ArticleInnovations in pharmacy2018
Blockchains, Formulary Evaluations and Health Technology Assessment.
Article in Innovations in pharmacy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- If You Build it Will They Come? Patients, Providers and Blockchains in Health Technology Assessment.Innovations in pharmacy · 2018Article
- CVS Health and the Imaginary Worlds of the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER).Innovations in pharmacy · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Blockchains have the potential, if appropriately implemented and managed, of contributing to a fundamental change in the application of techniques of health technology assessment in formulary decision making. Rather than continuing to rely on claims made by manufacturers that are non-evaluable, the introduction of blockchains as adjunct to the electronic medical record, meet an unmet medical need in enabling a platform for the real time assessment of claims. Rather than focusing the case for their product on lifetime cost-per-QALY models, which have no chance of ever being validated, the blockchain platform offers a low cost opportunity for claims evaluation. Manufacturers would be required to abandon the construction of imaginary cost-per-QALY worlds to support claims for pricing and formulary trier position, in favor of claims that can be evaluated and reported back to formulary committees in a short yet meaningful time horizon. Manufacturers would present a claims assessment protocol as part of the formulary submission package. If agreed with the formulary committee, the protocol would be implemented and managed through the patient blockchain membership. Claims would be monitored and evaluated in real time with a final report to the formulary committee in a matter of months. Lifetime imaginary claims for cost-per-QALY, set alongside willingness-to-pay thresholds, would be a thing of the past. Pricing decisions and formulary placement would reflect a robust evidence base and not just extrapolations from pivotal clinical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.