1. Tomorrow: PIPC Annual Forum: Changing the Culture of CER, e-mailshea@PIPCpatients.org to RSVP.
2. PIPC Releases White Paper Analyzing the State of Patient Centered Outcomes Research, click here to view the white paper, and here to view the Executive Summary.3. PCORI Launches Pipeline to Proposal Awards, click here for additional information on the Pipeline to Proposal Awards.
4. California Health Institute: Study: Federally-Funded CER: Where Are We Now, Where Are We Going?, click here to view the article.
5. PCORI Blog: PCORI Ambassadors: Building an Empowered Research Community, clickhere to view the blog post.
6. JAMA: The Optimal Practice of Evidence-Based Medicine: Incorporating Patient Preferences in Practice Guidelines, click here to view the viewpoint article.
7. Health Affairs: Applying Comparative Effectiveness Research to Individuals: Problems and Approaches, click here to view the blog post.
On November 5, at the Reserve Officers Association in Washington D.C., PIPC’s 4th Annual Forum will explore how comparative effectiveness research (CER) entities can change the culture of research to be more patient-centered, and therefore generate research findings that improve health care decision-making. We will explore the progress of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) in engaging patients and their providers to identify research priorities, discuss patient-centered dissemination strategies, and explore the application of usability criteria throughout the research process to ensure that investments in research lead to information that patients can use to improve their health. Panelists will include:
•Honorable Tony Coelho, Chairman, PIPC (Moderator)
•Dr. Bryan Luce, Chief Science Officer, PCORI
•Dr. Hal Sox, Senior Advisor to PCORI
•Mr. Marc Boutin, Executive Vice President and COO, National Health Council
•Dr. Darius Tandon, Co-Chair, PCORI Advisory Panel on Patient Engagement and Associate Director, Center for Community Health at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine
•Dr. Tanisha Carino, Executive Vice President, Avalere
Click here for additional details, and to RSVP e-mail shea@PIPCpatients.org.
2. PIPC Releases White Paper Analyzing the State of Patient Centered Outcomes Research
Last week, the Partnership to Improve Patient Care (PIPC) released a detailed analysis of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) three years since its creation under the Affordable Care Act. The purpose of the analysis was to assess PCORI’s progress in meeting its statutory mandate to prioritize, conduct, and communicate patient-centered comparative effectiveness research (CER). The White Paper, which was based on 15 in-depth interviews with CER experts and a comprehensive review of materials from PCORI, found the Institute has made significant progress in achieving its mandate of patient-centered outcomes research. The paper also identified several gaps where PCORI should take additional steps to fulfill its mission. Click here to view the press release, including comments from PIPC Chairman Tony Coelho.
PIPC’s analysis of PCORI’s progress resulted in following recommendations: (1) PCORI should embrace the expertise of specific patient and provider communities; (2) PCORI should establish meaningful, specific national research priorities; (3) PCORI should create expert advisory panels that have a depth of expertise on the specific topic; (4) PCORI’s Methodology Committee should focus developing methodological standards for research and a translation table; (5) PCORI should continue its efforts to develop improved strategies for dissemination and communication of research findings; and (6) PCORI should adopt an evaluation model that looks at the impact of PCORI’s stakeholder engagement and other activities on its mission to be patient-centered. Click here to view the white paper, and here to view the Executive Summary.
3. PCORI Launches Pipeline to Proposal Awards
The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) has recently launched its “Pipeline to Proposal” awards, an initiative designed to encourage the development of partnerships and health research project ideas among individuals and groups not usually involved in such efforts. According to PCORI, “Our first funding opportunity under the Pipeline to Proposal Awards program is the Tier I Pipeline Awards. It is being piloted in the US Western Region. PCORI will announce additional Tier I funding opportunities throughout the rest of the nation in early 2014. The Tier I awards focus on building the community of patients, stakeholders, and researchers who can participate in patient-centered outcomes research.
The funding amount is $15,000, which will be given over nine months. Under this funding opportunity, PCORI will make up to 25 awards, which will provide seed money to support recipients’ interests in joining together to develop patient-centered research ideas around shared interests. Proposals are being sought through a Request for Proposal (RFP) process. Responses are due Monday, Dec. 2. Click here for additional information on the Pipeline to Proposal Awards.
4. California Health Institute: Study: Federally-Funded CER: Where Are We Now, Where Are We Going?
According to a new study from the California Health Institute, “Comparative effectiveness research (CER) has become an increasingly important feature of the healthcare landscape. Both the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the ACA-established Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) have been allocated greater resources to determine which diagnostics, therapies and healthcare practices will best improve patient care and system sustainability. Over the next decade, the ACA will help underwrite between $4.5 and $6 billion in CER research.” Click here to view the study.
Discussing the findings, John Reichard of CQ HealthBeat reports, “The money the health law will pump into comparative effectiveness research in 2014 will double the budget of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to $650 million... Some of the money will focus on product-to-product comparisons, according to a new analysis by the California Healthcare Institute. But most of it won't... That differs from the original vision many promoters of comparative effectiveness research had for the field.” Clickhere to view the (free) article.
5. PCORI Blog: PCORI Ambassadors: Building an Empowered Research Community
PCORI’s top patient and stakeholder engagement officials, Dr. Anne C. Beal, Sue Sheridan, and Aingyea Kellom recently commented on The PCORI Blog, “We established the PCORI Ambassador Program to address a major challenge in our inclusive approach to health research. Ambassadors' activities will include building relationships with local and national leaders, encouraging community organizations and their affiliate members to participate in our work, building or contributing to online social networks where information about PCORI can be shared, collaborating on live and virtual events, delivering presentations, and contributing as guest bloggers in appropriate forums.” Click here to view the blog post.
6. JAMA: The Optimal Practice of Evidence-Based Medicine: Incorporating Patient Preferences in Practice Guidelines
In a recent opinion piece in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the authors comment, “Clinicians should remember that taking care of patients is supposed to be difficult. Although guidelines may simplify this task, when patient preferences and context matter, guidelines must not replace clinicians' compassionate and mindful engagement of the patient in making decisions together. This is the optimal practice of evidence-based medicine.” Click here to view the viewpoint article.
7. Health Affairs: Applying Comparative Effectiveness Research to Individuals: Problems and Approaches
Joel Kupersmith of Health Affairs Blog comments, “Can the overall results of a CER study be applied to all patients in the target population? [T]here are clearly differences in effect (heterogeneities of treatment effect – HTE's) that manifest among CER study subjects and presumably to a greater extent in the intended population outside the study… As much as possible, the strength and boundaries of evidence regarding individuals, groups, and patient characteristics to which a particular study applies, and reasonable expectations as to what can be derived from available data, should be noted. When possible, guidelines should be informed by quantitative risk analysis and include information on methods of evaluating risk and other study particulars.” Clickhere to view the blog post.