PURPOSE: The perspective of commercial payers on comparative effectiveness research (CER) has not been well researched. This study aims to describe how US commercial payers use and value CER for formulary decision making in different disease states. METHODS: We recruited 20 medical and pharmaceutical directors from national and regional plans who are involved in pharmaceutical and therapeutics committees to participate in the study. We conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with the payers and asked them to rate the usefulness of CER study types across various disease states and market conditions. The results were analyzed for thematic content. RESULTS: Our findings indicate that payers are interested in a broad range of CER study types, are unsatisfied with the current state of CER, and would like to partner with research groups to develop research and treatment guidelines to better leverage CER. Payers value CER less so in oncology than in other disease states because of limitations in their ability to manage oncology therapies. CONCLUSION: To improve formulary design processes and support payers in providing more effective health care, policy makers should consider involving commercial payers in the development of CER as well as in the creation of research and treatment guidelines.
PURPOSE: The perspective of commercial payers on comparative effectiveness research (CER) has not been well researched. This study aims to describe how US commercial payers use and value CER for formulary decision making in different disease states. METHODS: We recruited 20 medical and pharmaceutical directors from national and regional plans who are involved in pharmaceutical and therapeutics committees to participate in the study. We conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with the payers and asked them to rate the usefulness of CER study types across various disease states and market conditions. The results were analyzed for thematic content. RESULTS: Our findings indicate that payers are interested in a broad range of CER study types, are unsatisfied with the current state of CER, and would like to partner with research groups to develop research and treatment guidelines to better leverage CER. Payers value CER less so in oncology than in other disease states because of limitations in their ability to manage oncology therapies. CONCLUSION: To improve formulary design processes and support payers in providing more effective health care, policy makers should consider involving commercial payers in the development of CER as well as in the creation of research and treatment guidelines.
Authors: Hans-Georg Eichler; Brigitte Bloechl-Daum; Eric Abadie; David Barnett; Franz König; Steven Pearson Journal: Nat Rev Drug Discov Date: 2010-02-26 Impact factor: 84.694
Authors: Rachel E Behrman; Joshua S Benner; Jeffrey S Brown; Mark McClellan; Janet Woodcock; Richard Platt Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-01-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Rachael Moloney; Penny Mohr; Emma Hawe; Koonal Shah; Martina Garau; Adrian Towse Journal: Int J Technol Assess Health Care Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 2.188