Assessing clinical benefit in the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program : A 2-step approach for improving transparency, consistency, and meaningful patient engagement
In early 2024, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will send initial price offers to the manufacturers of the first 10 drugs selected for the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, established under the Inflation Reduction Act. However, CMS has not specified exactly how it will adjust the starting point for an initial price offer based on assessment of a drug's clinical benefit. This article addresses unanswered questions relating to CMS' methods for assessing clinical benefit. Specifically, we address how CMS can weigh various measures of evidence, ensure transparency and consistency, meaningfully incorporate patient and other stakeholder perspectives, and support addressing evidence gaps. We propose a 2-step approach for assessing the overall clinical benefit of a selected drug compared with its therapeutic alternatives that builds on the framework outlined by CMS. In step 1, CMS would evaluate conventional clinical benefit, defined in terms of outcomes commonly used in clinical studies for the selected drug and indications. In step 2, CMS would evaluate other outcomes broadly related to patient experience that are not adequately represented in the clinical literature. Overall, our approach incorporates the advantages of both qualitative and quantitative approaches to value assessment and decision-making. We describe a set of loose decision rules to improve transparency and consistency, recommend incorporating ranks and weights to signal to researchers and manufacturers which elements of clinical benefit and sources of data are the most important, and center meaningful deliberation with clinical experts, patients, and caregivers.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2024 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2024 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:30 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy - 30(2024), 3 vom: 01. März, Seite 252-258 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
DiStefano, Michael J [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 04.03.2024 Date Revised 04.03.2024 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.18553/jmcp.2024.23255 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM367317737 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM367317737 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20240304232309.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 240120s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.18553/jmcp.2024.23255 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1316.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM367317737 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)38241282 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a DiStefano, Michael J |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Assessing clinical benefit in the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program |b A 2-step approach for improving transparency, consistency, and meaningful patient engagement |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2024 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 04.03.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 04.03.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a In early 2024, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will send initial price offers to the manufacturers of the first 10 drugs selected for the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, established under the Inflation Reduction Act. However, CMS has not specified exactly how it will adjust the starting point for an initial price offer based on assessment of a drug's clinical benefit. This article addresses unanswered questions relating to CMS' methods for assessing clinical benefit. Specifically, we address how CMS can weigh various measures of evidence, ensure transparency and consistency, meaningfully incorporate patient and other stakeholder perspectives, and support addressing evidence gaps. We propose a 2-step approach for assessing the overall clinical benefit of a selected drug compared with its therapeutic alternatives that builds on the framework outlined by CMS. In step 1, CMS would evaluate conventional clinical benefit, defined in terms of outcomes commonly used in clinical studies for the selected drug and indications. In step 2, CMS would evaluate other outcomes broadly related to patient experience that are not adequately represented in the clinical literature. Overall, our approach incorporates the advantages of both qualitative and quantitative approaches to value assessment and decision-making. We describe a set of loose decision rules to improve transparency and consistency, recommend incorporating ranks and weights to signal to researchers and manufacturers which elements of clinical benefit and sources of data are the most important, and center meaningful deliberation with clinical experts, patients, and caregivers | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Zemplenyi, Antal |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a McQueen, R Brett |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy |d 2014 |g 30(2024), 3 vom: 01. März, Seite 252-258 |w (DE-627)NLM235806323 |x 2376-1032 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:30 |g year:2024 |g number:3 |g day:01 |g month:03 |g pages:252-258 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2024.23255 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 30 |j 2024 |e 3 |b 01 |c 03 |h 252-258 | ||