Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42210801›Full record

ArticleJournal of managed care & specialty pharmacy2026

Patient experience data in formulary decision-making: Payer-reported perceptions and use.

Steven Kheloussi, Iyar Mazar, Magdalena Harrington, Eleanor M Perfetto

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Steven KheloussiKheloussi Consulting, LLC, Wilkes-Barre, PA.
Iyar MazarPfizer, New York, NY.
Magdalena HarringtonPfizer, New York, NY.
Eleanor M PerfettoUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs defined by the 21st Century Cures Act, patient experience data (PED) are data collected by any person with the purpose of providing information about patients' experiences with a disease or condition. To date, limited information is available on payer perspectives and the use of PED in formulary decision-making beyond patient-reported outcomes.

objectiveTo assess payer decision-maker familiarity with and perspectives on PED and their use in formulary development and benefit design.

methodsInformal interviews were conducted with payer decision-makers to guide the development of an online survey instrument. The survey was used to collect input from a broader population of payer decision-makers to understand their perspectives on and familiarity with PED, current uses of PED in their formulary decision-making processes, and barriers to incorporating PED.

resultsInterviews: Six individuals participated in the interviews, representing health plans (n = 4) and pharmacy benefit managers (n = 2). Participants reported varying levels of understanding of PED and its use in practice and shared mixed views regarding organizational openness to using PED and barriers to uptake. Survey: The survey was sent to 6,960 individuals, of whom 312 attempted the screener survey (4.5%). Of these, 60 respondents progressed to and completed the full survey. Respondents reported that the definition of PED from the 21st Century Cures Act "mostly" (n = 24, 40.0%) or "completely" (n = 28, 46.7%) aligned with their understanding. In an open-ended follow-up question, respondents frequently cited non-PED sources as PED, including health care provider feedback, and claims and utilization management data. Most organizations consider PED of low (n = 32; 53.3%) or medium (n = 22; 36.7%) importance. Respondents indicate they do not commonly incorporate PED into the formulary decision-making process today, with 51.7% (n = 31) and 36.7% (n = 22) of respondents reporting that they "sometimes" or "rarely" incorporate PED into decision-making processes. Perceived barriers to using PED in formulary decisions were noted to be "subjectivity of results" (n = 44; 73.3%), a "lack of scientific validity" (n = 38; 63.3%); and a "lack of standardized measures" (n = 35; 58.3%).

conclusionsSurvey responses suggest understanding of PED varies and that payers place low value on PED relative to other information sources, collectively limiting the meaningful use of PED in decision-making. Results also show uptake is impacted by various perceived barriers. Additional training is required on the scientific merit of PED and the rigorous qualitative and quantitative methods used to engage the patient community to collect and leverage PED.

Indexed as

Decision MakingFormularies as TopicPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresFemaleHumansMalePerceptionSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID42210801
PMCPMC13220085

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.