— ICER expands its reviews in area of ongoing public health crisis related to opioid addiction —
— Open Input now being accepted through March 10 for digital apps, through May 14 for supervised injection facilities —
BOSTON, February 21, 2020 – The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) today announced plans to assess the comparative clinical effectiveness and economic value of two non-drug topics: supervised injection facilities (SIFs) and digital apps for opioid use disorder. Along with past ICER assessments of related topics such as abuse-deterrent opioid formulations, medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder, and non-drug interventions for lower back pain, today’s announcement reinforces ICER’s commitment to provide policymakers with an independent evaluation of the evidence around interventions to address the public health crises stemming from the opioid epidemic in the United States.
“Opioid misuse continues to ravage American communities,” said Steven D. Pearson, MD, MSc, President of ICER. “Clinicians, industry, government, and non-profit organizations are all trying to figure out how best to help affected individuals and communities. ICER is joining the fight in the best way we know how: by providing an independent and rigorous analysis of the data, and by working with all stakeholders to evaluate the broader health and economic effects of different care and policy options. Ultimately, our aim is to support action that will help our country make the most rapid progress in saving lives by putting our resources into services that will have the greatest impact.
“These reviews will add to our long history of assessing a wide range of topics outside the pharmaceutical sector of health care, including reviews on behavioral health integration into primary care, cardiac nuclear imaging, community health workers, proton beam therapy, breast cancer screening, and many others.”
ICER’s Evidence Report on digital apps for opioid use disorder will be reviewed during a public meeting of the Midwest Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council (Midwest CEPAC) in September, and our Evidence Report on supervised injection facilities will be reviewed during a public meeting of the New England Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council (New England CEPAC) in December.
ICER’s website provides timelines of key posting dates and public comment periods for both the digital apps for opioid use disorder assessment and the supervised injection facilities assessment. An Open Input period begins today and is intended to allow stakeholders to share key information relevant to the development of the evidence report. For the digital apps on opioid use disorder assessment, comments will be accepted until March 10 at 5 p.m. ET. For the supervised injection facilities assessment, comments will be accepted from all interested stakeholders until May 14 at 5 p.m. ET. During this time, ICER will also contact key patient groups and clinical experts to gain further insights on the patient perspective and clinical context of both topics.
For more information about the Open Input period, visit ICER’s website. ICER’s Manufacturer Engagement Guide, Patient Participation Guide, and Patient Guide to Open Input provide additional information for manufacturers and patient groups, including an explanation of what types of information may be most informative. There are no page limits to Open Input submissions, and the feedback we receive will be incorporated throughout report development. All input can be emailed to email@example.com.
ICER will post a draft scoping document, providing more detail on our planned analyses, on March 13 for the digital apps assessment and on May 19 for the supervised injection facilities assessment. Each of those documents will be open to public comment for three weeks.
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.