Table 3

Framework for conducting comparative effectiveness reviews: public participation

ACA'S patient centered outcomes researchARRA'S comparative effectiveness researchMMA'S effective health care program
  • Public comment period

    • – 45–60 days comment period required by statute for:

      • ✓ national priorities

      • ✓ research project agenda

      • ✓ methodological standards

      • ✓ peer review process

      • ✓ draft findings for systematic reviews

  • Public comment period

    • – 4 week comment period established byAHRQ/EHC Program for:

      • ✓ Key questions (for systematic reviews only)

      • ✓ Draft reports (both systematic reviews and DEcIDE Network reports)

  • Forums

    • – required to increase public awareness and obtain and incorporate public input and feedback on research priorities, research findings and other duties, activities or processes the Institute determines appropriate

  • Federal Coordinating Council

    • – 3 public listening sessions

    • – received comments filed through the public website for 2 months

    • – posted interim working documents for feedback:

      • ✓ definition of CER

      • ✓ prioritization criteria

      • ✓ strategic framework

      • –open door meetings held to inform deliberations

  • Public meetings

    • – comments were solicited and reviewed, and listening sessions were held on identifying research priorities

    • – final decisions were made by an HHS committee

    • – no public comment on HHS committee determination

  • IOM Priority Setting Committee

    • – legislation required priorities to be based on ‘input from stakeholders’

    • – three avenues:

      • ✓ direct correspondence with the committee

      • ✓ written and oral presentations at an open stakeholder's meeting

      • ✓ submission of specific CER topics

  • Other consultations

    • – Methodology Committee may consult with relevant stakeholders to carry out its activities [Sec. 1181(d)(6)(D)]

    • – Process of developing and updating methodological standards

      • ✓ include input from experts, stakeholders and decision makers

      • ✓ provide opportunity for public comment

  • Adapted and modified from: Partnership to improve patient care. A procedural framework for the conduct of comparative clinical effectiveness research. November 2010. http://www.improvepatientcare.org/sites/default/files/CER_Procedure-PIPC_Whitepaper.pdf.

  • ACA, Affordable Care Act; AHRQ, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; ARRA, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act; CER, comparative effectiveness research; EHC, ; HHS, Department for Health and Human Services; IOM, Institute of Medicine; MMA, Medicare Modernization Act; EHC, Effective Health Care.