In This Week’s Issue:
1. PIPC Annual Forum – November 5, 2013, e-mail [email protected] to RSVP.
2. Harold Sox to Serve as Senior Adviser to PCORI, click here to view the press release.
3. PCORI Launches Community-Building “Pipeline to Proposal” Awards, click here to view the press release.
4. New York Times: The Soaring Cost of a Simple Breath, click here to view the article.
5. The Incidental Economist: Who Says PCORI Can't Do Cost Effectiveness?, click here to view the article.
6. New York Times: The Myth of the Medical-Device Tax, click here to view the article.
1. PIPC Annual Forum – November 5, 2013, e-mail [email protected] to RSVP.
2. Harold Sox to Serve as Senior Adviser to PCORI, click here to view the press release.
3. PCORI Launches Community-Building “Pipeline to Proposal” Awards, click here to view the press release.
4. New York Times: The Soaring Cost of a Simple Breath, click here to view the article.
5. The Incidental Economist: Who Says PCORI Can't Do Cost Effectiveness?, click here to view the article.
6. New York Times: The Myth of the Medical-Device Tax, click here to view the article.
1. PIPC Annual Forum – November 5, 2013
The Partnership to Improve Patient Care (PIPC) exists to ensure that comparative clinical effectiveness research is focused on giving providers and patients the information they need, improving health care quality and supporting continued medical progress. 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. To RSVP to this event, e-mail [email protected].
2. Harold Sox to Serve as Senior Adviser to PCORI
According to a press release from PCORI, “Harold Sox, MD, an internationally recognized expert on translating medical evidence into recommendations for best clinical practice, has been named Special Advisor to the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, PCORI announced today... ‘We are thrilled to tap Hal Sox's extensive knowledge and expertise in comparative effectiveness research to advance our mission and ensure that we support research that will yield truly useful results,’ said PCORI's Executive Director Joe Selby.” Click here to view the press release.
3. PCORI Launches Community-Building “Pipeline to Proposal” Awards
On Tuesday of this week, PCORI 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. The opportunity will begin with a pilot program offering individuals or small groups of patients, researchers, clinicians, and other healthcare stakeholders in 13 western states the chance to apply for “Tier I” awards of up to $15,000 each. 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 to view the press release.
In a post on the PCORI Blog, PCORI’s Deputy Director of Patient Engagement Suzanne Schrandt writes, “The Tier I Pipeline Awards are the first step of a three-step program. We expect to release requests for proposals for the other steps early the next year. Tier II awards will focus on infrastructure development and strengthening partnerships between patients and other stakeholders and researchers. In Tier III awards, an established team of patients, other stakeholders, and researchers will be expected to draft high-quality patient-centered comparative effectiveness research proposals. Click here to view the blog post.
4. New York Times: The Soaring Cost of a Simple Breath
In an article, Elisabeth Rosenthal of The New York Times) reports, “Unlike its counterparts in other countries, the United States Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, which evaluates treatments for coverage by federal programs, is not allowed to consider cost comparisons or cost-effectiveness in its recommendations. ‘Our regulatory and approval system seems constructed to achieve high-priced outcomes,’ said Dr. Peter Bach, the director of the Center for Health Policy and Outcomes at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. ‘We don't give any reason for drug makers to charge less.’ And taxpayers and patients bear the consequences.” Click here to view the article.
5. The Incidental Economist: Who Says PCORI Can't Do Cost Effectiveness?
Responding to the previously noted New York Times article on rising healthcare costs, University of Michigan Law Professor Nicholas Bagley comments in the The Incidental Economist, “The ACA does not, in fact, prohibit PCORI from considering costs. The statute just forbids PCORI from using a dollar-per-QALY metric ‘as a threshold’ for establishing cost-effectiveness or for making recommendations. What does that mean? Well, it means that PCORI can't say that a treatment costs ‘too much’ just because its costs exceed, say, $50,000 for every QALY saved. That $50,000-per-QALY line would be a threshold… In practice, that leaves a lot of room for PCORI to think about costs. The institute could, for example, compile cost information about the treatments that it studies.” Click here to view the article.
6. New York Times: The Myth of the Medical-Device Tax
In an op-ed published in the New York times, vice president for health policy at the Center for American Progress, Topher Spiro, writes, “the new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, a nongovernmental body created by the Affordable Care Act, should pay for research that compares the effectiveness of devices so physicians can make informed choices. (Three years into its existence, the institute has initiated few, if any, studies of medical devices.) Medicare or the Food and Drug Administration should also require the use of registries that track when devices fail. Currently, medical-device manufacturers allocate only a sliver of profits to research and development and often focus on “tweaks” to existing devices, without providing any evidence that they are of better quality. Competitive pressures from public and private payers would provide incentives for the industry to become more innovative.” Click here to view the article.
In response, professor and author Dr. Peter Ubel comments on The Healthcare Blog, “Listen to me PCORI. Don’t follow this advice, unless you plan not to survive to celebrate your fourth birthday… PCORI needs to conduct the kind of research that everyone — Republicans and Democrats, patients and providers, device manufacturers and insurance companies — will support, at least until the point where it has proven its value to enough people that it won’t be one controversial topic away from the chopping block… That’s why I disagree with Spiro that PCORI ought to study devices.” Click here to view the blog post.
The Partnership to Improve Patient Care (PIPC) exists to ensure that comparative clinical effectiveness research is focused on giving providers and patients the information they need, improving health care quality and supporting continued medical progress. 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. To RSVP to this event, e-mail [email protected].
2. Harold Sox to Serve as Senior Adviser to PCORI
According to a press release from PCORI, “Harold Sox, MD, an internationally recognized expert on translating medical evidence into recommendations for best clinical practice, has been named Special Advisor to the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, PCORI announced today... ‘We are thrilled to tap Hal Sox's extensive knowledge and expertise in comparative effectiveness research to advance our mission and ensure that we support research that will yield truly useful results,’ said PCORI's Executive Director Joe Selby.” Click here to view the press release.
3. PCORI Launches Community-Building “Pipeline to Proposal” Awards
On Tuesday of this week, PCORI 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. The opportunity will begin with a pilot program offering individuals or small groups of patients, researchers, clinicians, and other healthcare stakeholders in 13 western states the chance to apply for “Tier I” awards of up to $15,000 each. 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 to view the press release.
In a post on the PCORI Blog, PCORI’s Deputy Director of Patient Engagement Suzanne Schrandt writes, “The Tier I Pipeline Awards are the first step of a three-step program. We expect to release requests for proposals for the other steps early the next year. Tier II awards will focus on infrastructure development and strengthening partnerships between patients and other stakeholders and researchers. In Tier III awards, an established team of patients, other stakeholders, and researchers will be expected to draft high-quality patient-centered comparative effectiveness research proposals. Click here to view the blog post.
4. New York Times: The Soaring Cost of a Simple Breath
In an article, Elisabeth Rosenthal of The New York Times) reports, “Unlike its counterparts in other countries, the United States Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, which evaluates treatments for coverage by federal programs, is not allowed to consider cost comparisons or cost-effectiveness in its recommendations. ‘Our regulatory and approval system seems constructed to achieve high-priced outcomes,’ said Dr. Peter Bach, the director of the Center for Health Policy and Outcomes at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. ‘We don't give any reason for drug makers to charge less.’ And taxpayers and patients bear the consequences.” Click here to view the article.
5. The Incidental Economist: Who Says PCORI Can't Do Cost Effectiveness?
Responding to the previously noted New York Times article on rising healthcare costs, University of Michigan Law Professor Nicholas Bagley comments in the The Incidental Economist, “The ACA does not, in fact, prohibit PCORI from considering costs. The statute just forbids PCORI from using a dollar-per-QALY metric ‘as a threshold’ for establishing cost-effectiveness or for making recommendations. What does that mean? Well, it means that PCORI can't say that a treatment costs ‘too much’ just because its costs exceed, say, $50,000 for every QALY saved. That $50,000-per-QALY line would be a threshold… In practice, that leaves a lot of room for PCORI to think about costs. The institute could, for example, compile cost information about the treatments that it studies.” Click here to view the article.
6. New York Times: The Myth of the Medical-Device Tax
In an op-ed published in the New York times, vice president for health policy at the Center for American Progress, Topher Spiro, writes, “the new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, a nongovernmental body created by the Affordable Care Act, should pay for research that compares the effectiveness of devices so physicians can make informed choices. (Three years into its existence, the institute has initiated few, if any, studies of medical devices.) Medicare or the Food and Drug Administration should also require the use of registries that track when devices fail. Currently, medical-device manufacturers allocate only a sliver of profits to research and development and often focus on “tweaks” to existing devices, without providing any evidence that they are of better quality. Competitive pressures from public and private payers would provide incentives for the industry to become more innovative.” Click here to view the article.
In response, professor and author Dr. Peter Ubel comments on The Healthcare Blog, “Listen to me PCORI. Don’t follow this advice, unless you plan not to survive to celebrate your fourth birthday… PCORI needs to conduct the kind of research that everyone — Republicans and Democrats, patients and providers, device manufacturers and insurance companies — will support, at least until the point where it has proven its value to enough people that it won’t be one controversial topic away from the chopping block… That’s why I disagree with Spiro that PCORI ought to study devices.” Click here to view the blog post.
