CMS 药品价格谈判计划 2023 年以患者为中心的听证会:发言者发言的描述性分析。

IF 2 Q2 ECONOMICS
Julie A Patterson, Tyler D Wagner, Rayan K Salih, Gabri'el D Shabazz, Jonathan D Campbell
{"title":"CMS 药品价格谈判计划 2023 年以患者为中心的听证会:发言者发言的描述性分析。","authors":"Julie A Patterson, Tyler D Wagner, Rayan K Salih, Gabri'el D Shabazz, Jonathan D Campbell","doi":"10.1007/s41669-024-00530-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The 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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out 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).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":19770,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics Open","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"CMS's Drug Price Negotiation Program 2023 Patient-Focused Listening Sessions: A Descriptive Analysis of Speaker Remarks.\",\"authors\":\"Julie A Patterson, Tyler D Wagner, Rayan K Salih, Gabri'el D Shabazz, Jonathan D Campbell\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s41669-024-00530-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The 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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out 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).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The 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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19770,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PharmacoEconomics Open\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PharmacoEconomics Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-024-00530-6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PharmacoEconomics Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-024-00530-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:美国医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心(CMS)于 2023 年秋季就《通胀削减法案》(IRA)药物价格谈判计划(DPNP)中选定的前十种药物分别召开了以患者为中心的听证会。本研究旨在定量描述发言者在会议上的发言,包括分配给 DPNP 主要关注领域的绝对和相对时间:在对十场由 CMS 主办、以患者为中心的听证会上发言者的发言进行描述性分析时,必要时使用视频流、带时间戳的文字记录、公共数据、上下文线索、验证工具和视觉评估来检查发言者的人口统计学特征。使用语音到文本应用程序接口对录音进行转录,然后由人工审核其准确性。转录内容包括说话者身份和句子级别的时间戳。两名研究人员根据 CMS 的可选讨论主题、DPNP 目标以及 IRA 的潜在意外后果,将每个句子编码为预定义的类别:发言者背景、有关选定药物或治疗替代品的证据、药物价格、患者获取/福利设计、治疗进展以及其他。我们计算了每位发言人在不同类别中所花费的时间总量和比例:在预计的 200 个发言人时段中,共有 106 位发言人(每场会议的中位数:10;范围:5-17)和 70 位独特的发言人参加了会议,其中大多数为患者(n = 38,54.2%)、女性(n = 40,57.1%)和低于医疗保险年龄(n = 40,57.1%)。讨论最多的类别包括有关所选药物或替代治疗方法的证据(每个时段的中位数:36.5%;范围 0-93.0%)和患者获取/福利设计(每个时段的中位数:12.1%;范围 0-75.5%)。所有发言人在每场聆听会中,CMS 收到的有关选定药物或替代疗法的证据总时长中位数为 12.3 分钟(每场聆听会的时间范围为 3.9-22.6 分钟):第一场听证会为患者参与 DPNP 迈出了重要但有限的第一步。发言者的人口统计学特征表明,这些会议未能捕捉到不同的、具有医疗保险代表性的患者群体的声音。虽然发言人通常将时间集中在患者体验和证据上,但在一半以上的药物倾听会议中,CMS 收到的以患者为中心的有关治疗替代方案的证据不到 15 分钟。CMS 已表示有意改进针对 DPNP 第二轮选定药物的以患者为中心的倾听会的设计。未来的迭代应优先考虑强有力的双向对话、围绕患者意见对 CMS 价格确定过程的影响的透明度,以及活动后勤和外联的改进,以促进不同患者和利益相关者的参与。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
CMS's Drug Price Negotiation Program 2023 Patient-Focused Listening Sessions: A Descriptive Analysis of Speaker Remarks.

Background: The 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.

Methods: In 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.

Results: Out 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).

Conclusions: The 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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
64
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: PharmacoEconomics - Open focuses on applied research on the economic implications and health outcomes associated with drugs, devices and other healthcare interventions. The journal includes, but is not limited to, the following research areas:Economic analysis of healthcare interventionsHealth outcomes researchCost-of-illness studiesQuality-of-life studiesAdditional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in PharmacoEconomics -Open may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances.All manuscripts are subject to peer review by international experts. Letters to the Editor are welcomed and will be considered for publication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信