IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Real-World Evidence: Bridging Gaps in Evidence to Guide Payer Decisions


  • Melissa H. Roberts

    (The University of New Mexico College of Pharmacy, University of New Mexico)

  • Gary T. Ferguson

    (Pulmonary Research Institute of Southeast Michigan)


Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are preferred by payers for health technology assessments and coverage decisions. However, the inclusion of a highly selective patient population and the rigorously controlled conditions in RCTs may not be reflective of real-world clinical practice. Real-world evidence (RWE) obtained from an analysis of real-world data (RWD) from observational studies can bridge gaps in evidence not addressed by RCTs and is thus valuable to public and private payers for decision-making. Through a broad literature search to obtain insights into payers’ experience, we found that payers have concerns about real-world studies with respect to data quality, poor internal validity, potential bias, and lack of meaningful endpoints. However, they valued RWE to fill evidence gaps not addressed by RCTs, such as high-quality, real-world, long-term effectiveness and safety data; head-to-head drug comparisons; cost analyses for tiering formulary placement; medication use and adherence patterns; identification of relevant responder and non-responder patient subpopulations; and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). RWE can be used to assess clinically meaningful endpoints and gauge the impact of interventions on the quality of healthcare. Here, we review how payers use or can use RWD on the comparative effectiveness and safety of treatments, PROs, medication adherence and persistence, prescribing patterns, healthcare resource utilization, and patient characteristics and/or biomarkers associated with treatment response when making health technology assessments and payer coverage decisions across therapeutic areas.

Suggested Citation

  • Melissa H. Roberts & Gary T. Ferguson, 2021. "Real-World Evidence: Bridging Gaps in Evidence to Guide Payer Decisions," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 3-11, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:5:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s41669-020-00221-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-020-00221-y

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL:
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Hampson, G. & Towse, A. & Dreitlein, B. & Henshall, C. & Pearson, S., 2018. "Real World Evidence for Coverage Decisions: Opportunities and Challenges," Research Papers 001997, Office of Health Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Blog mentions

    As found by, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Journal round-up: PharmacoEconomics – Open 5(1)
      by Rita Faria in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2021-04-29 06:00:05

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Elsa Bouée-Benhamiche & Philippe Jean Bousquet & Salah Ghabri, 2020. "Economic Evaluations of Anticancer Drugs Based on Medico-Administrative Databases: A Systematic Literature Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 491-508, August.
    2. Qiu, Tingting & Hanna, Eve & Dabbous, Monique & Borislav, Borisov & Toumi, Mondher, 2020. "Regenerative medicine regulatory policies: A systematic review and international comparison," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(7), pages 701-713.
    3. Jorge Mestre-Ferrandiz & Néboa Zozaya & Bleric Alcalá & Álvaro Hidalgo-Vega, 2018. "Multi-Indication Pricing: Nice in Theory but Can it Work in Practice?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(12), pages 1407-1420, December.
    4. Elisabeth M. Oehrlein & Jennifer S. Graff & Jason Harris & Eleanor M. Perfetto, 2019. "Patient-Community Perspectives on Real-World Evidence: Enhancing Engagement, Understanding, and Trust," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(4), pages 375-381, August.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:5:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s41669-020-00221-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.