ArticleJournal of managed care & specialty pharmacy2024
Evidence inventory: A patient-centered framework for Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to assess the clinical benefit of drugs to inform its maximum fair price negotiation.
Article in Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advancing the conversation: 30 years of scholarship in managed care pharmacy.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2025Article
- Characteristics of mandates for evidence-based behavioral health interventions in 8 selected US states.Evaluation and program planning · 2025Article
- Concentration of spending and share of specialty drug spending in Medicare Part D over a 10-year period.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Inflation Reduction Act passed in August 2022 empowers the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to negotiate maximum fair prices for certain expensive drugs. In the process of determining maximum fair prices, CMS gathers evidence on the clinical benefits of these drugs as compared with their therapeutic alternative(s) from various sources. As patients are the primary beneficiaries of the treatment, we recommend that CMS should embrace an approach that prioritizes patient experience when evaluating such diverse sources of evidence in the assessment of the clinical benefit. Thus, we propose to draw on several existing frameworks to support the concept of "evidence inventory," a patient-centered approach to systematically evaluate benefits of drugs under consideration. This 4-step process to develop an evidence inventory includes the following: (1) Formulate the research question-in a PICO(T) (P = population, I = Intervention or exposure, C = comparator, O = outcome, and T = time frame) format, (2) Synthesize evidence, (3) Evaluate the evidence-using evidence inventory, and (4) Reevaluate evidence as new information become available. Patients and other relevant stakeholders play a critical role in each of these 4 steps. The proposed evidence inventory holds the potential to provide a structured and transparent patient-centered framework for evaluating the clinical benefits of drugs as compared with their therapeutic alternative(s) informing CMS maximum fair price negotiation.
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.