. "Appendix B: Workshop Agendas and Questions to Panelists." Knowing What Works in Health Care: A Roadmap for the Nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2008.
The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
Knowing what Works in Health Care: A Roadmap for the Nation
Appendix B
Workshop Agendas and Questions to Panelists
2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Lecture Room, Washington, DC
Workshop Objective: To review three case studies that reveal the challengesthat decision makers face when trying to determine the clinical effectiveness of healthcare technologies.
8:30
Welcome and introductory remarks—Barbara McNeil, Chair,Institute of Medicine (IOM) Committee
8:45
Panel 1—PET Scan for Alzheimer’s Disease. Moderator:Dick Justman (UnitedHealthcare)
Marilyn Albert, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Division of Cognitive Neuroscience
David Matchar, Duke University Medical School, Center for Clinical Health Policy Research
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 181
Knowing what Works in Health Care: A Roadmap for the Nation
Appendix B
Workshop Agendas and Questions to Panelists
AGENDA—WORKSHOP 1
INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE
COMMITTEE ON REVIEWING EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY HIGHLY EFFECTIVE CLINICAL SERVICES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
National Academy of Sciences Building
2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Lecture Room, Washington, DC
Workshop Objective: To review three case studies that reveal the challenges that decision makers face when trying to determine the clinical effectiveness of healthcare technologies.
8:30
Welcome and introductory remarks—Barbara McNeil, Chair, Institute of Medicine (IOM) Committee
8:45
Panel 1—PET Scan for Alzheimer’s Disease. Moderator: Dick Justman (UnitedHealthcare)
Marilyn Albert, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Division of Cognitive Neuroscience
David Matchar, Duke University Medical School, Center for Clinical Health Policy Research
OCR for page 182
Knowing what Works in Health Care: A Roadmap for the Nation
Sean Tunis, Center for Medical Technology Policy
Susan Molchan, Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, National Institute on Aging (NIH)
Question & Answer/Open Discussion
10:15
Break
10:30
Panel 2—Avastin and Lucentis for Age Related Macular Degeneration. Moderator: Diana Petitti (Kaiser Permanente, Southern California)
Reginald Sanders, American Society of Retina Specialists
Winifred Hayes, Hayes, Inc.
Steve Phurrough, CMS Coverage and Analysis Group
Dan Martin, Emory University School of Medicine
Question & Answer/Open Discussion
12:15
Lunch
1:00
Panel 3—Screening and Treating Colorectal Cancer—The Fecal DNA Test and an Assay for Irinotecan Toxicity. Moderator: Steve Shak (Genomic Health, Inc.)
Barry Berger, Exact Sciences Corporation
Margaret Piper, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center
Richard Goldberg, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Atiqur Rahman, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
Question & Answer/Open Discussion
3:00
Break
3:15
Panel 4—Experts React. Moderator: Hal Sox, Vice Chair, IOM Committee
Daniel Cain, Cain Brothers
Peter Juhn, Health Policy and Evidence, Johnson & Johnson
Cindy Mulrow, University of Texas and the American College of Physicians
David Ransohoff, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, School of Medicine
Earl Steinberg, Resolution Health
OCR for page 183
Knowing what Works in Health Care: A Roadmap for the Nation
5:00
Adjourn
Questions for the Panelists—Workshop 1November 7, 2006
Panel 1—PET Scans for Alzheimer’s
What does this experience show about the feasibility of coverage with evidence development under Medicare?
What roles did evidence assessment and political pressure have in this coverage decision? How is this experience instructive for future cases?
What challenges were involved in ensuring that the evidence available on PET was applicable to everyday clinical practice?
Panel 2—Lucentis/Avastin
Was the substantial uptake in Avastin use for wet AMD justifiable given the lack of evidence and the needs of the patient population?
How do evidence reviewers and payers address the relative effectiveness of Lucentis and Avastin given the limited data?
Given the state of the evidence base, what role should cost play in payer decisions?
What does this case study say about the societal need for more clinical data and information and the mechanisms by which data development is financed?
How will the head-to-head trial supported by NIH alter their role in terms of assessing cost effectiveness?
Panel 3—Genetic Tests
Do you think that more of these types of tests will be developed [toxicity, and non-invasive screening]? How will experiences with these technologies affect the development of more similar tests?
Are non-invasive screenings (genetic byproduct screening) and toxicity testing the “wave(s) of the future”? What types or levels of evidence are needed to recommend replacement of current therapies? Will comparative testing be done as newer technologies emerge?
Are there specific challenges due to the nature of the populations qualified for testing? (Such as, are the populations so small as to affect the feasibility of large clinical trials?)
As the evidence for these tests is emerging, how do gaps in evidence compare with more traditional technologies?
OCR for page 184
Knowing what Works in Health Care: A Roadmap for the Nation
What are the labeling issues for these technologies? What needs to be included and what would prompt a change?
Is patient compliance and invasiveness considered when determining effectiveness?
Panel 4—Reactor
What role did evidence play in these examples (as compared to other influences such as political pressure and provider experience)?
Was the process of data collection and assessment able to keep pace with consumer and provider demand?
In what ways did lack of data influence the process?
What is the likelihood that the gaps in data will be filled (and in a timely manner)?
How should current standards and methods in evidence assessment change in this era of personalized medicine, new biologic therapies, and advanced imaging techniques (if at all)?
What needs to change to expedite the introduction of clinical services that are potentially highly effective (e.g., expediting the clinical trial process, and obtaining different funding mechanisms for investigations).
How might information about new technologies be made more accessible for patients?
AGENDA—WORKSHOP 2
INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE
COMMITTEE ON REVIEWING EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY HIGHLY EFFECTIVE CLINICAL SERVICES
JANUARY 25, 2007
National Academy of Sciences Building
2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Lecture Room, Washington, DC
8:30
Welcome and introductory remarks—Barbara McNeil, Chair, Institute of Medicine Committee
8:35
Panel 1—Using Systematic Reviews to Develop Clinical Recommendations. Moderator: Richard Marshall
Carolyn Clancy, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Mary Barton, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
OCR for page 185
Knowing what Works in Health Care: A Roadmap for the Nation
Steven Findlay, Consumers Union
Ray Gibbons, American Heart Association
Question & Answer/Open Discussion
9:55
Panel 2—Using Systematic Reviews to Develop Quality Measures and Practice Standards. Moderator: Lisa Simpson
Janet Corrigan, National Quality Forum
Greg Pawlson, National Committee for Quality Assurance
Dennis O’Leary, Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations
Cary Sennett, AMA-convened Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement
Question & Answer/Open Discussion
11:15
Panel 3—Approaches to Priority Setting: Identifying Topics and Selection Criteria. Moderator: Dana Goldman
Richard Justman, UnitedHealthcare
Kay Dickersin, Cochrane USA
Jean Slutsky, AHRQ Effective Health Care Program
Naomi Aronson, BCBSA Technology Evaluation Center
Question & Answer/Open Discussion
12:30
Lunch
1:00
Panel 4—Stakeholders Forum. Moderator: Robert Galvin
Kathy Buto, Johnson & Johnson
Art Small, Genentech
Vivian Coates, ECRI
Jim Weinstein, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center
Question & Answer/Open Discussion
OCR for page 186
Knowing what Works in Health Care: A Roadmap for the Nation
INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE WORKSHOP
REVIEWING EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY HIGHLY EFFECTIVE CLINICAL SERVICES
JANUARY 25, 2007
PANEL 1—USING SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS TO DEVELOP CLINICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Moderator: Richard Marshall (Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates)
Panelists: Carolyn Clancy (AHRQ), Mary Barton (USPSTF), Steven Findlay (Consumers Union), and Ray Gibbons (American Heart Association)
The objective of this panel discussion is to learn about the experiences of well-regarded organizations that use systematic reviews or other syntheses of bodies of evidence to develop clinical recommendations. AHRQ serves multiple roles; generator of evidence (e.g., DEcIDE, CERTS), synthesizer of evidence (e.g., Evidence-based Practice Center Program), and developer of clinical recommendations (e.g., USPSTF). The USPSTF assesses and synthesizes the evidence on preventive services and issues clinical recommendations based on these bodies of evidence. Consumers Union’s Best Buy Drugs Program relies on evidence-based analyses of the safety and effectiveness of prescription drugs to help consumers choose the drug best suited to their medical needs. The American Heart Association (in collaboration with the American College of Cardiology) synthesizes bodies of evidence on selected topics and draws from other reviews to develop clinical practice guidelines for cardiovascular care.
Questions for the Panelists
Who is the principal audience for your clinical recommendations? Have you assessed their use of the recommendations? Approximately how often does your audience follow your clinical recommendations:
In full, _____ percent
In part, _____ percent
How do you identify and prioritize areas for which clinical recommendations are necessary?
How do you identify sources of evidence on clinical effectiveness? Which criteria (if any) do you use to judge quality of evidence?
How would you characterize the available evidence on the clinical
OCR for page 187
Knowing what Works in Health Care: A Roadmap for the Nation
questions you address? Does it sufficiently cover services and populations of interest? What are the critical gaps (if any)?
Do you incorporate observational and other nonrandomized data in your evidence syntheses? If yes, what are the parameters for their use?
How do you respond to pressing demands for clinical recommendations when the body of evidence is insufficient or when the available evidence is relevant to only a subset of patients? Approximately how often do you make recommendations in the absence of sufficient data in these cases?
What resources does your organization dedicate to developing evidence-based clinical recommendations (e.g., staff time, special committee responsibility, conferences)?
INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE WORKSHOP
REVIEWING EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY HIGHLY EFFECTIVE CLINICAL SERVICES
JANUARY 25, 2007
PANEL 2—USING SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS TO DEVELOP QUALITY MEASURES AND PRACTICE STANDARDS
Moderator: Lisa Simpson (Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center)
Panelists: Janet Corrigan (NQF), Greg Pawlson (NCQA), Dennis O’Leary (JCAHO), Cary Sennett (AMA-convened Physician Consortium)
The objective of this panel discussion is to learn about the experiences of leading organizations that are at the forefront of U.S. efforts to develop, implement, and improve evidence-based clinical practice standards. The mission of the NQF is to promote quality improvement in healthcare by endorsing national performance measures. NCQA’s HEDIS measures are used to assess health plan performance on various dimensions of care. JCAHO’s ORYX initiative incorporates outcome performance measurement into the accreditation process for health care organizations. The AMA-convened Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement® (Consortium) has developed more than 100 performance measures for practicing physicians. The Consortium includes more than 100 medical specialty and state medical societies, the Council of Medical Specialty Societies, American Board of Medical Specialties and its member-boards, experts in methodology and
OCR for page 188
Knowing what Works in Health Care: A Roadmap for the Nation
data collection, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Questions for the Panelists
How do you identify areas for which quality measures or practice standards are necessary?
Who is the principal audience for your evidence-based measures/ standards? What factors promote your credibility and establish you as a trusted source of information for these groups?
How do you respond to pressing demands for measures/standards when the relevant body of evidence is insufficient? Approximately how often do you make recommendations in the absence of sufficient data in these cases?
Do you have a mechanism for influencing research to produce needed evidence? What are your thoughts about the emerging practice of coverage with evidence development?
How would you characterize the available evidence on the clinical questions you address? Does it sufficiently cover services and populations of interest? What are the critical gaps (if any)?
Do you consider observational and other nonrandomized data on clinical effectiveness? If yes, what are the parameters for their use?
What resources does your organization use to identify, assess, and incorporate evidence syntheses in your clinical quality measures/ standards (e.g., staff time, special committee responsibility, conferences)?
INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE WORKSHOP
REVIEWING EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY HIGHLY EFFECTIVE CLINICAL SERVICES
JANUARY 25, 2007
PANEL 3—APPROACHES TO PRIORITY SETTING: IDENTIFYING TOPICS AND SELECTION
Moderator: Dana Goldman
Panelists: Richard Justman (UnitedHealthcare), Kay Dickersin
OCR for page 189
Knowing what Works in Health Care: A Roadmap for the Nation
(Cochrane USA), Jean Slutsky (AHRQ Effective Health Care Program), Naomi Aronson (BCBSA TEC)
The objective of this panel discussion is to learn how these leading organizations prioritize their efforts to conduct systematic reviews on clinical effectiveness. UnitedHealthcare is one of the nation’s largest health plans with an estimated 22 million covered lives. The Cochrane Collaboration is an international, not-for-profit organization that produces and disseminates systematic reviews of health care interventions. AHRQ’s Effective Health Care Program is the leading federal agency charged with systematically reviewing and synthesizing evidence on clinical effectiveness. BCBSA TEC, an AHRQ-designated Evidence-based Practice Center, is a highly respected source of evidence-based assessments of the clinical effectiveness of medical procedures, devices, and drugs.
Questions for the Panelists
How do you identify topics? Please provide a detailed outline of your approach, using, for example, last year’s topics.
How would you characterize the yield from your efforts to identify topics? Does it capture a broad spectrum of services? What about surgical procedures? Existing services? Behavioral health? Disease management? Children’s health?
What are your criteria for selecting topics and how are the criteria implemented (e.g., through a formal process and quantitative method)?
Do you have a mechanism for picking up missed but important topics? How often (in retrospect) has your horizon scanning failed to identify a key service? Consider the past two years in answering this question.
How do you rank priorities? Please be specific as to the criteria used. How many of the priority topics are addressed each year?
What factors, if any, can override already determined priorities?
Has this approach worked well given your objectives? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the process?
What resources are involved in this activity (e.g., staff time, special committee responsibility, conferences)?
OCR for page 190
Knowing what Works in Health Care: A Roadmap for the Nation
INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE WORKSHOP
REVIEWING EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY HIGHLY EFFECTIVE CLINICAL SERVICES
JANUARY 25, 2007
PANEL 4—STAKEHOLDERS FORUM
Moderator: Robert Galvin (General Electric)
Panelists: Kathy Buto (J&J), Vivian Coates (ECRI), Art Small (Genentech), James Weinstein (Dept. of Orthopedics, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center)
The objective of this panel discussion is to learn key stakeholders’ views on how highly effective clinical services are identified. Johnson & Johnson is one of the world’s largest manufacturers of medical devices, drugs, and equipment. ECRI, an AHRQ-designated Evidence-based Practice Center, is a highly respected source of evidence-based assessments of the clinical effectiveness of medical procedures, devices, and drugs. Genentech is one of the world’s leading biotech companies. Dartmouth-Hitchcock’s department of orthopedics is the primary site of a 5-year, $14 million trial comparing surgical to nonsurgical treatments for certain back problems.
Questions for the Panelists
This IOM Committee has been charged with recommending an approach to identifying highly effective clinical services across the spectrum of care—from prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation, to end-of-life care and palliation. In light of this charge and from the perspective of your organization, please answer the following:
How do you think that priorities should be set for services that need evidence development or synthesis?
What is your organization’s current role in the development, use, and analysis of evidence on the clinical effectiveness of health care services (including drugs, devices, procedures, and other methods used to promote health or rehabilitation)?
Several groups and individuals—perhaps most recently Gail Wilensky in a Health Affairs piece1—have proposed the establishment of a sizable entity to effect a quantum leap in the national capacity to assess the comparative effectiveness of health care services. How
1
Wilensky G. 2006. Health Affairs Web Exclusive w572-w585. Bethesda, MD: Project Hope.
OCR for page 191
Knowing what Works in Health Care: A Roadmap for the Nation
might such a venture provide benefits, what would be the key concerns, and what would be the implications for your organization?
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force evaluates evidence and develops recommendations for clinical preventive services.2 How would your organization respond to the formation of a similar task force that provided the same function for clinical interventions, e.g., diagnostic testing, treatment, etc?
2
Harris, R. P., M. Helfand, S. H. Woolf, K. N. Lohr, C. D. Mulrow, S. M. Teutsch, and D. Atkins. 2001. Current methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: A review of the process. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 20(3 Suppl):21-35.
OCR for page 192
Knowing what Works in Health Care: A Roadmap for the Nation
This page intentionally left blank.
