of new drugs and technologies? J Manag Care Pharm. 2012;18:S6S11.
24. Hsieh, H-F, Shannon, SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15:12771288.
25. Schneeweiss, S. A basic study design for expedited safety signal evaluation based on electronic healthcare data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2010;19:858868.

Keywords

Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary materials

Moloney supplementary material
Table S1

 Word (30 KB)
30 KB
WORD
Supplementary materials

Moloney supplementary material
Table S2

 Word (24 KB)
24 KB
WORD
Supplementary materials

Moloney supplementary material
Table S3

 Word (30 KB)
30 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed