Assessing Real-World Data From Electronic Health Records for Health Technology Assessment: The SUITABILITY Checklist: A Good Practices Report of an ISPOR Task Force.

This ISPOR Good Practices report provides a framework for assessing the suitability of electronic health records data for use in health technology assessments (HTAs). Although electronic health record (EHR) data can fill evidence gaps and improve decisions, several important limitations can affect its validity and relevance. The ISPOR framework includes 2 components: data delineation and data fitness for purpose. Data delineation provides a complete understanding of the data and an assessment of its trustworthiness by describing (1) data characteristics; (2) data provenance; and (3) data governance. Fitness for purpose comprises (1) data reliability items, ie, how accurate and complete the estimates are for answering the question at hand and (2) data relevance items, which assess how well the data are suited to answer the particular question from a decision-making perspective. The report includes a checklist specific to EHR data reporting: the ISPOR SUITABILITY Checklist. It also provides recommendations for HTA agencies and policy makers to improve the use of EHR-derived data over time. The report concludes with a discussion of limitations and future directions in the field, including the potential impact from the substantial and rapid advances in the diffusion and capabilities of large language models and generative artificial intelligence. The report's immediate audiences are HTA evidence developers and users. We anticipate that it will also be useful to other stakeholders, particularly regulators and manufacturers, in the future.

Funding of evidence included within public comments submitted to inform Medicare national coverage determinations.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) relies on public comments submitted in response to proposed national coverage determinations to assist the agency in determining the coverage of items and services for Medicare beneficiaries. In a cross-sectional study, we characterized the cited evidence and what funding supported the cited evidence submitted in public comments to CMS for all therapeutic medical device national coverage determinations finalized between June 2019 and June 2022. Of 681 public comments, 159 (23%) cited at least 1 identifiable published scientific journal article. Within these 159 public comments, 198 unique articles were cited, 170 (86%) of which included funding statements or author disclosures. Among these, 96 (56%) disclosed funding from manufacturers that would benefit from Medicare coverage and/or were written by author(s) who received funding from these manufacturers. In summary, most public commenters for national coverage determinations did not cite published scientific journal articles to support their positions. Among those who did, more than half of articles were directly funded by manufacturers that would benefit from coverage. Greater funding of independent, non-industry-supported research may help provide unbiased evaluations of benefits and harms to support Medicare coverage decisions.

Intravascular Microaxial Left Ventricular Assist Device Manufacturer Payments to Cardiologists and Use of Devices.

This study examines whether payments from a left ventricular assist device manufacturer to cardiologists performing percutaneous coronary intervention were associated with any use of the devices.

Industry Payments to US Physicians by Specialty and Product Type.

This study examines the distribution of payments within and across specialties and the medical products associated with the largest total payments.

Association of Race and Ethnicity With Postoperative Gabapentinoid and Opioid Prescribing Trends for Older Adults.

BACKGROUND: Disparities in opioid prescribing by race/ethnicity have been described in many healthcare settings, with White patients being more likely to receive an opioid prescription than other races studied. As surgeons increase prescribing of nonopioid medications in response to the opioid epidemic, it is unknown whether postoperative prescribing disparities also exist for these medications, specifically gabapentinoids. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using a 20% Medicare sample for 2013-2018. We included patients ≥66 years without prior gabapentinoid use who underwent one of 14 common surgical procedures. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients prescribed gabapentinoids at discharge among racial and ethnic groups. Secondary outcomes were days' supply of gabapentinoids, opioid prescribing at discharge, and oral morphine equivalent (OME) of opioid prescriptions. Trends over time were constructed by analyzing proportion of postoperative prescribing of gabapentinoids and opioids for each year. For trends by year by racial/ethnic groups, we ran a multivariable logistic regression with an interaction term of procedure year and racial/ethnic group. RESULTS: Of the 494,922 patients in the cohort (54% female, 86% White, 5% Black, 5% Hispanic, mean age 73.7 years), 3.7% received a new gabapentinoid prescription. Gabapentinoid prescribing increased over time for all groups and did not differ significantly among groups (P = 0.13). Opioid prescribing also increased, with higher proportion of prescribing to White patients than to Black and Hispanic patients in every year except 2014. CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant prescribing variation of gabapentinoids in the postoperative period between racial/ethnic groups. Importantly, we found that despite national attention to disparities in opioid prescribing, variation continues to persist in postoperative opioid prescribing, with a higher proportion of White patients being prescribed opioids, a difference that persisted over time.

Medicare Part B and Part D drug eligibility for center for Medicare and Medicaid Services price negotiation under the Inflation Reduction Act: estimates using 2016-2019 data.

Background: To reduce Medicare prescription drug expenditures, the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) allows the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to directly negotiate with drug manufacturers on Medicare prices of high-expenditure drugs (≥$200m annual spending) which meet certain eligibility criteria. However, it is unclear what proportion of high-expenditure drugs covered by Medicare, and attributable annual drug spending, would typically be eligible for CMS negotiations in a given year. Methods: We used historical Medicare drug spending data to determine how many high-expenditure drugs, and attributable drug spending, would have been eligible for CMS negotiations had the IRA been in effect from 2016-2019, while also determining which of the IRA's eligibility criteria is most restrictive. Results: From 2016-2019, approximately one third (33.3% for Part B, 32.4% for Part D) of high-expenditure Medicare drugs would have been eligible for negotiation, with ineligible drugs accounting for 75.2% and 63.8% of spending on high-expenditure drugs in Medicare Part B and D, respectively. Most ineligible high-expenditure drugs were ineligible because they launched too recently. From 2016-2019, between 59 and 74 high-expenditure drugs were eligible per year, indicating that in some years there may not be enough eligible drugs for CMS to negotiate on the maximum number of drugs allowable by law. Conclusions: The IRA's current eligibility criteria may restrict CMS from being able to negotiate drug prices on approximately two-thirds of the high-expenditure drugs covered by Medicare and may not allow CMS to negotiate on the maximum number of drugs allowable by law. Congress could consider relaxing eligibility requirements for price negotiation, such as those pertaining to launch date recency, to ensure there are a sufficient number of high-expenditure drugs eligible for negotiation or make certain ineligible drugs contributing to significant annual Medicare spending eligible for negotiation on a case-by-case basis.

Comparison of industry payments to psychiatrists and psychiatric advanced practice clinicians in the USA, 2021: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare industry payment patterns among US psychiatrists and psychiatric advanced practice clinicians (APCs) and determine how scope of practice laws has influenced these patterns. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: This study used the publicly available US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Sunshine Act Open Payment database and the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES) database for the year 2021. PARTICIPANTS: All psychiatrists and psychiatric APCs (subdivided into nurse practitioners (NPs) and clinical nurse specialists (CNSs)) included in either database. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Number and percentage of clinicians receiving industry payments and value of payments received. Total payments and number of transactions by type of payment, payment source and clinician type were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 85 053 psychiatric clinicians (61 011 psychiatrists (71.7%), 21 895 NPs (25.7%), 2147 CNSs (2.5%)) were reviewed; 16 240 (26.6%) psychiatrists received non-research payment from industry, compared with 10 802 (49.3%) NPs and 231 (10.7%) CNSs (p<0.001) for pairwise comparisons). Psychiatric NPs were significantly more likely to receive industry payments compared with psychiatrists (incidence rate ratio (IRR), 1.85 (95% CI 1.81 to 1.88); p<0.001)). Compared with psychiatrists, NPs were more likely to receive payments of > United States Dollars (US) $) 100 (33.9% vs 14.6%; IRR, 2.14 (2.08 to 2.20); p<0.001) and > US$ 1000 (5.3% vs 4.1%; IRR, 1.29 (1.20 to 1.38); p<0.001) but less likely to receive > US$ 10 000 (0.4% vs 1.0%; IRR, 0.39 (0.31 to 0.49); p<0.001). NPs in states with 'reduced' or 'restricted' scope of practice received more frequent payments (reduced: IRR, 1.22 (1.18 to 1.26); restricted: IRR, 1.26 (1.22 to 1.30), both p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Psychiatric NPs were nearly two times as likely to receive industry payments as psychiatrists, while psychiatric CNSs were less than half as likely to receive payment. Stricter scope of practice laws increases the likelihood of psychiatric NPs receiving payment, the opposite of what was found in a recent specialty agnostic study.

Measuring Equity in Readmission as a Distinct Assessment of Hospital Performance.

Importance: Equity is an essential domain of health care quality. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) developed 2 Disparity Methods that together assess equity in clinical outcomes. Objectives: To define a measure of equitable readmissions; identify hospitals with equitable readmissions by insurance (dual eligible vs non-dual eligible) or patient race (Black vs White); and compare hospitals with and without equitable readmissions by hospital characteristics and performance on accountability measures (quality, cost, and value). Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study of US hospitals eligible for the CMS Hospital-Wide Readmission measure using Medicare data from July 2018 through June 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: We created a definition of equitable readmissions using CMS Disparity Methods, which evaluate hospitals on 2 methods: outcomes for populations at risk for disparities (across-hospital method); and disparities in care within hospitals' patient populations (within-a-single-hospital method). Exposures: Hospital patient demographics; hospital characteristics; and 3 measures of hospital performance-quality, cost, and value (quality relative to cost). Results: Of 4638 hospitals, 74% served a sufficient number of dual-eligible patients, and 42% served a sufficient number of Black patients to apply CMS Disparity Methods by insurance and race. Of eligible hospitals, 17% had equitable readmission rates by insurance and 30% by race. Hospitals with equitable readmissions by insurance or race cared for a lower percentage of Black patients (insurance, 1.9% [IQR, 0.2%-8.8%] vs 3.3% [IQR, 0.7%-10.8%], P < .01; race, 7.6% [IQR, 3.2%-16.6%] vs 9.3% [IQR, 4.0%-19.0%], P = .01), and differed from nonequitable hospitals in multiple domains (teaching status, geography, size; P < .01). In examining equity by insurance, hospitals with low costs were more likely to have equitable readmissions (odds ratio, 1.57 [95% CI, 1.38-1.77), and there was no relationship between quality and value, and equity. In examining equity by race, hospitals with high overall quality were more likely to have equitable readmissions (odds ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.03-1.26]), and there was no relationship between cost and value, and equity. Conclusion and Relevance: A minority of hospitals achieved equitable readmissions. Notably, hospitals with equitable readmissions were characteristically different from those without. For example, hospitals with equitable readmissions served fewer Black patients, reinforcing the role of structural racism in hospital-level inequities. Implementation of an equitable readmission measure must consider unequal distribution of at-risk patients among hospitals.

A framework for the definition and interpretation of the use of surrogate endpoints in interventional trials.

Background: Interventional trials that evaluate treatment effects using surrogate endpoints have become increasingly common. This paper describes four linked empirical studies and the development of a framework for defining, interpreting and reporting surrogate endpoints in trials. Methods: As part of developing the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) and SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) extensions for randomised trials reporting surrogate endpoints, we undertook a scoping review, e-Delphi study, consensus meeting, and a web survey to examine current definitions and stakeholder (including clinicians, trial investigators, patients and public partners, journal editors, and health technology experts) interpretations of surrogate endpoints as primary outcome measures in trials. Findings: Current surrogate endpoint definitional frameworks are inconsistent and unclear. Surrogate endpoints are used in trials as a substitute of the treatment effects of an intervention on the target outcome(s) of ultimate interest, events measuring how patients feel, function, or survive. Traditionally the consideration of surrogate endpoints in trials has focused on biomarkers (e.g., HDL cholesterol, blood pressure, tumour response), especially in the medical product regulatory setting. Nevertheless, the concept of surrogacy in trials is potentially broader. Intermediate outcomes that include a measure of function or symptoms (e.g., angina frequency, exercise tolerance) can also be used as substitute for target outcomes (e.g., all-cause mortality)-thereby acting as surrogate endpoints. However, we found a lack of consensus among stakeholders on accepting and interpreting intermediate outcomes in trials as surrogate endpoints or target outcomes. In our assessment, patients and health technology assessment experts appeared more likely to consider intermediate outcomes to be surrogate endpoints than clinicians and regulators. Interpretation: There is an urgent need for better understanding and reporting on the use of surrogate endpoints, especially in the setting of interventional trials. We provide a framework for the definition of surrogate endpoints (biomarkers and intermediate outcomes) and target outcomes in trials to improve future reporting and aid stakeholders' interpretation and use of trial surrogate endpoint evidence. Funding: SPIRIT-SURROGATE/CONSORT-SURROGATE project is Medical Research Council Better Research Better Health (MR/V038400/1) funded.

Aligning US Agency Policies for Cardiovascular Devices Through the Breakthrough Devices Program.

Importance: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) have different statutory authorities; FDA evaluates safety and effectiveness for market authorization of medical devices while CMS determines whether coverage is "reasonable and necessary" for its beneficiaries. CMS has recently enacted policies automatically providing supplemental reimbursement for new, costly devices authorized after designation in FDA's Breakthrough Devices Program (BDP) and in June 2023 issued notice for a new Transitional Coverage for Emerging Technologies pathway, accelerating coverage for Breakthrough devices. Observations: Aiming to incentivize innovation, FDA awards Breakthrough designations early in device development to expedite market authorization and can accept greater uncertainty in benefit and risk, contingent on postmarket evidence generation. Since 2020, Breakthrough designation has effectively automatically qualified devices to receive supplemental Medicare reimbursement after CMS waived a long-standing requirement that devices demonstrate "substantial clinical improvement" for beneficiaries. Using publicly available information, 3 examples of cardiovascular devices illustrate that the BDP may allow for FDA authorization based on less rigorous evidence, such as single-arm trials focused on surrogate end points with short-term follow-up whose participants are often not representative of Medicare beneficiaries. In 1 case, Breakthrough designation allowed a 30% decrease in enrollment of a trial used to support approval. Initial positive findings for some devices have remained unverified, and in 1 case even partially nullified, by postmarket studies. Manufacturers have also used Breakthrough designations to set the price of devices to facilitate additional pass-through payments, leading to higher short-term and long-term costs to CMS and health care systems. Conclusions and Relevance: The BDP may qualify new, costly devices for higher and automatic Medicare reimbursement despite evidence not being representative of CMS beneficiaries and persistent uncertainty of benefit and risk. To ensure the best evidence is generated to inform clinical care, FDA could apply more selectivity to BDP eligibility, specify objective criteria for revoking Breakthrough designation when appropriate, and ensure timely postmarket evidence generation, whereas CMS could independently review clinical evidence, advise manufacturers about standards for coverage review, and make supplemental payments and long-term device reimbursement contingent on clinical outcome benefit and postmarket evidence generation.

Financial Conflicts of Interest in Public Comments on Medicare National Coverage Determinations of Medical Devices.

This study reviewed public comments for all Medicare National Coverage Determinations between June 2019 and 2022 on select pulmonary and cardiac devices to determine whether financial conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Medical Product Industry Ties to Patient Advocacy Organizations' Executive Leadership.

This cross-sectional study examines the ties between pharmaceutical and medical device industries and the executive leadership of the 50 highest-revenue US-based patient advocacy organizations.

US Postgraduate Trainee Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Representation and Faculty Compensation By Specialty.

This study compares postgraduate trainee racial, ethnic, and gender representation and faculty compensation for 21 clinical specialties using 2015-2022 data.