Open Letter X: Why Hospitals Should Support Comparative Effectiveness

The Association for Healthcare Resource & Materials Management (AHRMM) should become more vocal in support of the comparative effectiveness proposal, a key plank in the current administration's healthcare reform platform. It's not often that hospital supply chain executives find a policy issue so worthy of our support, and I urge AHRMM – as the nearest thing we have to a public policy voice – to begin educating its membership about it.

Allow me to explain my thoughts, and I'll be eager to know whether you agree.

The costs of physician preference items (PPIs) continue to inflate more quickly than our ability to get fair reimbursement from payors. It's eating away at our margins, and in some cases threatening the viability of our hospitals. (See Open Letter III: These Aching Joints.)

Even though our hospitals foot the bill, the physicians decide which supplies we purchase for a given procedure. Supply chain managers can be diplomats, trying to persuade surgeons to consider cost implications when selecting PPIs. But the doctors hold the trump card. Physicians make the final determination about which item is best suited – medically speaking – for a procedure or a specific patient. No matter how convincing our argument for saving hospital dollars, the clinical decision rules the day.

And I agree that clinical decisions should prevail. We and the physicians share the same goal of achieving superior patient outcomes. But after that, our goals hit a disconnect: we are charged with doing it in the most cost effective manner possible while surgeons rarely share the responsibility of getting the best price.

As supply chain managers, it's not often our role to bring clinical information to the value analysis process. When we do, we know it must be bulletproof or our data-minded surgeons will be quick on the trigger and shoot it full of holes.

So…what if we had a clearinghouse of treatment guidelines based on cost, quality, and clinical outcomes? What would happen if a panel of well-respected physicians (with no financial ties to medical device manufacturers!), RNs, research scientists, and administrators were to conduct comparison studies of which items are most effectively used in specific procedures?

This, in a nutshell, is comparative effectiveness. The Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness (catchy name) guides federal research dollars to the Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality (AHRQ), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS). These agencies are responsible for conducting the research and reporting on the results.

The administration is trying to make this part of its reform agenda, and you better believe the device manufacturers are fighting it tooth-and-nail. (See this WSJ article). As part of February's economic stimulus legislation, the initiative was funded with $1.1 billion. But Congress stripped it of any real teeth by taking the "comparative" piece out. In other words, AHRQ, NIH, and DHHS are allowed to conduct research, but they cannot say whether a device from manufacturer A demonstrates a clinical and cost advantage over its counterpart at manufacturer B.

This should be revised in the next legislative proposal, and it's on this point that AHRMM and supply chain executives should make our voices heard.

Ultimately, each agency should be responsible for studying which treatments and medical technologies are best in providing patient care for various disease states. They should compare devices against their competitors to help determine equivalency and effectiveness. They should make recommendations about which devices deserve reimbursement for producing the best outcomes versus those that come to market with higher costs but scant additional benefit.

Comparative effectiveness will be subject to all sorts of political attacks, calling it an attempt to limit physician decisions and ration healthcare. But I don't see it that way. In my mind, it's about creating an unbiased assessment of the most cost effective ways to achieve superior patient outcomes. That's our ultimate job!

Why am I urging AHRMM and hospital supply chain executives to support it? Comparative effectiveness holds the promise of leveling a playing field tilted too far away from cost considerations. It will allow us to approach our value analysis team meetings with a framework for fair discussions using neutral clinical data. And it might just help us toss a lasso around the runaway costs of PPIs.

I invite your input. What are your thoughts?

Comments

[Howard Mann]

I would agree with the above statements, however, as a point of clarification, I would not include cost on comparative effectiveness until all of the clinical evidence has been weighed, analyzed and compared first. The reason for a two-step consideration approach to comparative effectiveness is that performance and outcome should be the first decision point. Once that threshold is crossed, cost either becomes a moot point, an open or, even better, a leveraged negotiation or may still be relevant to the comparison due to accessability, capacity or manufacturing/distribution issues. To assume that cost should be compared along with the performance and outcomes issues might missdirect the focus of clinical effectiveness towards value.

Secondly, true innovation will probably not be able to be cost compared until we understand the implications of the innovation.

Beyond that I would want evidence based medicine to lead to evidence based purchasing.

[Mike Merwarth]

Howard, I couldn’t agree more. The first priority in studying the effectiveness of competing products is whether they produce comparable clinical outcomes. If not, no matter the difference in cost, you can’t recommend one over the other. If AHRQ tried to do this, it would lose credibility very quickly.

In a post this Thursday, I’ll talk some more about the critical balance between quality and price that must take into account patient outcomes. The real goal is finding a way to manage the price increases on preference items that might be only slightly different but don’t demonstrate a proportional clinical benefit. I hope to hear your thoughts on it, too.

Mike