Drug Topics - November 19, 2007 - (Page H16)

16 HSE DRUG TOPICS NOVEMBER 19, 2007 www.drugtopics.com > > > Government and Law Bill would create center for comparative effectiveness Kathryn Foxhall ver the past year, the idea of a major new center to support studies comparing drugs and other medical interventions in head-to-head research has gained surprising traction. Now there’s legislation in Congress to create such an entity. Proponents hope that, eventually, billions of dollars will flow through whatever center is created to engender comparative effectiveness studies. Many observers are in basic agreement that such an infusion of resources could alter the healthcare landscape; there are both hopes and fears as to how it would play out. Key among the questions is whether and how costs will be connected to comparative effectiveness findings. Another question is whether drug and device manufacturers would have to focus not only on creating an effective product, but also on creating something that would be better than competing products Janet Woodcock told the ECRI conference that a major new effort on compar- in comparative effectiveative effectiveness will likely happen. ness studies. In June, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPac) recommended that Congress should “charge an independent entity to sponsor credible research on comparative effectiveness of health care services and disseminate this information to patients, providers, and public and private payers.” An Institute of Medicine roundtable in September found the most rapidly growing problem in health care is not about applying what is known, but about knowing how to choose among two or more possible interventions for any particular patient as the pace of innovation speeds up. The report said, for example, “Information on which to compare the results from drugs with the same purpose is often not available. For example, both Lucentis [ranibizumab, Genentech] and Avastin [bevacizumab, Genentech] are promising new drugs for treatment of macular degeneration, but headto-head information on the relative outcomes is not available—and one costs about 20 times the amount of the other.” O Presidential platforms Comparative effectiveness has also found its way into the healthcare platforms of at least three Presidential candidates: Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, N.Y.), Sen. Barack Obama (D, Ill.), and former Sen. John Edwards (D, N.C.). But most specifically, the House of Representatives passed legislation in August that would create a center connected to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to conduct and support such studies. The provision is attached to Medicare legislation (H.R. 3162). Several points of consensus among proponents were reiterated at a conference on the issue sponsored last month in Washington, D.C., by the ECRI Institute. Janet Woodcock, M.D., the Food & Drug Administration’s chief medical officer, and acting director, Center for Drug Evaluation & Research, cautioned the ECRI conference audience that often comparative effectiveness findings end up, for example, with a smattering of effects on each side and are not very illuminating about which drug or product is better in what circumstance. She warned: “Comparative effectiveness is really good, we should do this type of work…. But it is no panacea.” Woodcock said, however, that this country has no overall system for evaluating even the basic utility of health care, unlike other industries. She predicted, “I think this will be driven by costs because we are no longer going to be able to bear the costs of the healthcare system.” Steep slope Stuart Altman, Ph.D., a prominent health economist from Brandeis University, told the conference that over the past seven years, healthcare cost increases have been steeper than at any time in our history. “We are not slowing down…. It is very serious.” He said the employment-based, private-based health insurance system is running into serious problems as premiums have gone up over 90% in recent years. Altman said clearly the nation needs comparative effectiveness research, “so that we can get the kind of care that is appropriate. Appropriate not only in the clinical sense…. It’s also a cost issue.” On the other hand, Altman said, “I can appreciate the problems manufacturers are running into. They don’t know the environment that they are selling into. They can’t plan ahead because things keep changing.” THE AUTHOR is a writer based in the Washington, D.C., area. Photo: Kathryn Foxhall http://www.drugtopics.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Drug Topics - November 19, 2007

Drug Topics - November 19, 2007 Contents Latebreakers Letters Leukemia Patients Now Have More Options First-in-Class HIV Drug Boon to Patients at End of Tether 150 Years of American Pharmacy Pharmacy Schools Confront New Pressures From Pariah to Patient ACCP Releases Position Paper on Ethical Interactions New Injectable Antibiotic Welcomed with Open Arms NCCN Updates Head and Neck Cancer Guide Improved Phosphate Binder Approved for Dialysis Patients Considering Combination Concern Ensuring Seamless Care Bill Would Create Center for Comparative Effectiveness Hospital Improves Patient Safety with Automatic Drug Distribution System Infection Rates, Patient Stays Drop with New Drug Device How R.Ph.s Helped Three Hospitals Win Quality and Safety Awards A Pharmacist and Dog in Tow are Alzheimer’s Patients’ Best Friends More PBMs Agreeing to Pricing Transparency New Insulins in the Management of Diabetes New Products Advertisers Index Classified VIEWPOINT: Reflections on Pharmacy School After 30 Years

Drug Topics - November 19, 2007

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.