Identifying Outcome Measures for Coronary Artery Disease Value-Based Contracting Using the Delphi Method

Interventions to tackle health inequalities in cardiovascular risks for socioeconomically disadvantaged populations: a rapid review

INTRODUCTION

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) has shown significant health inequalities for people with low socioeconomic status associated with more risk factors. This review was to synthesize interventions that targeted CVD risks and outcomes among socioeconomically disadvantaged populations and to understand the impact associated with these interventions.

SOURCES OF DATA

Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL were searched for records published in the last decade using a systematic search strategy, complemented by screening the reference lists and citation indexes. Nineteen studies were included and a narrative synthesis with the effect direction plot was undertaken in which studies, interventions, participants and outcomes were examined according to the intervention type focusing on behaviours, lifestyle, education, medication and monitoring.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

No universal definition of disadvantaged socioeconomic status was used with common factors relating to racial/ethnic minorities, low income and low or no health insurance. Mixed effects of interventions were reported on clinical outcomes including weight, body mass index, blood pressure, glycated haemoglobin and cholesterol.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

Inconsistent effect was reported due to a large variety of settings, participants and intervention components although they are considered necessary to address the complex health needs of socioeconomically disadvantaged populations.

GROWING POINTS

There is inadequate evidence to determine whether any of the intervention types are effective in optimising lipids management for socioeconomically disadvantaged populations.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

Research is needed with mixed evidence using real world evaluation and lived experience combined with health economic evaluation, on both mental and physical health outcomes.

Quality measurement for cardiovascular diseases and cancer in hospital value-based healthcare: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

This systematic literature review identifies hospital value-based healthcare quality measures, measurement practices, and tools, as well as potential strategies for improving cardiovascular diseases and cancer care.

METHODS

A systematic search was carried out in the PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and MEDLINE (OvidSP) databases. We included studies on quality measures in hospital value-based healthcare for cardiovascular diseases and cancer. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, conducted a full-text review of potentially relevant articles, assessed the quality of included studies, and extracted data thematically. This review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, and four validated tools were used for methodological quality assessment.

RESULTS

The search yielded 2860 publications. After screening the titles and abstracts, 60 articles were retrieved for full-text review. A total of 37 studies met our inclusion criteria. We found that standardized outcome sets with patient involvement were developed for some cardiovascular diseases and cancer. Despite the heterogeneity in outcome measures, there was consensus to include clinical outcomes on survival rate and disease control, disutility of care, and patient-reported outcome measures such as long-term quality of life.

CONCLUSION

Hospitals that developed value-based healthcare or are planning to do so can choose whether they prefer to implement the standardized outcomes step-by-step, collect additional measures, or develop their own set of measures. However, they need to ensure that their performance can be consistently compared to that of their peers and that they measure what prioritizes and maximizes value for their patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO ID: CRD42021229763 .

Tailoring lipid management interventions to reduce inequalities in cardiovascular disease risk management in primary care for deprived communities in Northern England: a mixed-methods intervention development protocol

INTRODUCTION

Hyperlipidaemia contributes a significant proportion of modifiable cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, which is a condition that disproportionally affects disadvantaged socioeconomic communities, with death rates in the most deprived areas being four times higher than those in the least deprived. With the national CVD Prevention programme being delivered to minimise risk factors, no evidence is available on what has been implemented in primary care for deprived populations. This study describes the protocol for the development of a tailored intervention aiming to optimise lipid management in primary care settings to help reduce inequalities in CVD risks and improve outcomes in deprived communities.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A mixed-methods approach will be employed consisting of four work packages: (1) rapid review and logic model; (2) assessment and comparison of CVD risk management for deprived with non-deprived populations in Northern England to England overall; (3) interviews with health professionals; and (4) intervention development. A systematic search and narrative synthesis will be undertaken to identify evidence-based interventions and targeted outcomes in deprived areas. General practice-level data will be assessed to establish the profile of lipid management, compared with the regional and national levels. Health professionals involved in the organisation and delivery of routine lipid management to deprived populations will be interviewed to understand the implementation and delivery of current lipid management and associated challenges. The prototype intervention will be informed by the evidence generated from workpackages 1-3, which will be reviewed and assessed using the nominal group technique to reach consensus. Training and skills development materials will also be developed as needed.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval has been obtained from the Faculty of Medical Sciences Research Ethics Committee at Newcastle University, UK. Findings will be disseminated to the participating sites, participants, commissioners, and in peer-reviewed journals and academic conferences.

Identifying outcome measures for atrial fibrillation value-based contracting using the Delphi method

BACKGROUND

Value-based contracts that tie payments for pharmaceuticals to predefined outcomes aim to promote value through shared risk and aligned incentives between manufacturers and payers.

METHODS

We conducted a Delphi study among diverse stakeholders (patients, providers, payers, pharmacy benefits managers, pharmaceutical company representatives) to identify top meaningful outcomes for inclusion in value-based contracts for atrial fibrillation medications. The final panel (n = 55) rated the importance of each outcome on a 5-point Likert scale and selected their top 3 most meaningful outcomes. Non-patient participants rated the feasibility of collecting each outcome on a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement (Likert scores ≥4/5 or selection of an outcome as most meaningful). Differences between stakeholder groups were examined using Fisher's Exact Test.

RESULTS

Consensus was achieved for importance of 10 outcomes (Likert scale), where "preventing stroke or mini-stroke" reached 100% agreement (55/55). Eighty-one percent (44/54) of participants selected "preventing stroke or mini-stroke" as the most meaningful outcome (rank order question). The measures rated as most feasibly collected were "reducing hospitalizations" (97%, 36/37) followed by "preventing stroke or mini-stroke" and "reducing emergency department visits" (both 92%, 34/37). There were statistically significant differences between patients and non-patients [0% (0/17) vs 22% (8/37), P = 0.047] and patients and providers [0% (0/17) vs 39% (7/18), P = 0.008] in selection of "improving health-related quality of life" as a most meaningful outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings will inform the design of atrial fibrillation value-based pharmaceutical contracts and provide additional insight into preferences for outcomes which could be used to improve the quality of atrial fibrillation care.

Using the Delphi method to identify meaningful and feasible outcomes for pharmaceutical value-based contracting

In an effort to demonstrate measurable value of pharmaceuticals in the United States, many payers and drug manufacturers have entered into value-based purchasing contracts that link payment for prescription medications to patient outcomes, creating shared risk between the 2 entities. These agreements have emerged as part of a larger movement within the health care landscape to transition away from volume-based payment models and towards value-based designs that promote high-quality and affordable care. Key to the success of pharmaceutical value-based contracting is agreement on meaningful and measurable outcomes that reflect drug performance. Traditional value-based contracts are developed by pharmaceutical companies and payers and may not reflect values of other important stakeholders, such as patients, providers, and employers (when applicable). One approach to more effectively align the interests of all key stakeholders and to maximize the effect and transparency of value-based pharmaceutical contracts is to use the validated Delphi surveying technique, which can gather information and build stakeholder consensus on key elements before contract development. In this Viewpoints article, we describe our experience conducting Delphi studies in 5 disease contexts to inform pharmaceutical value-based contract development, including insights learned and practical considerations for real-world application. In addition, we outline advantages to using this validated consensus-building tool to solicit vital and underrepresented stakeholder input, foster transparency in the contract development process, and promote shared learning for future value-based initiatives. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this project. All authors are or were employed by UPMC Health Plan at the time of this study and have no other disclosures to declare.

Identifying Outcome Measures for Migraine Value-Based Contracting Using the Delphi Method

OBJECTIVE

To identify meaningful migraine outcome measures among key stakeholders to inform value-based contracts for migraine medications.

BACKGROUND

Value-based contracts linking medication payments to predefined performance metrics aim to promote value through aligned incentives and shared risk between manufacturers and payers. The emergence of new and expensive pharmaceuticals for migraine presents an opportunity for value-based contract development. However, uncertainty remains around which outcomes are most meaningful to all migraine stakeholders.

METHODS

This study utilized a Delphi survey to incorporate views from 82 stakeholders, including patients (n = 21), providers (n = 23), payers (n = 10), employers (n = 18), and pharmaceutical company representatives (n = 10). A list of 15 migraine-related outcomes was created from a literature review and subject matter expert consultation. Stakeholders reported on the value of these outcomes through a 5-point Likert scale and selection of their top 3 most meaningful outcomes. All participants except patients and employers also used a 5-point Likert scale to rate the feasibility of collecting each outcome measure. Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement on the importance and feasibility of an outcome (Likert scores ≥4/5 or selection of an outcome as most meaningful).

RESULTS

After 2 rounds, consensus was achieved for importance of 9 outcomes on the Likert scale. "Decrease in migraine frequency" reached 100% agreement (82/82), followed by "increased ability to resume normal activities" (96%, 79/82). When asked to choose the 3 most meaningful outcomes, stakeholders selected "decrease in migraine frequency" (88%, 72/82) followed by "decrease in migraine severity" (80%, 66/82). The 2 measures rated as most feasibly collected were "decrease in emergency department/urgent care visits" (95%, 40/42) and "decrease in migraine frequency" (90%, 38/42). There were statistically significant differences between non-patient and patient stakeholders in selection of "decrease in emergency department/urgent care visits" [20% (12/61) vs 0% (0/21), P = .031]; and employer and patient stakeholders in selection of "decrease in work days missed" [44% (8/18) vs 5% (1/21), P = .006] and "decrease in emergency department/urgent care visits" [22% (4/18) vs 0% (0/21), P = .037] as most meaningful outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The measures "decrease in migraine frequency" followed by "decrease in migraine severity" were identified as top priority migraine outcome measures.

International experience with performance-based risk-sharing arrangements: implications for the Chinese innovative pharmaceutical market

OBJECTIVES

Various forms of outcomes-based or risk-sharing agreements have been implemented since early 2000s as a way of access to innovative medicinal products. This study aims to summarize the international experience of performance-based risk-sharing arrangements (PBRSAs) and identify the preconditions for a successful implementation of such schemes. Their implications for the Chinese healthcare market are discussed.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (in PubMed) was conducted to review the evidence on the nature and performance of PBRSAs in the past 10 years. Grey literature was searched for reports in government websites of the countries in scope.

RESULTS

The search identifies 463 records from PubMed and 3 additional records from other sources. Thirty-one publications are included in the final review. The following preconditions were identified to support a successful implementation of PBRSAs: (1) Identify meaningful and feasible outcome measurements; (2) Establish an effective and efficient data collection infrastructure; (3) Control of the implementation costs; (4) Develop governance and administrative infrastructure to allow delisting and rebate/refund; (5) Clarify personal data protection issues.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of PBRSAs has proven to be challenging. Although the Chinese healthcare system is not yet well equipped to implement such schemes, some recent changes may pave the way to successful PBRSAs for particular innovative products.