Effective Health Care Program Stakeholder Group A Perspective

1
Effective Health Care Program Stakeholder Group
A Perspective

• Peter Juhn, MD, MPH

2
Background

• Aim of the Effective Health Care Program
• Provide current unbiased comparative evidence on
  health care interventions
• Synthesize scientific evidence
• Generate new evidence and analytic methods
• Translate evidence findings for practical use
• History
• MMA Section 1013 legislation of 2003
• Focus on outcomes, comparative effectiveness and
  appropriateness of medical interventions for
  patients in Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP
• shall ensure that there is broad and ongoing
  consultation with relevant stakeholders in
  identifying the highest priorities for research

3
Stakeholder Group

• Provide input on
• Critical evidence gaps
• Dissemination of research reports
• Information needs
• Feedback from report users
• Process quality improvement
• Enhancing impact of the EHC Program
• History
• First Stakeholder Meeting Oct. 2005
• 2nd two-year cycle
• 10 members in the first group

4
Stakeholder Group

• 18 current members
• Medical providers
• Patient advocates
• Health plans
• Manufacturers
• Employers
• Journal editors
• Three workgroups
• Program priorities
• Product development
• Product dissemination

5
Some Observations

• First cycle different than second one
• First cycle start-up
• Second cycle increase momentum
• Different perspectives, same objectives
• Common purpose
• Collegial and constructive
• Strong program leadership and enthusiastic staff
• Jean Slutsky and Mark Helfand
• Accessible, responsive and receptive
• Excellent products
• Highest scientific standards
• Comprehensive and transparent review process

6
Some Challenges

• Dissemination
• Going beyond the publication or the website link
• Active incorporation into clinical programs
• Practical relevance
• Impact on actual practice and not just coverage
  policy
• Alignment of practitioner evidence needs with
  program products
• Timing
• Inherently long cycle times of scientifically
  rigorous processes
• Shelf-life of evidence
• Scale and scope
• So much more to do
• So little comparative budget

7
Some Takeaways

• Clear purpose
• Different for first and second cycles
• Diverse viewpoints
• Active recruitment of broadly representative
  members
• Enlightened leadership
• Open to feedback
• Continuous quality improvement
• Smaller workgroups
• Specific deliverables
• Defining success
• Go beyond products, get to impact
• How to rate Stakeholders performance