Medicare's requirement for research participation as a condition of coverage: is it ethical?

An Ethical Analysis of Coverage With Evidence Development

Sometimes a government or other payer is called on to fund a new health technology even when the evidence leaves a lot of uncertainty. One option is for the payer to provisionally fund the technology and reduce uncertainty by developing evidence. This is called coverage with evidence development (CED). Only-in-research CED, when the payer funds the technology only for patients who participate in the evidence development, raises the sharpest ethical questions. Is the patient coerced or induced into participating? If so, under what circumstances, if any, is this ethically justified? Building on work by Miller and Pearson, we argue that patients have a right to funding for a technology only when the payer can be confident that the technology provides reasonable value for money. Technologies are candidates for CED precisely because serious questions remain about value for money, and therefore patients have no right to technologies under a CED arrangement. This is why CED induces rather than coerces. The separate question of whether the inducement is ethically justified remains. We argue that CED does pose risks to patients, and the worse these risks are, the harder it is to justify the inducement. Finally, we propose conditions under which the inducement could be ethically justified and means of avoiding inducement altogether. We draw on the Australian context, and so our conclusions apply most directly to comparable contexts, where the payer is a government that provides universal coverage with a regard for cost-effectiveness that is prominent and fairly clearly defined.

From evidence to clinical practice in blood and marrow transplantation

Clinical practice in the field of blood and marrow transplantation (BMT) has evolved over time, as a result of thousands of basic and clinical research studies. While it appears that scientific discovery and adaptive clinical research may be well integrated in case of BMT, there is lack of sufficient literature to definitively understand the process of translation of evidence to practice and if it may be selective . In this review, examples from BMT and other areas of medicine are used to highlight the state of and potential barriers to evidence uptake. Strategies to help improve knowledge transfer are discussed and the role of existing framework provided by the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Registry (CIBMTR) to monitor uptake and BMT Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN) to enhance translation of evidence into practice is highlighted.

Gatekeepers for pragmatic clinical trials

To successfully implement a pragmatic clinical trial, investigators need access to numerous resources, including financial support, institutional infrastructure (e.g. clinics, facilities, staff), eligible patients, and patient data. Gatekeepers are people or entities who have the ability to allow or deny access to the resources required to support the conduct of clinical research. Based on this definition, gatekeepers relevant to the US clinical research enterprise include research sponsors, regulatory agencies, payers, health system and other organizational leadership, research team leadership, human research protections programs, advocacy and community groups, and clinicians. This article provides a framework to help guide gatekeepers' decision-making related to the use of resources for pragmatic clinical trials. Relevant ethical considerations for gatekeepers include (1) concern for the interests of individuals, groups, and communities affected by the gatekeepers' decisions, including protection from harm and maximization of benefits; (2) advancement of organizational mission and values; and (3) stewardship of financial, human, and other organizational resources. Separate from these ethical considerations, gatekeepers' actions will be guided by relevant federal, state, and local regulations. This framework also suggests that to further enhance the legitimacy of their decision-making, gatekeepers should adopt transparent processes that engage relevant stakeholders when feasible and appropriate. We apply this framework to the set of gatekeepers responsible for making decisions about resources necessary for pragmatic clinical trials in the United States, describing the relevance of the criteria in different situations and pointing out where conflicts among the criteria and relevant regulations may affect decision-making. Recognition of the complex set of considerations that should inform decision-making will guide gatekeepers in making justifiable choices regarding the use of limited and valuable resources.

Cost, coverage, and comparative effectiveness research: the critical issues for oncology

A new national initiative in comparative effectiveness research (CER) is part of a broad and long-term evolution toward greater reliance on scientific evidence in clinical practice and medical policy. But CER has been controversial because of its high profile in the health care reform effort, its instantiation in a prominent new national research institute, and lingering concerns that the ultimate goal of CER is to empower the government and private insurers to reduce health care costs by restricting access to expensive new medical tests and treatments. This article presents an analysis of the policy development behind CER and focuses on its potential impact on insurance coverage and payment for oncology services. By itself, CER will not solve the tension that exists between the goal of innovative, personalized care and the eroding affordability of cancer treatment in the United States. But CER does offer an important opportunity for progress. Oncologists have taken important first steps in acknowledging their responsibility for addressing cost issues; as a professional society, they should now move forward to assume leadership in the effort to integrate clinical evidence with considerations of cost effectiveness to guide clinical practice and insurer policies.

Paying for prevention: challenges to health insurance coverage for biomedical HIV prevention in the United States

Reducing the incidence of HIV infection continues to be a crucial public health priority in the United States, especially among populations at elevated risk such as men who have sex with men, transgender women, people who inject drugs, and racial and ethnic minority communities. Although most HIV prevention efforts to date have focused on changing risky behaviors, the past decade yielded efficacious new biomedical technologies designed to prevent infection, such as the prophylactic use of antiretroviral drugs and the first indications of an efficacious vaccine. Access to prevention technologies will be a significant part of the next decade's response to HIV and advocates are mobilizing to achieve more widespread use of these interventions. These breakthroughs, however, arrive at a time of escalating healthcare costs; health insurance coverage therefore raises pressing new questions about priority-setting and the allocation of responsibility for public health. The goals of this Article are to identify legal challenges and potential solutions for expanding access to biomedical HIV prevention through health insurance coverage. This Article discusses the public policy implications of HIVprevention coverage decisions, assesses possible legal grounds on which insurers may initially deny coverage for these technologies, and evaluates the extent to which these denials may survive external and judicial review. Because several of these legal grounds may be persuasive, particularly denials on the basis of medical necessity, this Article also explores alternative strategies for financing biomedical HIV prevention efforts.

Medicare's policy on carotid stents limited use to hospitals meeting quality guidelines yet did not hurt disadvantaged

Medicare began covering the use of carotid stents to treat arterial blockages in 2005 under an innovative policy requiring hospitals to meet quality-of-care benchmarks before seeking reimbursement. By restricting carotid stent provision to a smaller subset of US hospitals than those typically adopting new cardiovascular technologies, this policy could have disproportionately reduced the availability of this technology for minority, low-income, and rural patients. Such patients are often served by hospitals less able than others to meet increasingly stringent quality requirements. However, our analysis of hospitals that provided stents during 2005-07 demonstrated that although 21-38 percent fewer hospitals offered stents than offered other types of interventional cardiovascular procedures, such as heart bypass grafts, stents were no less available in localities with substantial poor, black, or rural populations than they were in other areas. Our study provides important evidence that the carotid stent coverage policy met its goal of limiting the adoption of the technology by hospitals that weren't well prepared to provide it-while still maintaining equitable availability of the technology. Therefore, it may be a useful model for future Medicare coverage decisions.

Adding the patient perspective to comparative effectiveness research

Comparative effectiveness research generates evidence that helps consumers, clinicians, purchasers, and policy makers make better decisions about health care. Capturing the patient's perspective is central to this research because it provides a complete picture of treatment impact. This can be done with standardized questionnaires that ask patients to report on their functioning, well-being, symptoms, and satisfaction with care. These data, however, are not collected routinely in either clinical research or practice. Strategies and incentives to link patient-reported outcomes to data from conventional sources--including clinical research, electronic health records, and administrative data--will accelerate the development of useful evidence.

The case of vertebroplasty trials: promoting a culture of evidence-based procedural medicine

Two independent, randomized controlled trials of vertebroplasty for the relief of pain associated with vertebral fractures demonstrated that this procedure was no better than a sham intervention. Publication of the trial results prompted strong, critical commentaries by practitioners and professional societies. In this article we offer a psychological explanation of this dismissive response to rigorous scientific evidence, which appeals to the “placebo reactions” of physicians when dramatic improvement is noted in patients’ symptoms following administration of invasive procedures. We argue that the story of the response to the vertebroplasty trials underscores the need to develop a culture of evidence-based procedural medicine.

Using comparative effectiveness research to inform policy and practice in the UK HHS: past, present and future

Health systems that have fixed budgets and a coherent organizational structure generally have found it valuable to have a dedicated primary research capacity to answer decision-oriented value-for-money questions of particular importance to the system. The UK NHS is one example of such a system. Here, we review the historical evolution of building comparative effectiveness research (CER) capacity in the NHS, describe the current situation, with a focus on how this research is used to inform decisions, and discuss present and emerging challenges. We draw some possible lessons for the US, which is currently considering using CER to inform healthcare policy and practice decisions.

Access with evidence development in the UK: past experience, current initiatives and future potential

Access with evidence development (AED) describes the general approach of linking some form of access to the healthcare market with the generation of additional evidence relating to the value of the healthcare intervention under evaluation, with an explicit aim of aiding future decision making. A number of health systems around the world are interested in the potential for such schemes. This article looks in detail at the potential for some form of AED in the UK, focusing on the two major decision-making bodies: the Scottish Medicines Consortium in Scotland and the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in England and Wales. We consider past experience with these approaches and current initiatives that are exploring their potential, and speculate as to how these schemes might develop in the future.

Access with evidence development: the US experience

The concept of access with evidence development (AED), also known as 'coverage with evidence development' in the Medicare programme, has long been discussed as a policy option for ensuring more appropriate use of new technologies in the US. This article provides a comprehensive overview of more than 10 years of US experience with AED, both in the public and private healthcare sectors. Beginning with a discussion of the successes of private plans' conditional coverage for high-density chemotherapy for autologous bone marrow transplants for metastatic breast cancer and Medicare's conditional coverage of lung-volume-reduction surgery in the 1990s, the article moves on to describe how Medicare worked to codify AED as one of its coverage policy options in the early part of this decade. More recent private and public sector initiatives are also discussed, including an overview of barriers to implementing AED. Despite the complexity of political, financial and ethical issues faced in implementation, AED is now a permanent fixture of US coverage policy. Future initiatives within the Medicare programme and with private payers in the US are much more likely to succeed by relying upon the simple but consequential principles laid out at a Summit convened in Banff, Alberta, Canada in 2009 and presented in another article in this issue.

A changing paradigm in the study and adoption of emerging health care technologies: coverage with evidence development

OBJECTIVE

The rapid pace of the development and introduction to the marketplace of new medical technologies has been identified as one of the primary drivers of the increasing cost of health care delivery in the United States. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the role of the wide divergence of interests of the various stakeholders in contributing to the increasing cost of care.

METHODS

A literature review and analysis are performed to evaluate the primary and secondary cost drivers of health care technology costs in the United States.

RESULTS

Technology developers, health care providers, patients and family members, and payers are the primary drivers of health care costs. Technology developers, vendors, and investors look primarily to a rapid return on investment that can be achieved only by expeditious introduction, payment, and user acceptance. Health care providers who should be primarily interested in patient care and outcomes may also be driven by a legitimate belief in the improvements a new technology may offer, competitive behavior, reimbursement motives, or personal career and institutional ambition. Patients and family members are frequently driven by a sense that new is by definition better and that the most recently introduced technologies are superior to older, more tested modalities. Payers are motivated primarily by a desire to stabilize or reduce cost (and increase profitability).

CONCLUSION

Regardless of intentions or desires, it is increasingly apparent that the introduction of new technologies absent "significant evidence" that they are cost effective or add to the existing armamentarium places an increasing burden on a health care delivery system already stretched thin. These pressures have necessitated an increased level of interest in a variety of solutions to generate more appropriate and useful "evidence" of benefit. This discussion focuses on the emergence of a reimbursement methodology termed "coverage with evidence development" and how the radiation oncology and general oncology communities may participate.

Clearing up the hazy road from bench to bedside: a framework for integrating the fourth hurdle into translational medicine

BACKGROUND

New products evolving from research and development can only be translated to medical practice on a large scale if they are reimbursed by third-party payers. Yet the decision processes regarding reimbursement are highly complex and internationally heterogeneous. This study develops a process-oriented framework for monitoring these so-called fourth hurdle procedures in the context of product development from bench to bedside. The framework is suitable both for new drugs and other medical technologies.

METHODS

The study is based on expert interviews and literature searches, as well as an analysis of 47 websites of coverage decision-makers in England, Germany and the USA.

RESULTS

Eight key steps for monitoring fourth hurdle procedures from a company perspective were determined: entering the scope of a healthcare payer; trigger of decision process; assessment; appraisal; setting level of reimbursement; establishing rules for service provision; formal and informal participation; and publication of the decision and supplementary information. Details are given for the English National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the German Federal Joint Committee, Medicare's National and Local Coverage Determinations, and for Blue Cross Blue Shield companies.

CONCLUSION

Coverage determination decisions for new procedures tend to be less formalized than for novel drugs. The analysis of coverage procedures and requirements shows that the proof of patient benefit is essential. Cost-effectiveness is likely to gain importance in future.

The impact of technology on health care cost and policy development

As health care spending in the United States continues to increase at a pace significantly faster than that of other sectors of the economy, there seems to be greater interest and willingness to consider the root causes of the rise and to explore options for reform. Some of the reasons for cost escalation are associated with a growing and aging population that all too often makes inappropriate personal choices, but others are clearly attributable to growth in the cost of drugs, hospital and nursing home care, provider reimbursement, and durable medical equipment. Some health care economists have suggested that the rapid introduction of new technologies has also played a major role. Vendors understandably desire early market penetration of any new device or technology, but often this may be accomplished before significant evidence of benefit is available. Our current system of device approval unlinked to coverage and payment has produced further disruption in the system. The nature of the problem and consideration of various factors in the introduction, implementation, and evaluation of new technologies will be considered.

Evidence-informed evidence-making

The extent to which clinical and public health guidance developed by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) can effectively serve the public by improving quality and efficiency across the National Health Service (NHS) and the broader public sector depends largely on the quality and relevance of the available evidence which informs its decisions. There are well-established organizational and procedural links between NICE and academic and professional organizations that undertake evidence synthesis. However, there are fewer means for evidence gaps identified during the development of NICE guidance to lead to the commissioning of new prospective studies. In this paper, we discuss the importance of a publicly funded clinical and public health research agenda that includes new prospective studies aimed at addressing knowledge gaps identified by NICE. We describe the early experience of NICE and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) working together to articulate and commission research to inform best practice recommendations. We propose ways in which NICE can collaborate more effectively with research funders to improve the evidence base upon which it bases its recommendations.

When research seems like clinical care: a qualitative study of the communication of individual cancer genetic research results

Background

Research ethicists have recently declared a new ethical imperative: that researchers should communicate the results of research to participants. For some analysts, the obligation is restricted to the communication of the general findings or conclusions of the study. However, other analysts extend the obligation to the disclosure of individual research results, especially where these results are perceived to have clinical relevance. Several scholars have advanced cogent critiques of the putative obligation to disclose individual research results. They question whether ethical goals are served by disclosure or violated by non-disclosure, and whether the communication of research results respects ethically salient differences between research practices and clinical care. Empirical data on these questions are limited. Available evidence suggests, on the one hand, growing support for disclosure, and on the other, the potential for significant harm.

Methods

This paper explores the implications of the disclosure of individual research results for the relationship between research and clinical care through analysis of research-based cancer genetic testing in Ontario, Canada in the late 1990s. We analyze a set of 30 interviews with key informants involved with research-based cancer genetic testing before the publicly funded clinical service became available in 2000.

Results

We advance three insights: First, the communication of individual research results makes research practices seem like clinical services for our respondents. Second, while valuing the way in which research enables a form of clinical access, our respondents experience these quasi-clinical services as inadequate. Finally, our respondents recognize the ways in which their experience with these quasi-clinical services is influenced by research imperatives, but understand and interpret the significance and appropriateness of these influences in different ways.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that the hybrid state created through the disclosure of research results about individuals that are perceived to be clinically relevant may produce neither sufficiently adequate clinical care nor sufficiently ethical research practices. These findings raise questions about the extent to which research can, and should, be made to serve clinical purposes, and suggest the need for further deliberation regarding any ethical obligation to communicate individual research results.

Designed delays versus rigorous pragmatic trials: lower carat gold standards can produce relevant drug evaluations

BACKGROUND

Centralized administrative databases enable low-cost pragmatic randomized trials (PRTs) of drug effectiveness and safety. We simplified the PRT strategy by using designed delays (DD) to evaluate drug policies.

OBJECTIVES

To reassess our DD trial of a cost-saving nebulizer-to-inhaler conversion policy and a proposed DD trial of reduced restrictions on Cox-2 inhibitors.

RESEARCH DESIGN

We randomized 52 pairs of communities and clusters of physician practices to the policy either on time or after a 6-month delay. Our 2-stage qualitative reassessment comprised: (1) applying criteria for reporting PRTs and (2) assessing DD trials in 3 domains of responsibility: policymakers' decisions, researchers' decisions, and joint decisions involving negotiation.

MEASURES

A draft checklist of 22 Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT). Researchers' recollections of their degree of influence on decisions.

RESULTS

DD trials deviated from ideal PRTs in the policymakers' domain: the policies affected mixtures of drugs, users, and illnesses, and implementation was not by strict protocol. Aspects negotiated by researchers and policymakers also deviated from ideal: length of delay; size and location of control group; unit of randomization; additional data collection; and communications to physicians. The DD trials complied better with CONSORT in the researchers' domain of analysis and interpretation.

CONCLUSIONS

DD trials can be negotiated with policymakers. Low cost and simplicity of DD trials partly compensate for some limitations for evaluating drug safety and effectiveness. The ethics question of whether a DD is routine evaluation or research depends on its purpose and generalizability.