Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:14:40.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DECISION-MAKING ALIGNED WITH RAPID-CYCLE EVALUATION IN HEALTH CARE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2015

Sebastian Schneeweiss ,
William H. Shrank ,
Michael Ruhl  and
Malcolm Maclure
Sebastian Schneeweiss
Affiliation:
Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical [email protected]
William H. Shrank
Affiliation:
CVS Health, Woonsocket, Rhode Island
Michael Ruhl
Affiliation:
Aetion Inc.
Malcolm Maclure
Affiliation:
Department of Anesthesiology, Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of British Columbia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background: Availability of real-time electronic healthcare data provides new opportunities for rapid-cycle evaluation (RCE) of health technologies, including healthcare delivery and payment programs. We aim to align decision-making processes with stages of RCE to optimize the usefulness and impact of rapid results. Rational decisions about program adoption depend on program effect size in relation to externalities, including implementation cost, sustainability, and likelihood of broad adoption.

Methods: Drawing on case studies and experience from drug safety monitoring, we examine how decision makers have used scientific evidence on complex interventions in the past. We clarify how RCE alters the nature of policy decisions; develop the RAPID framework for synchronizing decision-maker activities with stages of RCE; and provide guidelines on evidence thresholds for incremental decision-making.

Results: In contrast to traditional evaluations, RCE provides early evidence on effectiveness and facilitates a stepped approach to decision making in expectation of future regularly updated evidence. RCE allows for identification of trends in adjusted effect size. It supports adapting a program in midstream in response to interim findings, or adapting the evaluation strategy to identify true improvements earlier. The 5-step RAPID approach that utilizes the cumulating evidence of program effectiveness over time could increase policy-makers' confidence in expediting decisions.

Conclusions: RCE enables a step-wise approach to HTA decision-making, based on gradually emerging evidence, reducing delays in decision-making processes after traditional one-time evaluations.

Keywords

Rapid-cycle evaluationDecision makingHealthcare data analytics
Type
Theme Submissions
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , 2015 , pp. 214 - 222
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Gold, M, Helms, D, Guterman, S. Identifying, monitoring, and assessing promising innovations: Using evaluation to support rapid-cycle change. Issue Brief. 2011;12:1–12.Google Scholar
2. Shrank, W. The Center For Medicare And Medicaid Innovation's blueprint for rapid-cycle evaluation of new care and payment models. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32:807–812.Google Scholar
3. Hartzema, AG. Utilizing Medicare claims data for real-time drug safety evaluations: Is it feasible? Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2011;20:684–688.Google Scholar
4. Platt, R, Carnahan, RM, Brown, JS, et al. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Mini-Sentinel program: Status and direction. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21 (Suppl 1):1–8.Google ScholarPubMed
5. Schneeweiss, S. Learning from big health care data. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:2161–2163.Google Scholar
6. Schneeweiss, S, Gagne, JJ, Glynn, RJ, Ruhl, M, Rassen, JA. Assessing the comparative effectiveness of newly marketed medications: Methodological challenges and implications for drug development. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011;90:777–790.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Rassen, JA, Schneeweiss, S. Using high-dimensional propensity scores to automate confounding control in a distributed medical product safety surveillance system. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21 (Suppl 1):41–49.Google Scholar
8. Gagne, JJ, Rassen, JA, Choudhry, NK, et al. Near-real-time monitoring of new drugs: An application comparing prasugrel versus clopidogrel. Drug Saf. 2014;37:151–161.Google Scholar
9. Gagne, JJ, Wang, SV, Rassen, JA, Schneeweiss, S. A modular, prospective, semi-automated drug safety monitoring system for use in a distributed data environment. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 30 2014.Google Scholar
10. Gagne, JJ, Bykov, K, Willke, RJ, et al. Treatment dynamics of newly marketed drugs and implications for comparative effectiveness research. Value Health. 2013;16:1054–1062.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Franklin, JM, Rassen, JA, Bartels, DB, Schneeweiss, S. Prospective cohort studies of newly marketed medications: Using covariate data to inform the design of large-scale studies. Epidemiology. 2014;25:126–133.Google Scholar
12. Tetroe, JM, Graham, ID, Foy, R, et al. Health research funding agencies’ support and promotion of knowledge translation: An international study. Milbank Q. 2008;86:125–155.Google Scholar
13. Avorn, J, Schneeweiss, S. Managing drug-risk information–what to do with all those new numbers. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:647–649.Google Scholar
14. Chin, R. Adaptive and flexible clinical trials. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2012.Google Scholar
15. Fleurence, RL, Meltzer, DO. Toward a science of research prioritization? The use of value of information by multidisciplinary stakeholder groups. Med Decis Making. 2013;33:460–462.Google Scholar
16. Greenlick, MR, Lamb, SJ, Carpenter, TM Jr, et al. Kaiser-Permanente's Medicare Plus Project: A successful Medicare prospective payment demonstration. Health Care Financ Rev. 1983;4:85–97.Google Scholar
17. Choudhry, NK, Avorn, J, Glynn, RJ, et al. Full coverage for preventive medications after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:2088–2097.Google Scholar
18. Greenland, S, Poole, C. Living with statistics in observational research. Epidemiology. 2013;24:73–78.Google Scholar
19. Whedon, JM, Goertz, CM, Lurie, JD, Stason, WB. Beyond spinal manipulation: Should Medicare expand coverage for chiropractic services? A review and commentary on the challenges for policy makers. J Chiropr Humanit. 2013;20:9–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Ramsey, SD, Sullivan, SD. Evidence, economics, and emphysema: Medicare's long journey with lung volume reduction surgery. Health Aff (Millwood). 2005;24:55–66.Google Scholar
21. Patrick, AR, Franklin, JM, Weinstein, MC, Glynn, RJ, Schneeweiss, S. Sequential value-of-information assessment for prospective drug safety monitoring using claims databases: The comparative safety of prasugrel v. clopidogrel. Med Decis Making. 2013;33:949–960.Google Scholar
22. Rothman, KJ. No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisons. Epidemiology. 1990;1:43–46.Google Scholar
23. Rothman, KJ. Six persistent research misconceptions. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29:1060–1064.Google Scholar
24. Garrison, LP Jr, Towse, A, Briggs, A, et al. Performance-based risk-sharing arrangements-good practices for design, implementation, and evaluation: Report of the ISPOR good practices for performance-based risk-sharing arrangements task force. Value Health. 2013;16:703–719.Google Scholar
25. Neumann, PJ, Chambers, JD, Simon, F, Meckley, LM. Risk-sharing arrangements that link payment for drugs to health outcomes are proving hard to implement. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30:2329–2337.Google Scholar
26. Shadish, WR, Cook, TD, Campbell, DT. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing; 2001.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Schneeweiss supplementary material

Schneeweiss supplementary material 1

Download Schneeweiss supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 881.6 KB