Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39527364›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics - open2025

CMS's Drug Price Negotiation Program 2023 Patient-Focused Listening Sessions: A Descriptive Analysis of Speaker Remarks.

Julie A Patterson, Tyler D Wagner, Rayan K Salih, Gabri'el D Shabazz, Jonathan D Campbell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Julie A PattersonNational Pharmaceutical Council, Washington, D.C., USA. jpatterson@npcnow.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5629-0842
Tyler D WagnerNational Pharmaceutical Council, Washington, D.C., USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7248-4890
Rayan K SalihNational Pharmaceutical Council, Washington, D.C., USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8140-3359
Gabri'el D ShabazzNational Pharmaceutical Council, Washington, D.C., USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-3160-4797
Jonathan D CampbellNational Pharmaceutical Council, Washington, D.C., USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6539-1258

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) held patient-focused listening sessions in Fall 2023 for each of the first ten drugs selected for the Inflation Reduction Act's (IRA) Drug Price Negotiation Program (DPNP). This study aimed to quantitatively describe speaker input at the sessions, including the absolute and relative time allocated to key areas of interest for the DPNP.

methodsIn this descriptive analysis of speaker remarks from ten CMS-hosted patient-focused listening sessions, speaker demographics were examined using video streams, time-stamped transcripts, public data, contextual clues, validated tools, and visual assessment when necessary. Audio recordings were transcribed using a speech-to-text application programming interface, followed by human review for accuracy. Transcripts included speaker identification and sentence-level timestamping. Two researchers coded each sentence into predefined categories on the basis of CMS's optional discussion topics, DPNP goals, and potential unintended consequences of the IRA: speaker background, evidence about selected drugs or therapeutic alternatives, drug prices, patient access/benefit design, therapeutic advancements, and other. The total and proportion of time spent by category were calculated per speaker.

resultsOut of an anticipated 200 speaker slots, 106 total speakers (median per session: 10; range 5-17) and 70 unique speakers participated, most of whom were patients (n = 38, 54.2%), female (n = 40, 57.1%), and below Medicare age (n = 40, 57.1%). The most popular categories discussed included evidence about the selected drug or therapeutic alternatives (median per slot: 36.5% of time; range 0-93.0%) and patient access/benefit design (median per slot: 12.1%; range 0-75.5%). CMS received a median of 12.3 total minutes of evidence about selected drugs or therapeutic alternatives per listening session across all speakers (range per session 3.9-22.6 minutes).

conclusionsThe first listening sessions provided an important, but limited, first step toward patient engagement with the DPNP. Speaker demographics suggest the sessions fell short of capturing the voices of diverse and Medicare-representative patient populations. While speakers often focused their time on patient experience and evidence, CMS received less than 15 minutes of patient-focused evidence about therapeutic alternatives for more than half of the drug listening sessions. CMS has indicated its intent to improve upon the design of the patient-focused listening sessions for drugs selected in the second round of the DPNP. Future iterations should prioritize robust, two-way dialogue, transparency surrounding the impact of patient input on CMS's price determination process, and improvements to event logistics and outreach that facilitate the participation of diverse patients and stakeholders.

Identifiers

PMID39527364
PMCPMC11717761

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.