PIPC Chairman Tony Coelho issued the following response to a recent op-ed published in Bloomberg by Dr. Peter Orszag, former director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Dr. Orszag reveals in his critique of PCORI the very conceit the Institute was designed to avoid – a research agenda designed by “the experts” to cut costs, instead of an agenda shaped by patients and doctors to improve care. Rather than pursue a research agenda as defined by an insular group of experts in Washington, PCORI was set up to engage patients, caregivers and the publicly directly, and give them a real voice in decision-making, in order to ensure that the Institute was studying the questions that matter most.
Dr. Orszag reveals in his critique of PCORI the very conceit the Institute was designed to avoid – a research agenda designed by “the experts” to cut costs, instead of an agenda shaped by patients and doctors to improve care. Rather than pursue a research agenda as defined by an insular group of experts in Washington, PCORI was set up to engage patients, caregivers and the publicly directly, and give them a real voice in decision-making, in order to ensure that the Institute was studying the questions that matter most.
Further, PCORI is implementing precisely the mandate it was given in statute. This mandate recognized that historically, some of the biggest, highest-impact evidence gaps are not related to tests or treatments, but to approaches to organizing, managing and delivering care. This broad based approach to comparative effectiveness research was recognized by several leading organizations, including the Federal Coordinating Council and the Institute of Medicine, during the debate of the Affordable Care Act and envisioned as PCORI’s mission. It was strongly reaffirmed in a series of patient and physician Roundtables conducted by our organization over the past year.
It also should be noted that PCORI is devoting considerable resources to building sustainable research infrastructure that, when built, will support research across the full spectrum of interventions – tests, treatments, and health care management and delivery.
Can PCORI do a better job engaging patients and caregivers to identify specific research topics? Absolutely. Without patient input, it will be difficult to define an optimal research agenda. But just because PCORI isn’t focusing on the topics that “the experts” believe are important doesn’t mean that the Institute is “falling down on the job.”
It also should be noted that PCORI is devoting considerable resources to building sustainable research infrastructure that, when built, will support research across the full spectrum of interventions – tests, treatments, and health care management and delivery.
Can PCORI do a better job engaging patients and caregivers to identify specific research topics? Absolutely. Without patient input, it will be difficult to define an optimal research agenda. But just because PCORI isn’t focusing on the topics that “the experts” believe are important doesn’t mean that the Institute is “falling down on the job.”
