|
Items in cart [4] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 21
1
Introduction
abstract: This chapter describes the legislative mandate and scope of
work for the current study as well as previous Institute of Medicine
(IOM) experience in methodologies for priority setting. The IOM Com-
mittee on Comparative Effectiveness Research Prioritization was charged
with recommending national priorities—with stakeholder input—for the
discretionary expenditure of $00 million by the Secretary of Health and
Human Services on comparative effectiveness research (CER), and with
addressing the data and infrastructure needs to support and sustain this
research. The formation of the committee is described as well as the pro-
cedures by which it operated. This report provides definitions for CER,
mechanisms the committee used for obtaining public input into the pro-
cess and the priorities, methodologies for priority setting, and, finally, a
portfolio of research topics recommended for funding by the Secretary and
recommendations for an infrastructure to facilitate a sustained research
enterprise for CER and its translation and dissemination.
In the midst of one of the nation’s most serious economic crises, and
in anticipation of major national health care reform, the 111th Congress
acted to significantly expand public spending, particularly on the nation’s
capacity to conduct comparative effectiveness research (CER). The Ameri-
can Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) defines
CER (highlighted in the legislative language that follows) and provides
$1.1 billion in CER funding for the Agency for Healthcare Research and
Quality (AHRQ), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Secre-
tary of Health and Human Services (HHS). More than one-third of the
funds—$400 million—is for discretionary spending by the Secretary:
OCR for page 22
INITIAL NATIONAL PRIORITIES FOR CER
In addition, $400,000,000 shall be available for comparative effectiveness
research to be allocated at the discretion of the Secretary of Health and
Human Services (“Secretary”) . . . to accelerate the development and dis-
semination of research assessing the comparative effectiveness of health
care treatments and strategies, through efforts that: (1) conduct, support,
or synthesize research that compares the clinical outcomes, effectiveness,
and appropriateness of items, services, and procedures that are used to
prevent, diagnose, or treat diseases, disorders, and other health conditions;
and (2) encourage the development and use of clinical registries, clinical
data networks, and other forms of electronic health data that can be used
to generate or obtain outcomes data.1
The legislation also directs the Secretary to enter into a contract with
the Institute of Medicine (IOM), under which the IOM should make rec-
ommendations to guide the nation’s priorities for CER and specifically to
be taken into consideration by the Secretary in decisions on expenditure of
the $400 million available for CER:
[T]he Secretary shall enter into a contract with the Institute of Medicine
. . . to produce and submit a report to the Congress and the Secretary
by not later than June 30, 2009, that includes recommendations on the
national priorities for comparative effectiveness research to be conducted
or supported with the funds provided in this paragraph and that considers
input from stakeholders.
This report is the IOM’s response to the congressional mandate. In
addition to the federal support for the project, the IOM received support
both from the National Academies President’s Fund to finance the project
until the federal sponsor could contract with the IOM and to undertake the
complete cost of the questionnaire process described in Chapter 3, and from
the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for support of the study director.
STuDy SCOPE
Pursuant to the congressional mandate, the IOM committee established
to carry out the study was charged with obtaining extensive stakeholder in-
put for the formulation of national priorities for the Secretary’s investment
of the ARRA funds for CER. The Governing Board Executive Committee
of the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academies,
authorized the study emphasizing stakeholder input (Box 1-1). After con-
sultation with congressional staff and AHRQ, the administrative sponsor
of the study, the committee concluded that its scope of work encompassed
three principal tasks:
1 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 00, P.L. 111-5, 111th Congress, 1st ses-
sion (February 17, 2009).
OCR for page 23
INTRODUCTION
BOX 1-1
Charge to the IOM Committee on Comparative
Effectiveness Research Prioritization
An ad hoc committee will conduct a study to recommend national priorities for
comparative effectiveness research to be conducted or supported with funds from
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The study will be informed
by and extend the views of stakeholders and the recent and ongoing IOM work rel-
evant to comparative effectiveness research such as that on the national capacity
to identify what works in health care, standards for systematic reviews of evidence,
and standards for developing trustworthy clinical practice guidelines.
1. To obtain national input from a wide variety of stakeholders, in-
cluding the public, patients, families, and health care providers in
order to develop a list of no fewer than 50 recommended priority
CER topics.
2. To define how these recommended priorities could be incorporated
in a balanced portfolio of priority research that encompasses all age
groups, underrepresented subpopulations in clinical research, the
full care continuum from prevention to diagnosis to monitoring
to treatment to end-of-life care, the complete range of health care
services from the least to the most invasive, and strategies to ensure
rapid and effective translation of knowledge into practice.
3. To recommend priority actions for ensuring the infrastructure and
workforce for a long-term, sustainable national CER enterprise.
COMMITTEE FORMATION AND PROCEDuRES
The legislation was signed February 17, 2009, and the IOM appointed
most of the Committee on Comparative Effectiveness Research Prioritiza-
tion on February 28, 2009, with a final few members in mid-March. The
23-member committee included experts in behavioral health, bioethics,
biostatistics, child health, clinical trials, consumer and patient perspec-
tives, disabilities, drug development, geriatrics, health care delivery, health
care policy, health economics, health insurance, internal medicine, preven-
tion, public health, racial and ethnic disparities, surgery, systematic review
methods, and women’s health. Brief biographies of the committee members
appear in Appendix F.
The study required an intense, focused effort across just 19 weeks from
OCR for page 24
INITIAL NATIONAL PRIORITIES FOR CER
the enactment of ARRA to release of a final, peer-reviewed report. The
committee began by clarifying the scope of work and developing and imple-
menting an approach to obtaining public and stakeholder suggestions for
the Secretary’s CER priorities. The committee identified three mechanisms
feasible within its time constraints to achieve the requested stakeholder
input (see Chapter 3 for details):
1. Direct input via email and letter correspondence through the IOM
website
2. A web-based questionnaire, open to all, asking for specific priority
research recommendations and their justification
3. A day-long public session for stakeholder presentations to the
committee
By March 6, 2009, a web-based questionnaire had been developed and
field tested to obtain public input into priorities. The questionnaire was
active on the project’s website starting that same day and a broadcast an-
nouncement was emailed on March 9 to approximately 20,000 recipients,
including everyone on the IOM listservs and targeted organizations in-
volved in health care announcing all three opportunities for public input. In
particular, public, consumer, and patient input was solicited by direct con-
tact with major consumer and patient advocacy organizations (e.g., AARP,
Consumers Union, National Health Council, National Minority Quality
Forum). Despite a very short period to notify the public of this process, and
the equally short time for the public to submit information to the committee
for consideration and voting, the committee received extensive input from
more than 1,700 individuals. Although this input meets the requirements of
the legislative language, the committee clearly concludes that future efforts
to establish research priorities need to provide more extensive opportunities
for public input and discussion (see Chapters 3, 4, 5, and 6).
Over the course of the study, the committee held two in-person meet-
ings (one in conjunction with the public session, and one during an extended
weekend retreat) and three phone conferences. Several workgroups of com-
mittee members also communicated by telephone conference and other elec-
tronic means to address specific tasks such as the committee’s methods for
incorporating public input, consideration of selection criteria for developing
a list of priority CER questions, and assessment of key issues related to infra-
structure and the long-term sustainability of a national CER enterprise.
STuDy CONTExT
The IOM has been integrally involved in national priority setting in the
past. Almost 20 years ago, the IOM addressed the clinical conditions that
OCR for page 25
INTRODUCTION
the Health Care Financing Agency (now the Centers for Medicare & Med-
icaid Services [CMS]) should prioritize as part of their Effectiveness Initia-
tive. The reports set priorities for effectiveness research on acute myocardial
infarction, hip fractures, and breast cancer (IOM, 1990a,b,e). Subsequently,
the IOM recommended methodologies that NIH should utilize to improve
consensus development in evaluating biomedical technologies and practices.
This study was one part of a three-part examination of group judgment
methods for assessing medical technologies (IOM, 1990d). An additional
report set forth criteria and methods for deciding which health care tech-
nologies to evaluate (IOM, 1992). A series of reports addressed methods for
guideline development. These reports focused on the optimal methods for
setting priorities for clinical guideline topics (IOM, 1990c, 1995). Priority
setting in the allocation of NIH research funding and mechanisms of involv-
ing the public were addressed in a report examining how NIH should set
its research priorities, looking at four issues: (1) allocation criteria, (2) the
decision-making process, (3) mechanisms for public input, and (4) impact
of congressional directives (IOM, 1998).
More recently, as part of the Quality Chasm series, the IOM dealt with
shortfalls in the quality of health care in the United States (IOM, 2003). It
recommended criteria for which priorities should be established for quality
improvement efforts, as well as specific priority disease entities and condi-
tions including care coordination, health literacy, and end-of-life issues.
Much of the CER committee’s efforts have been guided by the findings
and recommendations of the IOM Committee on Reviewing Evidence to
Identify Highly Effective Clinical Services found in Knowing What Works
in Health Care (IOM, 2008). In addition, the CER committee took full ad-
vantage of the extensive work of the IOM Roundtable on Evidence-Based
Medicine’s experience in The Learning Healthcare System (IOM, 2007a)
and Learning What Works Best (IOM, 2007b) in identifying the impor-
tance of public input for priority setting, potential models of governance for
a national program of CER, potential methodologies for conducting CER,
and the requisite workforce to accomplish the task at hand.
The Committee on Comparative Effectiveness Research Prioritization
operated in parallel with the Federal Coordinating Council for CER, which
was also authorized in ARRA. This council consists of 15 members, “all of
whom are senior federal officers or employees with responsibility for health-
related programs, appointed by the President, acting through the Secretary
of Health and Human Services.”2 Its charge, like that of this committee,
is “not later than June 30, 2009, the Council shall submit to the President
and the Congress a report containing information describing current federal
2 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 00, P.L. 111-5, 111th Congress, 1st ses-
sion (February 17, 2009).
OCR for page 26
INITIAL NATIONAL PRIORITIES FOR CER
activities on comparative effectiveness research and recommendations for
such research conducted or supported from funds made available for allot-
ment by the Secretary for comparative effectiveness research in this Act.”
Additionally, “the Council shall submit to the President and Congress an
annual report regarding its activities and recommendations concerning the
infrastructure needs, organizational expenditures and opportunities for bet-
ter coordination of comparative effectiveness research by relevant federal
departments and agencies.” The IOM committee intends its report to serve
as a complementary document to that of the Council, which may serve as
the blueprint for federal efforts to develop a structure and process for the
implementation of CER efforts.
ORGANIzATION OF THE REPORT
This introductory chapter has described the context for this report,
including related past IOM studies, the committee’s charge, and the objec-
tives, scope, and study methods for this report. Subsequent chapters address
the following topics:
Chapter 2—What Is Comparative Effectiveness Research? This
•
chapter has two primary objectives: first, to establish a conceptual
framework for CER by defining key terms and research methods,
and second, to describe several current private and public CER
programs.
Chapter 3—Obtaining Input to Identify National Priorities for Com-
•
parative Effectiveness Research documents the committee’s methods
for soliciting stakeholder input and nominations for priority CER
topics. Direct communications by letter and email are described, pre-
sentations at the open meeting are reviewed, and the questionnaire
soliciting nominations for priority topics is presented in detail. The
distribution of the public nominations is presented with their clinical
characteristics pertinent to the portfolio distribution.
Chapter 4—The Criteria and Process for Setting Priorities describes
•
priority selection criteria used in past IOM committee initiatives
and presents the committee’s recommendations. It further lays out
the concept of the “portfolio,” by which the committee proposes
to establish balance and scope of the priorities. Finally, it describes
the process by which more than 2,600 nominated CER topics
were narrowed to the final list of 100 priority CER topics. Recom-
mendations are presented for a sustained priority setting process
moving forward.
OCR for page 27
INTRODUCTION
Chapter 5—Priorities for Study presents the committee’s portfolio
•
and list of recommended national priority topics for CER to be
conducted or supported with the Secretary’s portion of funds from
ARRA 2009.
Chapter 6—Essential Priorities for a Robust CER Enterprise ex-
•
plains the imperative for effective coordination of the HHS Secre-
tary’s sustained CER strategy and outlines four essential program
priorities: (1) ensuring meaningful consumer, patient, and caregiver
participation; (2) building robust information systems including
research and innovation in the methods of CER; (3) development
and support of a highly skilled CER workforce; and (4) vigorous
support of research and efforts to translate CER knowledge into
everyday clinical practice.
REFERENCES
IOM (Institute of Medicine). 1990a. Acute myocardial infarction: Setting priorities for effec-
tiveness research. Edited by P. H. Mattingly and K. N. Lohr. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
———. 1990b. Breast cancer: Setting priorities for effectiveness research. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
———. 1990c. Clinical practice guidelines: Directions for a new program. Edited by M. J.
Field and K. N. Lohr. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
———. 1990d. Consensus development at the NIH: Improving the program Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
———. 1990e. Hip fracture: Setting priorities for effectiveness research. Edited by K. A.
Heithoff and L. K. N. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
———. 1992. Setting Priorities for Health Technology Assessment: A Model Process. Edited
by M. S. Donaldson and H. C. Sox. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
———. 1995. Setting priorities for clinical practice guidelines. Edited by M. J. Field. Wash-
ington, DC: National Academy Press.
———. 1998. Scientific opportunities and public needs: Improving priority setting and public
input at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
———. 2003. Priority areas for national action: Transforming health care quality. Edited
by K. Adams and J. Corrigan, Quality chasm series; Variation: Quality chasm series.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
———. 2007a. The Learning healthcare system: Workshop summary. The IOM Roundtable
on Evidence-Based Medicine. Edited by L. Olsen, D. Aisner, and J. M. McGinnis. Wash-
ington, DC: The National Academies Press.
———. 2007b. Learning what works best: The nation’s need for evidence on comparative
effectiveness in health care. http://www.iom.edu/ebm-effectiveness (accessed April 15,
2009).
———. 2008. Knowing what works in health care: A roadmap for the nation. Edited by J.
Eden, B. Wheatley, B. J. McNeil, and H. Sox. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press.
OCR for page 28
