— Suggestions for new topics and comments on initial list of potential topics are encouraged; input most helpful if received by December 13, 2019 —
BOSTON, November 13, 2019 – The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) has issued a call for public input to help identify and prioritize non-drug topics for ICER assessments in 2020. While ICER is most known for our reviews of emerging pharmaceuticals, we also have conducted many assessments of devices, procedures, and other health systems innovations. These assessments have spanned a wide range of areas, including non-drug interventions for chronic lower back pain, community health workers, programs to integrate behavioral health into the primary care setting, and breast cancer screening.
For 2020, ICER is considering selecting two or more non-drug topics. Our topic selection criteria are available here. Importantly, for 2020 we hope to identify topics that fit within one of two broad categories: 1) common interventions that may be priced far higher than their clinical value; and 2) new, promising interventions for vulnerable populations that may currently be underappreciated by clinicians and/or insurers.
From horizon scans of emerging health care interventions, conversations with stakeholders, and suggestions previously submitted by the public, we have already compiled a list of potential non-drug topics for 2020, and in addition to new topic ideas would welcome comment to help us prioritize within this list.
- Apps for managing anxiety and/or depression
- Apps for self-management of cancer care
- Devices for obstructive sleep apnea
- Devices for atrial fibrillation (potentially compared with dabigatran)
- Lenses for cataracts
- Colonoscopy versus non-invasive methods of colorectal cancer screening
- Surgical interventions for benign prostatic hyperplasia
- Healthy maternity programs
- Medically tailored meals
- Safe injection sites
- Different versions of carotid artery surgery
- Tympanostomy ear tubes
For new topic ideas or in comments on the above list, we would especially appreciate public comment regarding:
- Which topics represent areas where an independent analysis of the evidence could best inform future decision-making?
- What specific interventions or approaches to care (including brands, centers of excellence, etc.) should be included within the scope of the review?
- What evidence currently exists to demonstrate that these interventions or approaches to care may be more or less effective than the current standard of care?
The Public Comment period begins today, and comments will be accepted from all interested stakeholders until December 13, 2019 at 5 p.m. ET. There are no page limits for these submissions, and all comments should be emailed to firstname.lastname@example.org.
The final decision on the topic for each ICER review will be formally announced at the outset of the review process which begins approximately eight months prior to a corresponding public meeting held under the auspices of one of ICER’s three public programs – the California Technology Assessment Forum (CTAF), the Midwest Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council (Midwest CEPAC), and the New England Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council (New England CEPAC).
Apart from this formal Public Comment process on non-drug topics, other topic suggestions are always welcome. Submissions can be made at any time via this online form.
The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) is an independent non-profit research institute that produces reports analyzing the evidence on the effectiveness and value of drugs and other medical services. ICER’s reports include evidence-based calculations of prices for new drugs that accurately reflect the degree of improvement expected in long-term patient outcomes, while also highlighting price levels that might contribute to unaffordable short-term cost growth for the overall health care system.
ICER’s reports incorporate extensive input from all stakeholders and are the subject of public hearings through three core programs: the California Technology Assessment Forum (CTAF), the Midwest Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council (Midwest CEPAC), and the New England Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council (New England CEPAC). These independent panels review ICER’s reports at public meetings to deliberate on the evidence and develop recommendations for how patients, clinicians, insurers, and policymakers can improve the quality and value of health care. For more information about ICER, please visit ICER’s website.