Eleanor M Perfetto1, Elisabeth M Oehrlein2, Marc Boutin3, Sarah Reid3, Eric Gascho3. 1. National Health Council, Washington, DC, USA; University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USA. Electronic address: eperfetto@nhcouncil.org. 2. National Health Council, Washington, DC, USA; University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USA. 3. National Health Council, Washington, DC, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Professional societies and other organizations have recently taken a visible role trying to define treatment value via value frameworks and assessments, providing payer or provider recommendations, and potentially impacting patient access. Patient perspectives routinely differ from those of other stakeholders. Yet, it is not always apparent that patients were engaged in value framework development or assessment. OBJECTIVES: To describe the development and content of the National Health Council's (NHC's) Rubric, a tool that includes criteria for evaluation of value frameworks specifically with regard to patient-centeredness and meaningful patient engagement. METHODS: The NHC held a multistakeholder, invitational roundtable in Washington, DC, in 2016. Participants reviewed existing patient-engagement rubrics, discussed experiences with value frameworks, debated and thematically grouped hallmark patient-centeredness characteristics, and developed illustrative examples of the characteristics. These materials were organized into the rubric, and subsequently vetted via multistakeholder peer review. RESULTS: The resulting rubric describes six domains of patient-centered value frameworks: partnership, transparency, inclusiveness, diversity, outcomes, and data sources. Each domain includes specific examples illustrating how patient engagement and patient-centeredness can be operationalized in value framework processes. CONCLUSIONS: The NHC multistakeholder roundtable's recommendations are captured in the NHC's Rubric to assess value framework and model patient-centeredness and patient engagement. The Rubric is a tool that will be refined over time on the basis of feedback from patient, patient group, framework developer, and other stakeholder-use experiences.
BACKGROUND: Professional societies and other organizations have recently taken a visible role trying to define treatment value via value frameworks and assessments, providing payer or provider recommendations, and potentially impacting patient access. Patient perspectives routinely differ from those of other stakeholders. Yet, it is not always apparent that patients were engaged in value framework development or assessment. OBJECTIVES: To describe the development and content of the National Health Council's (NHC's) Rubric, a tool that includes criteria for evaluation of value frameworks specifically with regard to patient-centeredness and meaningful patient engagement. METHODS: The NHC held a multistakeholder, invitational roundtable in Washington, DC, in 2016. Participants reviewed existing patient-engagement rubrics, discussed experiences with value frameworks, debated and thematically grouped hallmark patient-centeredness characteristics, and developed illustrative examples of the characteristics. These materials were organized into the rubric, and subsequently vetted via multistakeholder peer review. RESULTS: The resulting rubric describes six domains of patient-centered value frameworks: partnership, transparency, inclusiveness, diversity, outcomes, and data sources. Each domain includes specific examples illustrating how patient engagement and patient-centeredness can be operationalized in value framework processes. CONCLUSIONS: The NHC multistakeholder roundtable's recommendations are captured in the NHC's Rubric to assess value framework and model patient-centeredness and patient engagement. The Rubric is a tool that will be refined over time on the basis of feedback from patient, patient group, framework developer, and other stakeholder-use experiences.
Authors: V Valentí; J Ramos; C Pérez; L Capdevila; I Ruiz; L Tikhomirova; M Sánchez; I Juez; M Llobera; E Sopena; J Rubió; R Salazar Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2019-09-26 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: T Joseph Mattingly; Julia F Slejko; Eleanor M Perfetto; Shyamasundaran Kottilil; C Daniel Mullins Journal: Patient Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Eleanor M Perfetto; Elisabeth M Oehrlein; T Rosie Love; Silke Schoch; Annie Kennedy; Jennifer Bright Journal: Patient Date: 2022-06-02 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Howard L Kaufman; Michael B Atkins; Prasun Subedi; James Wu; James Chambers; T Joseph Mattingly; Jonathan D Campbell; Jeff Allen; Andrea E Ferris; Richard L Schilsky; Daniel Danielson; J Leonard Lichtenfeld; Linda House; Wendy K D Selig Journal: J Immunother Cancer Date: 2019-05-17 Impact factor: 13.751
Authors: Katherine Deane; Laure Delbecque; Oleksandr Gorbenko; Anne Marie Hamoir; Anton Hoos; Begonya Nafria; Chi Pakarinen; Ify Sargeant; Dawn P Richards; Soren Eik Skovlund; Nicholas Brooke Journal: BMJ Innov Date: 2019-03-02
Authors: T Joseph Mattingly; Julia F Slejko; Eberechukwu Onukwugha; Eleanor M Perfetto; Shyamasundaran Kottilil; C Daniel Mullins Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 4.981