Coverage with evidence development: The Ontario experience

Leslie Levin, Ron Goeree, Mark Levine, Murray Krahn, Tony Easty, Adalstein Brown, David Henry

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: For non-drug technologies, there is often residual uncertainty following systematic review, mainly due to inadequate evidence of efficacy. The unwillingness to make decisions in the presence of uncertainty may lead to passive diffusion and intuitive decision making with or without public pressure. This may affect health system sustainability. There is increasing interest in post-market evaluation through processes that include coverage with evidence development (CED) to address residual uncertainty regarding effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Global experience of CED has been slow to develop despite their potential contribution to decision making. Methods: Ontario's field evaluation program to better inform decision making represents a collaboration between physicians, policy decision makers and academic centers. We report results of the first ten CEDs from this program to assess whether they achieved their objective of influencing policy by addressing residual uncertainty following systematic review. Results: Since 2003, nineteen field evaluation studies to resolve residual uncertainty following systematic review have been completed, ten of which met the criteria of CED and are the focus of this report. There was more than one patient subgroup or intervention in three of the CEDs. This provided the basis for evaluating thirteen outcomes. In each case, the CED addressed the uncertainty and led to a decision based on the systematic review and CED result. The CEDs led to adoption of the technology in six instances, modified adoption in three instances and withdrawal in four instances. Conclusions: CED makes an important contribution to translating evidence to decision making. Methodologies are needed to increase the scope and reduce timelines for CEDs, such as the use of linked comprehensive and robust data sets and collaborative studies with other jurisdictions. CED before making long-term funding decisions, especially where there is uncertainty of effectiveness, safety or cost-effectiveness, should be increasingly funded by health systems.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)159-168
Number of pages10
JournalInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
Volume27
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Ontario
Uncertainty
Decision Making
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Technology
Health
Program Evaluation
Administrative Personnel
Physicians
Safety
Pressure

Cite this

Levin, Leslie ; Goeree, Ron ; Levine, Mark ; Krahn, Murray ; Easty, Tony ; Brown, Adalstein ; Henry, David. / Coverage with evidence development : The Ontario experience. In: International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2011 ; Vol. 27, No. 2. pp. 159-168.
@article{fe8aba71c50b4a95a3dbc22f09dd1cce,
title = "Coverage with evidence development: The Ontario experience",
abstract = "Background: For non-drug technologies, there is often residual uncertainty following systematic review, mainly due to inadequate evidence of efficacy. The unwillingness to make decisions in the presence of uncertainty may lead to passive diffusion and intuitive decision making with or without public pressure. This may affect health system sustainability. There is increasing interest in post-market evaluation through processes that include coverage with evidence development (CED) to address residual uncertainty regarding effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Global experience of CED has been slow to develop despite their potential contribution to decision making. Methods: Ontario's field evaluation program to better inform decision making represents a collaboration between physicians, policy decision makers and academic centers. We report results of the first ten CEDs from this program to assess whether they achieved their objective of influencing policy by addressing residual uncertainty following systematic review. Results: Since 2003, nineteen field evaluation studies to resolve residual uncertainty following systematic review have been completed, ten of which met the criteria of CED and are the focus of this report. There was more than one patient subgroup or intervention in three of the CEDs. This provided the basis for evaluating thirteen outcomes. In each case, the CED addressed the uncertainty and led to a decision based on the systematic review and CED result. The CEDs led to adoption of the technology in six instances, modified adoption in three instances and withdrawal in four instances. Conclusions: CED makes an important contribution to translating evidence to decision making. Methodologies are needed to increase the scope and reduce timelines for CEDs, such as the use of linked comprehensive and robust data sets and collaborative studies with other jurisdictions. CED before making long-term funding decisions, especially where there is uncertainty of effectiveness, safety or cost-effectiveness, should be increasingly funded by health systems.",
author = "Leslie Levin and Ron Goeree and Mark Levine and Murray Krahn and Tony Easty and Adalstein Brown and David Henry",
year = "2011",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1017/S0266462311000018",
language = "English",
volume = "27",
pages = "159--168",
journal = "International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care",
issn = "0266-4623",
publisher = "CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS",
number = "2",

}

Coverage with evidence development : The Ontario experience. / Levin, Leslie; Goeree, Ron; Levine, Mark; Krahn, Murray; Easty, Tony; Brown, Adalstein; Henry, David.

In: International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Vol. 27, No. 2, 04.2011, p. 159-168.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Coverage with evidence development

T2 - The Ontario experience

AU - Levin, Leslie

AU - Goeree, Ron

AU - Levine, Mark

AU - Krahn, Murray

AU - Easty, Tony

AU - Brown, Adalstein

AU - Henry, David

PY - 2011/4

Y1 - 2011/4

N2 - Background: For non-drug technologies, there is often residual uncertainty following systematic review, mainly due to inadequate evidence of efficacy. The unwillingness to make decisions in the presence of uncertainty may lead to passive diffusion and intuitive decision making with or without public pressure. This may affect health system sustainability. There is increasing interest in post-market evaluation through processes that include coverage with evidence development (CED) to address residual uncertainty regarding effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Global experience of CED has been slow to develop despite their potential contribution to decision making. Methods: Ontario's field evaluation program to better inform decision making represents a collaboration between physicians, policy decision makers and academic centers. We report results of the first ten CEDs from this program to assess whether they achieved their objective of influencing policy by addressing residual uncertainty following systematic review. Results: Since 2003, nineteen field evaluation studies to resolve residual uncertainty following systematic review have been completed, ten of which met the criteria of CED and are the focus of this report. There was more than one patient subgroup or intervention in three of the CEDs. This provided the basis for evaluating thirteen outcomes. In each case, the CED addressed the uncertainty and led to a decision based on the systematic review and CED result. The CEDs led to adoption of the technology in six instances, modified adoption in three instances and withdrawal in four instances. Conclusions: CED makes an important contribution to translating evidence to decision making. Methodologies are needed to increase the scope and reduce timelines for CEDs, such as the use of linked comprehensive and robust data sets and collaborative studies with other jurisdictions. CED before making long-term funding decisions, especially where there is uncertainty of effectiveness, safety or cost-effectiveness, should be increasingly funded by health systems.

AB - Background: For non-drug technologies, there is often residual uncertainty following systematic review, mainly due to inadequate evidence of efficacy. The unwillingness to make decisions in the presence of uncertainty may lead to passive diffusion and intuitive decision making with or without public pressure. This may affect health system sustainability. There is increasing interest in post-market evaluation through processes that include coverage with evidence development (CED) to address residual uncertainty regarding effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Global experience of CED has been slow to develop despite their potential contribution to decision making. Methods: Ontario's field evaluation program to better inform decision making represents a collaboration between physicians, policy decision makers and academic centers. We report results of the first ten CEDs from this program to assess whether they achieved their objective of influencing policy by addressing residual uncertainty following systematic review. Results: Since 2003, nineteen field evaluation studies to resolve residual uncertainty following systematic review have been completed, ten of which met the criteria of CED and are the focus of this report. There was more than one patient subgroup or intervention in three of the CEDs. This provided the basis for evaluating thirteen outcomes. In each case, the CED addressed the uncertainty and led to a decision based on the systematic review and CED result. The CEDs led to adoption of the technology in six instances, modified adoption in three instances and withdrawal in four instances. Conclusions: CED makes an important contribution to translating evidence to decision making. Methodologies are needed to increase the scope and reduce timelines for CEDs, such as the use of linked comprehensive and robust data sets and collaborative studies with other jurisdictions. CED before making long-term funding decisions, especially where there is uncertainty of effectiveness, safety or cost-effectiveness, should be increasingly funded by health systems.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79961108281&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/S0266462311000018

DO - 10.1017/S0266462311000018

M3 - Article

VL - 27

SP - 159

EP - 168

JO - International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

JF - International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

SN - 0266-4623

IS - 2

ER -