Improving Food and Drug Administration-Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coordination for Drugs Granted Accelerated Approval.

Policy Points The increasing number of drugs granted accelerated approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has challenged the Medicare program, which often pays for expensive therapies despite substantial uncertainty about benefits and risks to Medicare beneficiaries. We recommend several administrative and legislative approaches for improving FDA-Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) coordination around accelerated-approval drugs, including promoting earlier discussions among the FDA, the CMS, and drug companies; strengthening Medicare's coverage with evidence development program; linking Medicare payment to evidence generation milestones; and ensuring that the CMS has adequate staffing and resources to evaluate new therapies. These activities can help improve the integrity; transparency; and efficiency of approval, coverage, and payment processes for drugs granted accelerated approval. CONTEXT: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s accelerated-approval pathway expedites patient access to promising treatments. However, increasing use of this pathway has challenged the Medicare program, which often pays for expensive therapies despite substantial uncertainty about benefits and risks to Medicare beneficiaries. We examined approaches to improve coordination between the FDA and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for drugs granted accelerated approval. METHODS: We argue that policymakers have focused on expedited pathways at the FDA without sufficient attention to complementary policies at the CMS. Although differences between the FDA and CMS decisions are to be expected given the agencies' different missions and statutory obligations, procedural improvements can ensure that Medicare beneficiaries have timely access to novel therapies that are likely to improve health outcomes. To inform policy options and recommendations, we conducted semistructured interviews with stakeholders to capture diverse perspectives on the topic. FINDINGS: We recommend ten areas for consideration: clarifying the FDA's evidentiary standards; strengthening FDA authorities; promoting earlier discussions among the FDA, the CMS, and drug companies; improving Medicare's coverage with evidence development program; tying Medicare payment for accelerated-approval drugs to evidence generation milestones; issuing CMS guidance on real-world evidence; clarifying Medicare's "reasonable and necessary" criteria; adopting lessons from international regulatory-reimbursement harmonization efforts; ensuring that the CMS has adequate staffing and expertise; and emphasizing equity. CONCLUSIONS: Better coordination between the FDA and CMS could improve the transparency and predictability of drug approval and coverage around accelerated-approval drugs, with important implications for patient outcomes, health spending, and evidence generation processes. Improved coordination will require reforms at both the FDA and CMS, with special attention to honoring the agencies' distinct authorities. It will require administrative and legislative actions, new resources, and strong leadership at both agencies.

Proposed framework for patient-centered outcomes-based measures in alternative payment models.

OBJECTIVES: Alternative payment models (APMs) are part of a growing shift from volume-based, traditional fee-for-service payment models toward payment for value. To date, however, patients have been largely omitted from efforts to design new payment models. We sought to identify key characteristics of outcomes-based quality measures to inform future APMs that are more patient-centered. STUDY DESIGN: Using oncology as a learning case, we explored gaps in current APM quality measures, then engaged multiple stakeholders to identify and prioritize key characteristics of outcomes-based quality measures to guide future APM development. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods approach that consisted of (1) literature review, (2) key informant interviews, (3) stakeholder work group (involving group discussions and completion of an online prioritization survey), and (4) synthesis. RESULTS: Based on the lessons generated at each step of this exploratory project, we suggest a framework to guide deliberations among payers, providers, patients, and other APM stakeholders when selecting outcomes-based measures for future APMs or other value-based payment models. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed framework offers a stepping stone on the path to clinically meaningful, patient-centered, high-value care. Next steps may include a broader review of gaps in APM quality measures across multiple therapeutic areas, additional vetting from a more diverse group of stakeholders, or a formal consensus.

The increasing complexity of the core outcomes landscape.

In this project, we set out to identify ways to increase the uptake of core outcome sets in clinical research. In doing so, we uncovered a growing recognition, across many different health care sectors, of the need for common, relevant outcomes to improve the quality of decision-making. This has led to a plethora of projects, initiatives, and new organizations all intended to develop standardized outcomes and outcome measures for their particular fields. However, the standardized outcome sets developed across siloed initiatives do not carry over to other sectors, such as from research to quality of care. This trend has the potential to lead to confusion and unintended redundancies, as well as wasteful use of both financial and intellectual resources. Better communication and collaboration among different initiatives, and more deliberate alignments of initiative scopes, are needed to ensure a future paradigm in which standards align across contexts where possible and differ for understandable and transparent reasons.

Engaging Stakeholders and Promoting Uptake of OMERACT Core Outcome Instrument Sets.

OBJECTIVE: While there has been substantial progress in the development of core outcomes sets, the degree to which these are used by researchers is variable. We convened a special workshop on knowledge translation at the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 2016 with 2 main goals. The first focused on the development of a formal knowledge translation framework and the second on promoting uptake of recommended core outcome domain and instrument sets. METHODS: We invited all 189 OMERACT 2016 attendees to the workshop; 86 attended, representing patient research partners (n = 15), healthcare providers/clinician researchers (n = 52), industry (n = 4), regulatory agencies (n = 4), and OMERACT fellows (n = 11). Participants were given an introduction to knowledge translation and were asked to propose and discuss recommendations for the OMERACT community to (1) strengthen stakeholder involvement in the core outcome instrument set development process, and (2) promote uptake of core outcome sets with a specific focus on the potential role of post-regulatory decision makers. RESULTS: We developed the novel "OMERACT integrated knowledge translation" framework, which formalizes OMERACT's knowledge translation strategies. We produced strategies to improve stakeholder engagement throughout the process of core outcome set development and created a list of creative and innovative ways to promote the uptake of OMERACT's core outcome sets. CONCLUSION: The guidance provided in this paper is preliminary and is based on the views of the participants. Future work will engage OMERACT groups, "post-regulatory decision makers," and a broad range of different stakeholders to identify and evaluate the most useful methods and processes, and to revise guidance accordingly.

Making genomic medicine evidence-based and patient-centered: a structured review and landscape analysis of comparative effectiveness research.

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) in genomic medicine (GM) measures the clinical utility of using genomic information to guide clinical care in comparison to appropriate alternatives. We summarized findings of high-quality systematic reviews that compared the analytic and clinical validity and clinical utility of GM tests. We focused on clinical utility findings to summarize CER-derived evidence about GM and identify evidence gaps and future research needs. We abstracted key elements of study design, GM interventions, results, and study quality ratings from 21 systematic reviews published in 2010 through 2015. More than half (N = 13) of the reviews were of cancer-related tests. All reviews identified potentially important clinical applications of the GM interventions, but most had significant methodological weaknesses that largely precluded any conclusions about clinical utility. Twelve reviews discussed the importance of patient-centered outcomes, although few described evidence about the impact of genomic medicine on these outcomes. In summary, we found a very limited body of evidence about the effect of using genomic tests on health outcomes and many evidence gaps for CER to address.Genet Med advance online publication 13 April 2017.

Improving the relevance and consistency of outcomes in comparative effectiveness research.

Policy makers have clearly indicated--through heavy investment in the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute--that reporting outcomes that are meaningful to patients is crucial for improvement in healthcare delivery and cost reduction. Better interpretation and generalizability of clinical research results that incorporate patient-centered outcomes research can be achieved by accelerating the development and uptake of core outcome sets (COS). COS provide a standardized minimum set of the outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials of a specific condition. The level of activity around COS has increased significantly over the past decade, with substantial progress in several clinical domains. However, there are many important clinical conditions for which high-quality COS have not been developed and there are limited resources and capacity with which to develop them. We believe that meaningful progress toward the goals behind the significant investments in patient-centered outcomes research and comparative effectiveness research will depend on a serious effort to address these issues.

Generating and evaluating evidence of the clinical utility of molecular diagnostic tests in oncology.

PURPOSE: Enthusiasm for molecular diagnostic (MDx) testing in oncology is constrained by the gaps in required evidence regarding its impact on patient outcomes (clinical utility (CU)). This effectiveness guidance document proposes recommendations for the design and evaluation of studies intended to reflect the evidence expectations of payers, while also reflecting information needs of patients and clinicians. METHODS: Our process included literature reviews and key informant interviews followed by iterative virtual and in-person consultation with an expert technical working group and an advisory group comprising life-sciences industry experts, public and private payers, patients, clinicians, regulators, researchers, and other stakeholders. RESULTS: Treatment decisions in oncology represent high-risk clinical decision making, and therefore the recommendations give preference to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for demonstrating CU. The guidance also describes circumstances under which alternatives to RCTs could be considered, specifying conditions under which test developers could use prospective-retrospective studies with banked biospecimens, single-arm studies, prospective observational studies, or decision-analytic modeling techniques that make a reasonable case for CU. CONCLUSION: Using a process driven by multiple stakeholders, we developed a common framework for designing and evaluating studies of the clinical validity and CU of MDx tests, achieving a balance between internal validity of the studies and the relevance, feasibility, and timeliness of generating the desired evidence.Genet Med 18 8, 780-787.

Medical and pharmacy coverage decision making at the population level.

Medicare is one of the largest health care payers in the United States. As a result, its decisions about coverage have profound implications for patient access to care. In this commentary, the authors describe how Medicare used evidence on heterogeneity of treatment effects to make population-based decisions on health care coverage for implantable cardiac defibrillators. This case is discussed in the context of the rapidly expanding availability of comparative effectiveness research. While there is a potential tension between population-based and patient-centered decision making, the expanded diversity of populations and settings included in comparative effectiveness research can provide useful information for making more discerning and informed policy and clinical decisions.

Evidence of clinical utility: an unmet need in molecular diagnostics for patients with cancer.

This article defines and describes best practices for the academic and business community to generate evidence of clinical utility for cancer molecular diagnostic assays. Beyond analytical and clinical validation, successful demonstration of clinical utility involves developing sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a diagnostic test results in an improvement in patient outcomes. This discussion is complementary to theoretical frameworks described in previously published guidance and literature reports by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Institute of Medicine, and Center for Medical Technology Policy, among others. These reports are comprehensive and specifically clarify appropriate clinical use, adoption, and payer reimbursement for assay manufacturers, as well as Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-certified laboratories, including those that develop assays (laboratory developed tests). Practical criteria and steps for establishing clinical utility are crucial to subsequent decisions for reimbursement without which high-performing molecular diagnostics will have limited availability to patients with cancer and fail to translate scientific advances into high-quality and cost-effective cancer care. See all articles in this CCR Focus section, "The Precision Medicine Conundrum: Approaches to Companion Diagnostic Co-development."

Recommendations for the design of Phase 3 pharmaceutical trials that are more informative for patients, clinicians, and payers.

BACKGROUND: Pharmaceutical pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) are designed to provide the type of evidence that is desired by patients, clinicians and payers but too often missing from traditional regulatory trials. PURPOSE: This paper presents framework for designing pragmatic trials incorporating evidence desired by post-regulatory decision makers while remaining within acceptable standards for regulatory approval. METHODS: Following a stakeholder meeting convened in May of 2009 to identify gaps in information collected in Phase 3 trials, CMTP staff and the authors drafted recommendations for Pragmatic Phase 3 Pharmaceutical Trials. This draft was circulated first to technical working group members for their comments. After revising the document based on these comments, it was distributed electronically to other select experts and then made available for public comment. The final version of the EGD appears on the CMTP website. RESULTS: The process resulted in a set of 10 recommendations for conducting Phase 3 trials that met regulatory needs while addressing information important to physicians, patients, payers, and policy-makers. These recommendations encompassed three primary areas: generalizability from the trial participants to the clinical population of interest; effectiveness relative to active comparators; and consistently measured relevant outcomes for coverage and treatment decisions. LIMITATIONS: While stakeholders were involved throughout the process, not all recommendations will meet the needs of all stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: Pragmatic trial design need not be deferred until a product is in widespread use. Incremental movement toward the more pragmatic design of Phase 3 trials is desirable.

Encouraging value-based insurance designs in state health insurance exchanges.

OBJECTIVES: One of the main goals of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is to control the costs of US healthcare. Channeling patients toward more effective services is one of many approaches being used to control costs while improving health outcomes. This paper reviews value-based insurance design (VBID) concepts and discusses options for states to encourage these designs in the new health insurance exchanges (HIEs). METHODS: We reviewed the literature on VBID as well as the text of the ACA for descriptions of how VBID might be encouraged through the new state health insurance exchanges. RESULTS: States, under healthcare reform, are allowed to promote the use of VBID designs in their exchanges. There are 4 broad approaches a state HIE could pursue with regard to VBID, ranging from establishing a process for recommending high- or low-value services and requiring plans to adhere to the recommendations, to offering no guidance to plans. The evidence surrounding how well VBID designs work is growing, but it is still limited. To date there is no evidence that reducing or eliminating copays for preventive services cuts costs in the long term. However, modeling does suggest the potential for such long-term savings,so states should proceed with caution. CONCLUSIONS: Modifying copays, even in small amounts, can send signals to patients about the relative value of drugs and services. However, long-term savings will likely result from higher copays on low-value services. The leadership of each exchange has a unique opportunity to reshape the insurance benefit landscape in its state to improve value and invest in prevention.

Breaking a vicious cycle.

Despite prodigious advances in tumor biology research, few tumor-biomarker tests have been adopted as standard clinical practice. This lack of reliable tests stems from a vicious cycle of undervaluation, resulting from inconsistent regulatory standards and reimbursement, as well as insufficient investment in research and development, scrutiny of biomarker publications by journals, and evidence of analytical validity and clinical utility. We offer recommendations designed to serve as a roadmap to break this vicious cycle and call for a national dialogue, as changes in regulation, reimbursement, investment, peer review, and guidelines development require the participation of all stakeholders.

Improving the efficiency and relevance of evidence-based recommendations in the era of whole-genome sequencing: an EGAPP methods update.

To provide an update on recent revisions to Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) methods designed to improve efficiency, and an assessment of the implications of whole genome sequencing for evidence-based recommendation development. Improvements to the EGAPP approach include automated searches for horizon scanning, a quantitative ranking process for topic prioritization, and the development of a staged evidence review and evaluation process. The staged process entails (i) triaging tests with minimal evidence of clinical validity, (ii) using and updating existing reviews, (iii) evaluating clinical validity prior to analytic validity or clinical utility, (iv) using decision modeling to assess potential clinical utility when direct evidence is not available. EGAPP experience to date suggests the following approaches will be critical for the development of evidence based recommendations in the whole genome sequencing era: (i) use of triage approaches and frameworks to improve efficiency, (ii) development of evidence thresholds that consider the value of further research, (iii) incorporation of patient preferences, and (iv) engagement of diverse stakeholders. The rapid advances in genomics present a significant challenge to traditional evidence based medicine, but also an opportunity for innovative approaches to recommendation development.