Home PURPOSE OF THE CENTER: To develop the center to address state-of-the-art research, create innovating educational programs, and support technology transfers using commercially viable results to assist the Army Research Laboratory to develop the next generation Future Combat System in the telecommunications sector that assures prevention of perceived threats, and Non Line of Sight/Beyond Line of Sight lethal support.

How to… home page

In the United States, approximately 14 million people have had cancer and more than 1.6 million new cases are diagnosed each year. However, more than a decade after the Institute of Medicine (IOM) first studied the quality of cancer care, the barriers to achieving excellent care for all cancer patients remain daunting. Care often is not patient-centered, many patients do not receive palliative care to manage their symptoms and side effects from treatment, and decisions about care often are not based on the latest scientific evidence. The cost of cancer care also is rising faster than many sectors of medicine--having increased to $125 billion in 2010 from $72 billion in 2004--and is projected to reach $173 billion by 2020. Rising costs are making cancer care less affordable for patients and their families and are creating disparities in patients' access to high-quality cancer care. There also are growing shortages of health professionals skilled in providing cancer care, and the number of adults age 65 and older--the group most susceptible to cancer--is expected to double by 2030, contributing to a 45 percent increase in the number of people developing cancer. The current care delivery system is poorly prepared to address the care needs of this population, which are complex due to altered physiology, functional and cognitive impairment, multiple coexisting diseases, increased side effects from treatment, and greater need for social support. Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care: Charting a New Course for a System in Crisis presents a conceptual framework for improving the quality of cancer care. This study proposes improvements to six interconnected components of care: (1) engaged patients; (2) an adequately staffed, trained, and coordinated workforce; (3) evidence-based care; (4) learning health care information technology (IT); (5) translation of evidence into clinical practice, quality measurement and performance improvement; and (6) accessible and affordable care. This report recommends changes across the board in these areas to improve the quality of care. Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care: Charting a New Course for a System in Crisis provides information for cancer care teams, patients and their families, researchers, quality metrics developers, and payers, as well as HHS, other federal agencies, and industry to reevaluate their current roles and responsibilities in cancer care and work together to develop a higher quality care delivery system. By working toward this shared goal, the cancer care community can improve the quality of life and outcomes for people facing a cancer diagnosis.

/pdf/delivering-high-quality-cancer-care-charting-a-new-course-2u1fq5ml3k.pdf

Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care: Charting a New Course for a System in Crisis

In recent years, the number of clinical trials conducted in the United States has declined, and the majority of study sites are now outside the United States, with marked growth of research in developing countries. The authors discuss the implications of the globalization of clinical research and make recommendations about how to address the challenges that have emerged.

/pdf/ethical-and-scientific-implications-of-the-globalization-of-3ufm6lt0gm.pdf

Ethical and scientific implications of the globalization of clinical research

Importance The increasing cost of prescription drugs in the United States has become a source of concern for patients, prescribers, payers, and policy makers. Objectives To review the origins and effects of high drug prices in the US market and to consider policy options that could contain the cost of prescription drugs. Evidence We reviewed the peer-reviewed medical and health policy literature from January 2005 to July 2016 for articles addressing the sources of drug prices in the United States, the justifications and consequences of high prices, and possible solutions. Findings Per capita prescription drug spending in the United States exceeds that in all other countries, largely driven by brand-name drug prices that have been increasing in recent years at rates far beyond the consumer price index. In 2013, per capita spending on prescription drugs was $858 compared with an average of $400 for 19 other industrialized nations. In the United States, prescription medications now comprise an estimated 17% of overall personal health care services. The most important factor that allows manufacturers to set high drug prices is market exclusivity, protected by monopoly rights awarded upon Food and Drug Administration approval and by patents. The availability of generic drugs after this exclusivity period is the main means of reducing prices in the United States, but access to them may be delayed by numerous business and legal strategies. The primary counterweight against excessive pricing during market exclusivity is the negotiating power of the payer, which is currently constrained by several factors, including the requirement that most government drug payment plans cover nearly all products. Another key contributor to drug spending is physician prescribing choices when comparable alternatives are available at different costs. Although prices are often justified by the high cost of drug development, there is no evidence of an association between research and development costs and prices; rather, prescription drugs are priced in the United States primarily on the basis of what the market will bear. Conclusions and Relevance High drug prices are the result of the approach the United States has taken to granting government-protected monopolies to drug manufacturers, combined with coverage requirements imposed on government-funded drug benefits. The most realistic short-term strategies to address high prices include enforcing more stringent requirements for the award and extension of exclusivity rights; enhancing competition by ensuring timely generic drug availability; providing greater opportunities for meaningful price negotiation by governmental payers; generating more evidence about comparative cost-effectiveness of therapeutic alternatives; and more effectively educating patients, prescribers, payers, and policy makers about these choices.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/articlepdf/2545691/jsc160015.pdf

The High Cost of Prescription Drugs in the United States: Origins and Prospects for Reform

John Ioannidis argues that problem base, context placement, information gain, pragmatism, patient centeredness, value for money, feasibility, and transparency define useful clinical research. He suggests most clinical research is not useful and reform is overdue.

/pdf/why-most-clinical-research-is-not-useful-5cidg93sfy.pdf

Why Most Clinical Research Is Not Useful

ContextIn 1997, Congress authorized the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to grant 6-month extensions of marketing rights through the Pediatric Exclusivity Program if industry sponsors complete FDA-requested pediatric trials. The program has been praised for creating incentives for studies in children and has been criticized as a “windfall” to the innovator drug industry. This critique has been a substantial part of congressional debate on the program, which is due to expire in 2007.ObjectiveTo quantify the economic return to industry for completing pediatric exclusivity trials.Design and SettingA cohort study of programs conducted for pediatric exclusivity. Nine drugs that were granted pediatric exclusivity were selected. From the final study reports submitted to the FDA (2002-2004), key elements of the clinical trial design and study operations were obtained, and the cost of performing each study was estimated and converted into estimates of after-tax cash outflows. Three-year market sales were obtained and converted into estimates of after-tax cash inflows based on 6 months of additional market protection. Net economic return (cash inflows minus outflows) and net return-to-costs ratio (net economic return divided by cash outflows) for each product were then calculated.Main Outcome MeasuresNet economic return and net return-to-cost ratio.ResultsThe indications studied reflect a broad representation of the program: asthma, tumors, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, hypertension, depression/generalized anxiety disorder, diabetes mellitus, gastroesophageal reflux, bacterial infection, and bone mineralization. The distribution of net economic return for 6 months of exclusivity varied substantially among products (net economic return ranged from −$8.9 million to $507.9 million and net return-to-cost ratio ranged from −0.68 to 73.63).ConclusionsThe economic return for pediatric exclusivity is variable. As an incentive to complete much-needed clinical trials in children, pediatric exclusivity can generate lucrative returns or produce more modest returns on investment.

/pdf/economic-return-of-clinical-trials-performed-under-the-2hb4bfq2nn.pdf

Economic Return of Clinical Trials Performed Under the Pediatric Exclusivity Program

Background Over the past decade, annual funding for biomedical research has more than doubled while new molecular entity approvals have declined by one third.Objective To assess the value of practices commonly employed in the conduct of large-scale clinical trials, and to identify areas where costs could be reduced without compromising scientific validity.Methods In the qualitative phase of the study, an expert panel recommended potential modifications of mega-trial designs and operations in order to maximize their value (cost versus scientific benefit tradeoff). In the quantitative phase, a mega-trial economic model was used to assess the financial implications of these recommendations. Our initial chronic disease trial design included 20,000 patients randomized at 1000 sites. Each site was assigned 24 monitoring visits and a $10,000 per patient site payment. The case report form (CRF) was 60 pages long, and trial duration was assumed to be 48 months.Results The total costs of the initial trial design we...

Elizabeth D. Reid

Papers

Economic Return of Clinical Trials Performed Under the Pediatric Exclusivity Program

Sensible approaches for reducing clinical trial costs.

The economic returns of pediatric clinical trials of antihypertensive drugs.