Frequently Asked Questions: NASHP Learning Collaborative (2015-2017) Request for Applications From Engagement to Evidence: Using PCOR and CER to Inform State Policymaking
Q: Are copies of the informational webinar slides available?
A: Yes, the slides and a recording of the webinar are available on the Request for Applications homepage.
Q: Can I select a specific topic or issue (e.g. suicide prevention) for the organizing focus of this effort or is this intended to be more a general focus on system change?
A: A specific topic or issue can be selected if it can help establish a framework to address additional topics in the future and encompasses the three goals of the project:
- Increase the use of evidence, including patient centered outcomes research (PCOR) and comparative effectiveness research (CER), within state health policy decision making;
- Establish a structure for inter-agency collaboration on the use of this research; and
- Develop a strategy for the meaningful engagement of the patient in program and policy development within various state agencies.
Q: Are there examples of how patients can be engaged in this process?
A: The Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Engagement Rubric gives examples of how patients have been involved in past projects. PCORI’s Engagement and Research landing page also provides tools on how patients and patient organizations can be involved in partnerships.
Q: How do I connect with potential applicants from my state?
A: Please contact Felicia Heider (fheider@oldsite.nashp.org) or Hannah Dorr (hdorr@oldsite.nashp.org) to find out more information.
Q: How can I get in contact with past participants in National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) evidence-based policy initiatives from my state?
A: Please follow this link to find out who from your state has participated in the past.
Q: Are there financial resources available to states through this opportunity?
A: There are no financial resources available to states for participation in this learning collaborative.
Q: PCORI can’t touch cost-effectiveness projects but can states propose using this initiative in tandem with their own cost-effectiveness projects to achieve better service design?
A: PCORI does not consider cost-effectiveness to be an outcome of direct importance to patients. Proposals that conduct cost-effectiveness analysis in any capacity will be deemed nonresponsive.
Secondary outcomes may, however, include out-of-pocket costs to patients and changes in healthcare utilization, but not cost-effectiveness analysis.

For individuals living with complex, often chronic conditions, and their families, palliative care can provide relief from symptoms, improve satisfaction and outcomes, and help address critical mental and spiritual needs during difficult times. Now more than ever, there is growing recognition of the importance of palliative care services for individuals with serious illness, such as advance care planning, pain and symptom management, care coordination, and team-based, multi-disciplinary support. These services can help patients and families cope with the symptoms and stressors of disease, better anticipate and avoid crises, and reduce unnecessary and/or unwanted care. While this model is grounded in evidence that demonstrates improved quality of life, better outcomes, and reduced cost for patients, only a fraction of individuals who could benefit from palliative care receive it. 























































































































































