Impact on quality of life, health care access, and health care utilization of individuals with vitiligo: an analysis of the All of Us research program.

Vitiligo is an autoimmune skin depigmenting disorder that can negatively impact quality of life. A new FDA approved treatment for vitiligo offers considerable promise, and to maximize benefits strategies to implementation should consider disease burden, healthcare access, and healthcare utilization of individuals with vitiligo. Using the All of Us Research Program's large data set, including survey responses, we investigated these outcomes among participants with and without vitiligo. Our analysis used quality of life, delayed care due to an obstacle, and seeing a doctor in the past year as dichotomized proxies for disease burden, healthcare access, and healthcare utilization. The results show that people with vitiligo are more likely to report worse quality of life but ostensibly greater healthcare access and utilization compared to people without vitiligo. However, these relationships are not significant when adjusted for demographics, socioeconomic characteristics, and comorbidities of vitiligo. Prior research has shown non-Caucasian individuals have worse health outcomes in general, and worse quality of life within the vitiligo population. Our data demonstrated consistent findings; moreover, we found that non-Caucasian individuals with vitiligo had inferior healthcare access and lower health care utilization than Caucasian individuals. Implementation of new treatments for vitiligo should prioritize disadvantaged individuals to improve health equity.

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.