PIPC Chairman Tony Coelho Praises Steps Towards Patient-Centered Comparative Effectiveness Research, Calls for Continued Progress
WASHINGTON D.C. – In opening remarks at the Partnership to Improve Patient Care’s (PIPC) 2nd annual forum in Washington, D.C., Chairman Tony Coelho praised the steps made over the past year in achieving patient-centered comparative effectiveness research, and called for continued progress. Commenting on the creation and initial work of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) over the past year, Coelho said: “We appreciate the progress that’s been made, and we are looking for the progress to continue.”Coelho was joined at the forum by PCORI Executive Director Joe Selby and a panel of experts from the patient, provider and health policy sectors who discussed progress made, and additional steps that need to be taken, to ensure that the patient is the focus of effectiveness research. “Being patient-centered is much easier said than done, but since becoming law, PCORI has taken positive steps in its work towards implementing patient-centered CER,” PIPC Chairman Tony Coelho said. He highlighted PCORI’s commitment to hiring a “Chief Patient Officer” and its decision to solicit and release comments on the draft definition of patient-centered outcomes research as two recent examples of positive steps taken by the Institute.
In a recent letter in the St. Louis Times Dispatch, Drs. Palmisano and Gale stressed the importance of establishing open, transparent procedures in the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
A little-noticed provision of the Fiscal Year 2011 Continuing Resolution which was passed earlier this month requires the Government Accountability Office to conduct an audit of government CER projects funded by the Recovery Act and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Due just two months from the date of enactment, this provision could prove interesting to anyone who follows the issue of comparative effectiveness research. The provision states:
According to an article in Inside Health Policy, the American Medical Association is circulating a letter set go to the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) raising concerns should PCORI use cost considerations in their definition of what they considered Patient Centered Outcomes Research (PCOR).
The article quoted AMA's letter as echoing concern with the potential inclusion of cost-based research in the definition:
“We do have questions concerning the last component of the definition that provides that PCOR: '[i]nvestigates (or may investigate) optimizing outcomes while addressing burden to individuals, resources, and other stakeholder perspectives.'”
The actions taken by the Patient Centered Outcomes and Research Institute (PCORI) Board of Governors at their Washington, D.C., meeting made many in the patient and health care communities more confident that the Board is working to be truly-patient centered. The Board members, with the help of the public, came up with a consensus on an improved definition for patient-centered outcomes research that focuses on how CER should be conducted in order to properly focus on patients. But despite PCORI’s efforts, some health researchers and policymakers still wish to use CER to impose coverage restrictions.