Health Care Spending Effectiveness: Estimates Suggest That Spending Improved US Health From 1996 To 2016

Health care spending effectiveness is the ratio of an increase in spending per case of illness or injury to an increase in disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted per case. We report US spending-effectiveness ratios, using comprehensive estimates of health care spending from the Disease Expenditure Project and DALYs from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. We decomposed changes over time to estimate spending per case and DALYs averted per case, controlling for changes in population size, age-sex structure, and incidence or prevalence of cases. Across all causes of health care spending and disease burden, median spending was US$114,339 per DALY averted between 1996 and 2016. Twelve of thirty-four causes with the highest spending or highest burden had median spending that was less than $100,000 per DALY averted. Using decomposition results, we calculated an outcome-adjusted health care price index by assigning a dollar value to DALYs averted per case. When we used $100,000 as the dollar value per DALY averted, prices increased by 4 percent more than the broader economy; when we used $150,000 per DALY averted, relative prices fell by 13 percent, meaning that much of the growth in health care spending over time has purchased health improvements.

Health spending expenditures for commercial plans are predominantly concentrated among a small population of high-intensity consumers across settings of care

BACKGROUND: Rising health care spending has sparked new efforts to constrain health care expenditures. OBJECTIVE: To explore how health care spending is distributed across consumers and how utilization patterns compare across health care resource expenditures (eg, hospital, outpatient care). METHODS: Using the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus database, we conducted a retrospective claims analysis for the 2018 plan year to examine commercial health care spending and utilization across 5 settings of care: ambulatory services, inpatient services, office visits, pharmacy services, and additional services. RESULTS: Consistent with findings from previous analyses of total health spending, total health care spending for a large commercially insured population was largely concentrated within a small population of high-intensity consumers. These patterns persist when looking at individual segments of spending, including spending on prescription drugs and inpatient and ambulatory services. Inpatient spending was the most concentrated, with 97% of spending occurring within the top tenth percentile of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that health care spending for commercial plans is predominantly concentrated within a small population of high-intensity consumers across all settings of care. Curbing rising health care spending will require systemwide evaluation of the value of spending within and across settings of care for a subset of high-resource-use patients. This is particularly important for health care settings with the highest concentration of spending, including inpatient care. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by the National Pharmaceutical Council (NPC). Ciarametaro, Buelt, and Dubois are employed by the NPC. Kleinrock and Campbell are employed by IQVIA, which was contracted by the NPC for data analysis.

Stakeholders find that step therapy should be evidence-based, flexible, and transparent: assessing appropriateness using a consensus approach

BACKGROUND: Step therapy, one approach to utilization management, is used by health plans to ensure safe and clinically appropriate care while managing cost. Several patient and provider groups have each developed principles to guide the appropriate use of step therapy; however, no comprehensive multistakeholder informed set of criteria exist. OBJECTIVE: To assess multistakeholder consensus on criteria for the development and implementation of step therapy for pharmaceutical therapies. Stakeholders were asked to (a) assess the appropriateness of step therapy as a utilization management tool; (b) rate specific criteria across 5 domains (development, implementation, communication, appeals, and evaluation) of step therapy; and (c) categorize these criteria as standards or best practices. METHODS: We conducted a multiphase project culminating in a roundtable of experts representing patient, provider, plan, pharmacy, policy, and ethical perspectives. We first reviewed guiding principles, position statements, and legislative activity to draft criteria regarding step therapy protocol development, implementation, communication, and evaluation. To assess consensus across a convenience sample of experts, we employed an iterative 4-step modified Delphi method. Panelists were asked to (a) rate the overall appropriateness of step therapy, (b) rate the appropriateness of specific criteria, and (c) identify each as a standard or best practice. Appropriateness was rated from 1-9 and categorized in terciles (1-3: not appropriate, 4-6: neither, 7-9: appropriate) to assess quantitative agreement, disagreement, and indeterminate agreement. RESULTS: After the second round of voting, roundtable panelists (n = 16) disagreed on the appropriateness of step therapy for utilization management (50% appropriate, 31.25% neither, and 18.75% inappropriate). Agreement was achieved on 21 criteria across 5 themes (clinical criteria as the foundation for protocol development, implementation of protocols, transparency and communication of processes, navigation of the appeals process, and evaluation of health and administrative impact). Fourteen and seven criteria were categorized as standards and best practices, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The stakeholders in this panel differed in their assessments of the appropriateness of step therapy but agreed regarding how these protocols should be developed, implemented, communicated, and evaluated. Most criteria were rated as standards that can be used by stakeholders when developing, implementing, and assessing step therapy processes today. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by the National Pharmaceutical Council. Karmarkar was a fellow at the National Pharmaceutical Council and Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy at the time this study was conducted. Dubois and Graff are employees of the National Pharmaceutical Council. This work was previously presented as a virtual poster during the AMCP 2020 eLearning Days, April 21-24, 2020.

Are ACOs Ready to be Accountable for Medication Use?

BACKGROUND: Accountable care organizations (ACOs) have the potential to lower costs and improve quality through incentives and coordinated care. However, the design brings with it many new challenges. One such challenge is the optimal use of pharmaceuticals. Most ACOs have not yet focused on this integral facet of care, even though medications are a critical component to achieving the lower costs and improved quality that are anticipated with this new model. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether ACOs are prepared to maximize the value of medications for achieving quality benchmarks and cost offsets. METHODS: During the fall of 2012, an electronic readiness self-assessment was developed using a portion of the questions and question methodology from the National Survey of Accountable Care Organizations, along with original questions developed by the authors. The assessment was tested and subsequently revised based on feedback from pilot testing with 5 ACO representatives. The revised assessment was distributed via e-mail to a convenience sample (n=175) of ACO members of the American Medical Group Association, Brookings-Dartmouth ACO Learning Network, and Premier Healthcare Alliance. RESULTS: The self-assessment was completed by 46 ACO representatives (26% response rate). ACOs reported high readiness to manage medications in a few areas, such as transmitting prescriptions electronically (70%), being able to integrate medical and pharmacy data into a single database (54%), and having a formulary in place that encourages generic use when appropriate (50%). However, many areas have substantial room for improvement with few ACOs reporting high readiness. Some notable areas include being able to quantify the cost offsets and hence demonstrate the value of appropriate medication use (7%), notifying a physician when a prescription has been filled (9%), having protocols in place to avoid medication duplication and polypharmacy (17%), and having quality metrics in place for a broad diversity of conditions (22%). CONCLUSIONS: Developing the capabilities to support, monitor, and ensure appropriate medication use will be critical to achieve optimal patient outcomes and ACO success. The ACOs surveyed have embarked upon an important journey towards this goal, but critical gaps remain before they can become fully accountable. While many of these organizations have begun adopting health information technologies that allow them to maximize the value of medications for achieving quality outcomes and cost offsets, a significant lag was identified in their inability to use these technologies to their full capacities. In order to provide further guidance, the authors have begun documenting case studies for public release that would provide ACOs with examples of how certain medication issues have been addressed by ACOs or relevant organizations. The authors hope that these case studies will help ACOs optimize the value of pharmaceuticals and achieve the "triple aim" of improving care, health, and cost. DISCLOSURES: There was no outside funding for this study, and the authors report no conflicts of interest related to the article. Concept and design were primarily from Dubois and Kotzbauer, with help from Feldman, Penso, and Westrich. Data collection was done by Feldman, Penso, Pope, and Westrich, and all authors participated in data interpretation. The manuscript was written primarily by Westrich, with help from all other authors, and revision was done primarily by Lustig and Westrich, with help from all other authors.

Do Patient Preferences Align With Value Frameworks? A Discrete-Choice Experiment of Patients With Breast Cancer

Purpose. Assess patient preferences for aspects of breast cancer treatments to evaluate and inform the usual assumptions in scoring rubrics for value frameworks. Methods. A discrete-choice experiment (DCE) was designed and implemented to collect quantitative evidence on preferences from 100 adult female patients with a self-reported physician diagnosis of stage 3 or stage 4 breast cancer. Respondents were asked to evaluate some of the treatment aspects currently considered in value frameworks. Respondents' choices were analyzed using logit-based regression models that produced preference weights for each treatment aspect considered. Aggregate- and individual-level preferences were used to assess the relative importance of treatment aspects and their variability across respondents. Results. As expected, better clinical outcomes were associated with higher preference weights. While life extensions with treatment were considered to be most important, respondents assigned great value to out-of-pocket cost of treatment, treatment route of administration, and the availability of reliable tests to help gauge treatment efficacy. Two respondent classes were identified in the sample. Differences in class-specific preferences were primarily associated with route of administration, out-of-pocket treatment cost, and the availability of a test to gauge treatment efficacy. Only patient cancer stage was found to be correlated with class assignment (P = 0.035). Given the distribution of individual-level preference estimates, preference for survival benefits are unlikely to be adequately described with two sets of preference weights. Conclusions. Although value frameworks are an important step in the systematic evaluation of medications in the context of a complex treatment landscape, the frameworks are still largely driven by expert judgment. Our results illustrate issues with this approach as patient preferences can be heterogeneous and different from the scoring weights currently provided by the frameworks.

Are Value-Based Arrangements the Answer We've Been Waiting for?

In response to rising healthcare costs, value-based arrangements (VBAs) have emerged as a mechanism for transforming how we pay for high-cost therapies. As we think about how VBAs fit into the larger effort of the United States healthcare system to transition to value-based payment, it is important to consider the strengths and limitations associated with this model and to set appropriate expectations for what VBAs can realistically achieve. For example, for VBAs to meaningfully affect overall healthcare spending, there needs to be a sufficient number of products that meet the ideal criteria for a value-based contract. These products also need to represent a meaningful share of healthcare spending, and the VBA contracts need to be designed with enough financial risk to actually influence spending. Although there are limited data about the components of current contracts (eg, how much financial risk is involved, product and class specifications), VBAs will likely not be a singular solution for improving healthcare cost containment. Instead, VBAs offer an opportunity for the US healthcare system to achieve higher value for dollars spent when implemented in combination with other value-based payment mechanisms and policies that disincentivize low-value care.

As Value Assessment Frameworks Evolve, Are They Finally Ready for Prime Time?

BACKGROUND

Value assessment frameworks have emerged as tools to assist healthcare decision makers in the United States in assessing the relative value of healthcare services and treatments. As more healthcare decision makers in the United States-including state government agencies, pharmacy benefit managers, employers, and health plans-publicly consider the adoption of value frameworks, it is increasingly important to critically evaluate their ability to accurately measure value and reliably inform decision making.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the evolution of the value assessment landscape in the past two years, including new entrants and updated frameworks, and assess if these changes successfully advance the field of value assessment.

METHODS

We analyzed the progress of the three currently active value assessment frameworks developed by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, the Innovation and Value Initiative, and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, against six key areas of concern.

RESULTS

Value assessment frameworks are moving closer to meeting the challenge of accurately measuring value and reliably informing healthcare decisions. Each of the six concerns has been addressed in some way by at least one framework.

CONCLUSIONS

Although value assessments are potential inputs that can be considered for healthcare decision making, none of them should be the sole input for these decisions. Considering the limitations, they should, at most, be only one of many tools in the toolbox.

Reconciling the Seemingly Irreconcilable: How Much Are We Spending on Drugs?

BACKGROUND

Estimates of drug spending are often central to the public policy debate on how to manage healthcare spending in the United States. Nevertheless, common estimates of prescription drug spending vary substantially by source, which can inhibit productive policy dialogue.

OBJECTIVES

To review publicly reported estimates of drug spending and uncover the underlying methodological inputs that drive the substantial variation in estimates of prescription drug spending.

METHODS

We systematically evaluated 5 estimates of drug spending to identify differences in the underlying methodological inputs and approaches. To uniformly assess and compare estimates, we developed a model to identify the inputs of 3 primary components associated with each estimate: numerator (How is drug cost measured?), denominator (How is healthcare cost measured?), and population (What group of individuals is included in the measurement?). We then applied standardized methodological inputs to each estimate to assess whether variation among estimates could be reconciled. We then conducted a sensitivity analysis to address important limitations.

RESULTS

We found that the 18.8 percentage point range in the publicly reported estimates is predominately attributed to methodological differences. Reconciling estimates using a standardized methodological approach reduces this range to 4.0 percentage points.

CONCLUSIONS

Because variation in estimates of drug spending is primarily driven by methodological differences, stakeholders should seek to establish a mutually agreed upon methodological approach that is appropriate for the policy question at hand to provide a sound basis for health spending policy discussions.

US care pathways: continued focus on oncology and outstanding challenges

OBJECTIVES

To update an ongoing assessment of care pathway development, implementation, and evaluation, and to evaluate the emerging relationship between care pathways and other components of value-based care.

STUDY DESIGN

Targeted literature review followed by an online survey and in-depth interviews.

METHODS

The PubMed/Cochrane databases and gray literature were searched for publications on care pathways (January 1, 2014, to March 3, 2017); a supplemental targeted search was completed in October 2017. Qualitative data were collected via an online survey and semistructured, in-depth interviews with payers, providers, pathway vendors, and opinion leaders.

RESULTS

A total of 112 articles or posters were identified in recently published research. The survey and interviews included 32 and 19 respondents, respectively. Care pathways are increasingly driven by providers and provider networks. Overall, we found increased awareness of and adherence to codified best practices or standards, and prioritization of high-quality evidence during development. Research findings suggest stronger links between outcomes-based measures and both physician reimbursement and care pathway evaluation. Integration with other value-based care initiatives, including alternative payment models, is also gradually emerging.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified growing use of high standards of evidence and adoption of other best practices in the development, implementation, and evaluation of care pathways. As the influence of care pathways on patient care continues to expand, additional efforts are needed to increase transparency, disclose conflicts of interest, engage with patients, effectively align care pathways with improvements in patient outcomes, and integrate efficiently with other value-based care initiatives.

Value-based arrangements may be more prevalent than assumed

OBJECTIVES

To better understand the prevalence of US value-based payment arrangements (VBAs), their characteristics, and the factors that facilitate their success or act as barriers to their implementation.

STUDY DESIGN

Surveys were administered to a convenience sample of subject matter experts who were senior representatives from payer organizations and biopharmaceutical manufacturers. These data were supplemented with qualitative interviews in a subsample of survey respondents.

METHODS

Descriptive statistics, including percentages for categorical values and mean (SD) and median (interquartile range) for continuous variables, were assessed for quantitative questions. Trained reviewers collated responses to free-text survey questions and the qualitative interviews to identify themes.

RESULTS

Of the 25 respondents, 1 manufacturer and 4 payers reported not having explored or negotiated any VBAs. Subsequently, questionnaire results from 11 biopharmaceutical manufacturers and 9 payers who had experience with VBAs were analyzed. More than 70% of VBAs implemented between 2014 and 2017 were not publicly disclosed. Furthermore, although consideration of VBAs as a coverage and payment tool is increasing, VBA implementation is relatively low, with manufacturers and payers reporting that approximately 33% and 60% of early dialogues translate into signed VBA contracts, respectively. Respondents' reasoning for VBA negotiation process breakdowns generally differed by sector and reflected each sector's respective priorities.

CONCLUSIONS

This study reveals that the majority of VBAs are not publicly disclosed, which could underestimate their true prevalence and impact. Given the effort required to implement a VBA, future arrangements would likely benefit from a framework or other evaluative tool to help assess VBA pursuit desirability and guide the negotiation and implementation process.

Utilization of High-Cost Interventions for Targeted Clinical Conditions During the Early Stages of ACO Development in a Commercially Insured Population

This study compared utilization patterns of high-cost services and medications for patients receiving care from Accountable Care Organization (ACO)-participating physicians and those receiving care from non-ACO physicians during the initial phases of ACO development in a commercially insured environment. Patients ≥18 years (≥40 years for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD]) with prevalent rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, multiple sclerosis, type 2 diabetes, COPD, or chronic low back pain between January 1, 2012, and August 31, 2014 were identified in the HealthCore Integrated Research Database^SM. Patients were assigned to the ACO cohort if their primary treating physician was contracted to the health plan through an ACO agreement. Each clinical condition was stratified for severity of illness. Cohort utilization patterns were compared for the 12-month period following the index encounter. The primary outcome measures show that there was no statistically significant utilization difference between the ACO and non-ACO cohorts for 90% of the 82 comparisons made. It is expected that some measures will achieve significant difference simply because of having this many comparisons, but no clear pattern was identified. This study did not observe statistically significant differences in utilization of high-cost services and medications between ACO and non-ACO cohorts with limited experience in the ACO model. Future analyses with longer study durations, at later stages of ACO development, tracking a more granular level of physician organizational structure, and with designs that integrate clinical and administrative data are essential to better understand the impact of payment innovation strategies using an ACO structure.

Evaluation of person-level heterogeneity of treatment effects in published multiperson N-of-1 studies: systematic review and reanalysis

OBJECTIVE

Individual patients with the same condition may respond differently to similar treatments. Our aim is to summarise the reporting of person-level heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) in multiperson N-of-1 studies and to examine the evidence for person-level HTE through reanalysis.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and reanalysis of multiperson N-of-1 studies.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Cochrane Controlled Trials, EMBASE, Web of Science and review of references through August 2017 for N-of-1 studies published in English.

STUDY SELECTION

N-of-1 studies of pharmacological interventions with at least two subjects.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Citation screening and data extractions were performed in duplicate. We performed statistical reanalysis testing for person-level HTE on all studies presenting person-level data.

RESULTS

We identified 62 multiperson N-of-1 studies with at least two subjects. Statistical tests examining HTE were described in only 13 (21%), of which only two (3%) tested person-level HTE. Only 25 studies (40%) provided person-level data sufficient to reanalyse person-level HTE. Reanalysis using a fixed effect linear model identified statistically significant person-level HTE in 8 of the 13 studies (62%) reporting person-level treatment effects and in 8 of the 14 studies (57%) reporting person-level outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests that person-level HTE is common and often substantial. Reviewed studies had incomplete information on person-level treatment effects and their variation. Improved assessment and reporting of person-level treatment effects in multiperson N-of-1 studies are needed.

The Central Role of Physician Leadership for Driving Change in Value-Based Care Environments

BACKGROUND

In 2013, it was reported that about 1 of every 3 U.S. adults has hypertension. Of these 70 million individuals, approximately 50% have their blood pressure under control. Achieving hypertension control, especially in at-risk populations, requires a multipronged approach that includes lifestyle modifications and pharmacological treatment. As provider groups, hospital systems, and integrated delivery networks optimize their care processes to promote population health activities in support of the accountable care organization (ACO) model of care, managing hypertension and other chronic diseases will be essential to their success. A critical aspect of managing populations in an ACO environment is optimization of care processes among providers to increase care efficiency and improve patient outcomes.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Launched in 2013, Measure Up/Pressure Down is a 3-year campaign developed by the American Medical Group Foundation (AMGF) to reduce the burden of high blood pressure. The goal of the campaign is for participating medical groups, health systems, and other organized systems of care to achieve hypertension control for 80% of their patients with high blood pressure by 2016, according to national standards. The role of physician leadership at Cornerstone Health Care (CHC) and Summit Medical Group (SMG) in facilitating organizational change to improve hypertension management through the implementation of the Measure Up/Pressure Down national hypertension campaign is examined.

OBSERVATIONS

Using patient stratification via its electronic health record, SMG identified 16,000 patients with hypertension. The baseline percentage of hypertension control for this patient population was 66%. Within 7 months, SMG was able to meet the 80% goal set forth by the AMGF's Measure Up/Pressure Down campaign. CHC diagnosed 25,312 patients with hypertension. The baseline percentage of hypertension control for this subgroup of patients was 51.5% when the initiative was first implemented. To date, the organization has achieved 72% hypertension control for at-risk patients and continues work towards the 80% campaign goal. The implementation of the Measure Up/Pressure Down campaign by CHC and SMG provides some valuable lessons. To further explore important aspects of successfully implementing the Measure Up/Pressure Down campaign in real-world settings, 6 key themes were identified that drove quality improvement and may be helpful to other organizations that implement similar quality improvement initiatives: (1) transitioning to value-based payments, (2) creating an environment for success, (3) leveraging program champions, (4) sharing quality data, (5) promoting care team collaboration, and (6) leveraging health information technology.

IMPLICATIONS

The strategies employed by SMG and CHC, such as leveraging data analysis to identify at-risk patients and comparing physician performance, as well as identifying leaders to institute change, can be replicated by an ACO or a managed care organization (MCO). An MCO can provide data analysis services, sparing the provider groups the analytic burden and helping the MCO build a more meaningful relationship with their providers.

DISCLOSURES

No outside funding supported this project. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The authors are members of the Working Group on Optimizing Medication Therapy in Value-Based Healthcare. Odgen is employed by Cornerstone Health Care; Brenner is employed by Summit Medical Group; and Penso is employed by American Medical Group Association. Lustig, Westrich, and Dubois are employed by the National Pharmaceutical Council, an industry-funded health policy research organization that is not involved in lobbying or advocacy. Study concept and design were contributed by Lustig, Penso, Westrich, and Dubois. Lustig, Ogden, Brenner, and Penso collected the data, and data interpretation was performed by all authors. The manuscript was written primarily by Lustig, along with the other authors, and revised by Lustig, Penso, Westrich, and Dubois, assisted by Ogden and Brenner.

Does a One-Size-Fits-All Cost-Sharing Approach Incentivize Appropriate Medication Use? A Roundtable on the Fairness and Ethics Associated with Variable Cost Sharing

BACKGROUND

Tiered formularies, in which patients pay copays or coinsurance out-of-pocket (OOP), are used to manage costs and encourage more efficient health care resource use. Formulary tiers are typically based on the cost of treatment rather than the medical appropriateness for the patient. Cost sharing may have unintended consequences on treatment adherence and health outcomes. Use of higher-cost, higher-tier medications can be due to a variety of factors, including unsuccessful treatment because of lack of efficacy or side effects, patient clinical or genetic characteristics, patient preferences to avoid potential side effects, or patient preferences based on the route of administration. For example, patients with rheumatoid arthritis may be required to fail low-cost generic treatments before obtaining coverage for a higher-tier tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitor for which they would have a larger financial burden. Little is known about stakeholders' views on the acceptability of greater patient cost sharing if the individual patient characteristics lead to the higher-cost treatments.

OBJECTIVE

To identify and discuss the trade-offs associated with variable cost sharing in pharmacy benefits.

METHODS

To discuss the trade-offs associated with variable cost sharing in pharmacy benefits, we convened an expert roundtable of patient, payer, and employer representatives (panelists). Panelists reviewed background white papers, including an ethics framework; actuarial analysis; legal review; and stakeholder perspectives representing health plan, employer, and patient views. Using case studies, panelists were asked to consider (a) when it would be more (or less) acceptable to require higher cost sharing; (b) the optimal distribution of financial burdens across patients, all plan members, and employers; and (c) the existing barriers and potential solutions to align OOP costs with medically appropriate treatments.

RESULTS

Panelists felt it was least acceptable for patients to have greater OOP costs if the use of the higher-cost treatment was due to biological reasons such as step therapy (6 = unacceptable, 9 = neutral, 2 = acceptable) or diagnostic results (5 = unacceptable, 10 = neutral, and 2 = acceptable). In contrast, panelists felt it was more acceptable for patients to pay greater OOP costs when treatment choice was based on preferences to avoid a side-effect risk (1 = unacceptable, 3 = neutral, and 13 = acceptable) or the route/frequency of administration (1 = unacceptable, 1 = neutral, and 15 = acceptable). Five guiding principles emerged from the discussion: When patients have tried lower-cost therapies unsuccessfully, the benefits of higher-cost treatments were certain and significant, the cost difference between treatments was aligned with improved benefits, and penalties due to bad luck were mitigated, then cost-sharing differences should be minimized but not eliminated.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient OOP costs can affect the use of both inappropriate and appropriate medications. This study identified 5 guiding principles to determine when it was more (or less) acceptable for patients with the same or similar conditions to have different OOP costs. Barriers that hinder the alignment of care and patient cost sharing exist. Policies that facilitate the alignment of patient cost sharing with appropriate care are needed.

DISCLOSURES

Funding for this roundtable was provided by the National Pharmaceutical Council (NPC). Graff and Dubois are employed by the NPC. Shih was employed by the NPC at the time of this study. Barker, Dieguez, Sherman, and Larson received consulting fees for participation in this study. Larson also reports receiving grants and other payment from multiple major pharmaceutical manufacturers outside of this study. The NPC employees developed the study design and chose the case studies in collaboration with the white paper authors. The roundtable was facilitated by Dubois, and the meeting summary and manuscript were written by Graff and Shih, with revisions by all roundtable participants. The abstract for this article was previously presented as a poster at the following meetings: Stakeholder perspectives on balancing patient-centeredness and drug costs in the design of pharmacy benefits. Presented at: Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy 27th Annual Meeting & Expo; San Diego, California; April 8, 2015. Considering efficiency and fairness in the design of prescription drug benefits: seeking a balanced approach to improve patient access to medically appropriate medication and manage drug costs. Presented at: AcademyHealth Annual Research Meeting; Minneapolis, Minnesota; June 15, 2015. Study concept and design were contributed by Shih, Dubois, and Graff, along with Barker and Dieguez. Barker and Dieguez took the lead in data collection, assisted by Graff, Shih, and Dubois. Data interpretation was performed by Shih, Larson, Sherman, and Graff, with assistance from Dubois. The manuscript was written and revised by Graff and Shih, with assistance from the other authors.

Why Value Framework Assessments Arrive at Different Conclusions: A Multiple Myeloma Case Study

As the United States transitions from a volume-based health care system to one that rewards value, new frameworks are emerging to help patients, providers, and payers assess the value of medical services and biopharmaceutical products. These value assessment frameworks are intended to support various types of health care decision making. They have the potential to substantially affect patients, whether as tools for shared decision making with their doctors, as an input to care pathways used by providers, or through payer use of the frameworks to make coverage or reimbursement decisions. Prominent among current U.S. value assessment frameworks are those developed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. These frameworks generally reflect the interests and expertise of the organizations that developed them. The evidence, methodology, and intended use differ substantially across frameworks, which can lead to highly variable determinations of value for the same treatment therapy. To demonstrate this variability, we explored how these frameworks assess the value of treatment regimens for multiple myeloma. Cross-framework comparisons of multiple myeloma assessments were conducted, and consistency of findings was examined for 3 case studies. A discussion of the analysis explores why different frameworks arrive at different conclusions, whether those differences are cause for concern, and the resulting implications for framework readiness to support health care decision making.

DISCLOSURES

Funding for this project was provided by the National Pharmaceutical Council. The authors are employees of the National Pharmaceutical Council, an industry-funded health policy research group that is not involved in lobbying or advocacy. Study concept and design were contributed by Westrich and Dubois, along with Buelt. Westrich took the lead in data collection, along with Dubois, and data interpretation was performed by all the authors. The manuscript was written by Westrich and Buelt, along with Dubois, and revised by all the authors.

Improving Oncology Quality Measurement in Accountable Care: Filling Gaps with Cross-Cutting Measures

Payment for health care services, including oncology services, is shifting from volume-based fee-for-service to value-based accountable care. The objective of accountable care is to support providers with flexibility and resources to reform care delivery, accompanied by accountability for maintaining or improving outcomes while lowering costs. These changes depend on health care payers, systems, physicians, and patients having meaningful measures to assess care delivery and outcomes and to balance financial incentives for lowering costs while providing greater value. Gaps in accountable care measure sets may cause missed signals of problems in care and missed opportunities for improvement. Measures to balance financial incentives may be particularly important for oncology, where high cost and increasingly targeted diagnostics and therapeutics intersect with the highly complex and heterogeneous needs and preferences of cancer patients. Moreover, the concept of value in cancer care, defined as the measure of outcomes achieved per costs incurred, is rarely incorporated into performance measurement. This article analyzes gaps in oncology measures in accountable care, discusses challenging measurement issues, and offers strategies for improving oncology measurement. Discern Health analyzed gaps in accountable care measure sets for 10 cancer conditions that were selected based on incidence and prevalence; impact on cost and mortality; a diverse range of high-cost diagnostic procedures and treatment modalities (e.g., genomic tumor testing, molecularly targeted therapies, and stereotactic radiotherapy); and disparities or performance gaps in patient care. We identified gaps by comparing accountable care set measures with high-priority measurement opportunities derived from practice guidelines developed by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and other oncology specialty societies. We found significant gaps in accountable care measure sets across all 10 conditions. For each gap, we searched for available measures not already being used in programs. Where existing measures did not cover gaps, we recommended refinements to existing measures or proposed measures for development. We shared the results of the measure gap analysis with a roundtable of national experts in cancer care and oncology measurement. During a web meeting and an in-person meeting, the roundtable reviewed the gap analysis and identified priority opportunities for improving measurement. The group determined that overreliance on condition-specific process measures is problematic because of rapidly changing evidence and increasing personalization of cancer care. The group's primary recommendation for enhancing measure sets was to prioritize and develop effective cross-cutting measures that assess clinical and patient-reported outcomes, including shared decision making, care planning, and symptom control. The group also prioritized certain safety and structural measures to complement condition-specific process measures. Further, the group explored strategies for using clinical pathways and devising layered measurement approaches to improve measurement for accountable care. This article presents the roundtable's conclusions and recommendations for next steps.

DISCLOSURES

Funding for this project was provided by the National Pharmaceutical Council (NPC). Westrich and Dubois are employees of the NPC. Valuck is a partner with Discern Health. Blaisdell and Dugan are employed by Discern Health. McClellan reports fees for serving on the Johnson & Johnson Board of Directors. Dugan reports consulting fees from the National Committee for Quality Assurance and Pharmacy Quality Alliance. The remaining authors report no relationship or financial interest with any entity that would pose a conflict of interest with the subject matter of this article. Study concept and design were contributed by Blaisdell, Valuck, Dugan, and Westrich. Blaisdell took the lead in data collection, along with Valuck and Dugan, and data interpretation was performed by Valuck, Blaisdell, Westrich, and Dubois. The manuscript was written by Blaisdell, along with Valuck and Dugan, and revised by Valuck, Westrich, Miller, and McClellan.

Using an Electronic Medication Refill System to Improve Provider Productivity in an Accountable Care Setting

BACKGROUND

Even within fully integrated health care systems, primary care providers (PCPs) often lack support for medication management. Because challenges with conducting medication reconciliation, improving adherence, and achieving optimal patient outcomes continue to be prevalent nationally, it is critical that PCPs are provided the resources and support they need to provide high-quality, patient-centered care in an accountable care environment.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group uses a fully electronic medication refill system that allows for a centralized team to manage all incoming requests. Over time, 16 disease-specific protocols were created that allowed the pharmacy team to absorb approximately 80% of incoming refill requests for all enrolled PCPs. The refill clinic assessed all clinic information that a PCP would normally review in order to approve a refill. Tasks performed by the clinical pharmacists included medication reconciliation, dosage adjustment, and coordination of distribution from external mail order and retail pharmacies.

OBSERVATIONS

In 2014, the number of tasks related to refill management reviewed by the refill/medication therapy management service totaled 302,592, resulting in 140,350 refill authorizations and multiple interventions related to medication use. Physicians have estimated that the service provides between 20 and 30 minutes of time savings per day. Assuming an annual PCP salary of around $200,000, 20 to 30 minutes per day would amount to $33 to $50 saved per day per physician. The savings is even higher when time savings from other clinical staff is included.

IMPLICATIONS

The development of this electronic medication refill service has provided the following important lessons: (a) organizations rely on a leader or champion to push through process reforms--this program started with reluctant physicians first to determine best practices; (b) the lack of clinical pharmacist profiles within electronic health records (EHR) is a serious concern, since the creation of these profiles may not be easy or timely; and (c) PCPs working within an EHR environment will quickly embrace the idea of a service that can save them up to 30 minutes per day. With PCPs continuing to take on additional population health management tasks in accountable care organizations, pharmacists can provide workload offsets by meaningfully contributing to medication-related care.

No improvement in the reporting of clinical trial subgroup effects in high-impact general medical journals

BACKGROUND

When subgroup analyses are not correctly analyzed and reported, incorrect conclusions may be drawn, and inappropriate treatments provided. Despite the increased recognition of the importance of subgroup analysis, little information exists regarding the prevalence, appropriateness, and study characteristics that influence subgroup analysis. The objective of this study is to determine (1) if the use of subgroup analyses and multivariable risk indices has increased, (2) whether statistical methodology has improved over time, and (3) which study characteristics predict subgroup analysis.

METHODS

We randomly selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from five high-impact general medical journals during three time periods. Data from these articles were abstracted in duplicate using standard forms and a standard protocol. Subgroup analysis was defined as reporting any subgroup effect. Appropriate methods for subgroup analysis included a formal test for heterogeneity or interaction across treatment-by-covariate groups. We used logistic regression to determine the variables significantly associated with any subgroup analysis or, among RCTs reporting subgroup analyses, using appropriate methodology.

RESULTS

The final sample of 416 articles reported 437 RCTs, of which 270 (62 %) reported subgroup analysis. Among these, 185 (69 %) used appropriate methods to conduct such analyses. Subgroup analysis was reported in 62, 55, and 67 % of the articles from 2007, 2010, and 2013, respectively. The percentage using appropriate methods decreased over the three time points from 77 % in 2007 to 63 % in 2013 (p < 0.05). Significant predictors of reporting subgroup analysis included industry funding (OR 1.94 (95 % CI 1.17, 3.21)), sample size (OR 1.98 per quintile (1.64, 2.40), and a significant primary outcome (OR 0.55 (0.33, 0.92)). The use of appropriate methods to conduct subgroup analysis decreased by year (OR 0.88 (0.76, 1.00)) and was less common with industry funding (OR 0.35 (0.18, 0.70)). Only 33 (18 %) of the RCTs examined subgroup effects using a multivariable risk index.

CONCLUSIONS

While we found no significant increase in the reporting of subgroup analysis over time, our results show a significant decrease in the reporting of subgroup analyses using appropriate methods during recent years. Industry-sponsored trials may more commonly report subgroup analyses, but without utilizing appropriate methods. Suboptimal reporting of subgroup effects may impact optimal physician-patient decision-making.

Evaluating the Importance of Heterogeneity of Treatment Effect: Variation in Patient Utilities Can Influence Choice of the "Optimal" Oral Anticoagulant for Atrial Fibrillation

OBJECTIVES

To investigate heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) for anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation across subgroups defined by 1) clinical characteristics and 2) variation in patient utilities for benefits and harms of treatment.

METHODS

We reanalyzed aggregate data from a published network meta-analysis that compared four anticoagulants for atrial fibrillation (apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban) as well as warfarin. Event rates for stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding were generated for each agent across seven subgroups, and rankings were developed on the basis of clinical performance. Utilities were derived from a national catalog and then applied to generate summary measures of benefit. The choice between any two agents was examined across a range of plausible utility values, defined as the interquartile range for stroke/SE and major bleeding.

RESULTS

Little HTE was apparent in clinical and utility-adjusted analyses. Dabigatran 150 mg produced the lowest rates of stroke/SE, and edoxaban 30 mg had the lowest rate of major bleeding. Greater HTE was observed when utilities were varied across a plausible utility range. For example, among patients 75 years and older, dabigatran 150 mg would be preferred over edoxaban 30 mg when mean utility estimates are used. The preferred agent, however, would change at plausible utility thresholds of 0.6 and 0.7 for major bleeding and stroke/SE, respectively. Nearly 25% of all possible comparisons would see a change in preferred treatment within the plausible utility range.

CONCLUSIONS

The optimal choice of anticoagulant in atrial fibrillation differs across subgroups defined by clinical characteristics and reasonable ranges of utilities.

Employer, Insurer, and Industry Perspectives on Patient-Centered Comparative Effectiveness Research: Final Report

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is an independent, nonprofit, nongovernmental organization authorized under the Affordable Care Act of 2010 and funded by Congress to help close the gaps in research needed to improve key health outcomes. To do this, PCORI identifies critical research questions, funds patient-centered comparative effectiveness research (CER), and strives to disseminate the results in ways that stakeholders, including patients, providers, health insurance purchasers, payers, and industry, will find useful. PCORI commissioned RAND and the National Pharmaceutical Council to conduct an independent study of the health-related decisions, information needs, understanding and use of CER, and opportunities for involvement of these three stakeholder communities in CER. RAND conducted ten telephone and Web-enabled focus groups involving representatives from all three communities. This article describes the key themes emerging from those discussions and presents implications for PCORI's work.

What Contributes Most to High Health Care Costs? Health Care Spending in High Resource Patients

BACKGROUND

U.S. health care spending nearly doubled in the decade from 2000-2010. Although the pace of increase has moderated recently, the rate of growth of health care costs is expected to be higher than the growth in the economy for the near future. Previous studies have estimated that 5% of patients account for half of all health care costs, while the top 1% of spenders account for over 27% of costs. The distribution of health care expenditures by type of service and the prevalence of particular health conditions for these patients is not clear, and is likely to differ from the overall population.

OBJECTIVE

To examine health care spending patterns and what contributes to costs for the top 5% of managed health care users based on total expenditures.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study employed a large administrative claims database analysis of health care claims of managed care enrollees across the full age and care spectrum. Direct health care expenditures were compared during calendar year 2011 by place of service (outpatient, inpatient, and pharmacy), payer type (commercially insured, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid managed care), and therapy area between the full population and high resource patients (HRP).

RESULTS

The mean total expenditure per HRP during calendar year 2011 was $43,104 versus $3,955 per patient for the full population. Treatment of back disorders and osteoarthritis contributed the largest share of expenditures in both HRP and the full study population, while chronic renal failure, heart disease, and some oncology treatments accounted for disproportionately higher expenditures in HRP. The share of overall expenditures attributed to inpatient services was significantly higher for HRP (40.0%) compared with the full population (24.6%), while the share of expenditures attributed to pharmacy (HRP = 18.1%, full = 21.4%) and outpatient services (HRP = 41.9%, full = 54.1%) was reduced. This pattern was observed across payer type. While the use of physician-administered pharmaceuticals was slightly higher in HRP, their use did not alter this spending pattern.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, expenditures in the HRP population are more than 10-fold higher compared with the full population. Managed care pharmacy can benefit from understanding what contributes to these higher costs, and managed care directors should consider an appropriately balanced assessment of the share of total spend by service and therapeutic category in HRP when devising drug usage and related cost-management strategies.

Solutions for filling gaps in accountable care measure sets

OBJECTIVES

A primary objective of accountable care is to support providers in reforming care to improve outcomes and lower costs. Gaps in accountable care measure sets may cause missed opportunities for improvement and missed signals of problems in care. Measures to balance financial incentives may be particularly important for high-cost conditions or specialty treatments. This study explored gaps in measure sets for specific conditions and offers strategies for more comprehensive measurement that do not necessarily require more measures.

STUDY DESIGN

A descriptive analysis of measure gaps in accountable care programs and proposed solutions for filling the gaps.

METHODS

We analyzed gaps in 2 accountable care organization measure sets for 20 high-priority clinical conditions by comparing the measures in those sets with clinical guidelines and assessing the use of outcome measures. Where we identified gaps, we looked for existing measures to address the gaps. Gaps not addressed by existing measures were considered areas for measure development or measurement strategy refinement.

RESULTS

We found measure gaps across all 20 conditions, including those conditions that are commonly addressed in current measure sets. In addition, we found many gaps that could not be filled by existing measures. Results across all 20 conditions informed recommendations for measure set improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Addressing all gaps in accountable care measure sets with more of the same types of measures and approaches to measurement would require an impractical number of measures and would miss the opportunity to use better measures and innovative approaches. Strategies for effectively filling measure gaps include using preferred measure types such as cross-cutting, outcome, and patient-reported measures. Program implementers should also apply new approaches to measurement, including layered and modular models.

Private sector risk-sharing agreements in the United States: trends, barriers, and prospects

OBJECTIVES

Risk-sharing agreements (RSAs) between drug manufacturers and payers link coverage and reimbursement to real-world performance or utilization of medical products. These arrangements have garnered considerable attention in recent years. However, greater use outside the United States raises questions as to why their use has been limited in the US private sector, and whether their use might increase in the evolving US healthcare system.

STUDY DESIGN

To understand current trends, success factors, and challenges in the use of RSAs, we conducted a review of RSAs, interviews, and a survey to understand key stakeholders' experiences and expectations for RSAs in the US private sector.

METHODS

Trends in the numbers of RSAs were assessed using a database of RSAs. We also conducted in-depth interviews with stakeholders from pharmaceutical companies, payer organizations, and industry experts in the United States and European Union. In addition, we administered an online survey with a broader audience to identify perceptions of the future of RSAs in the United States.

RESULTS

Most manufacturers and payers expressed interest in RSAs and see potential value in their use. Due to numerous barriers associated with outcomes-based agreements, stakeholders were more optimistic about financial-based RSAs. In the US private sector, however, there remains considerable interest--improved data systems and shifting incentives (via health reform and accountable care organizations) may generate more action.

CONCLUSIONS

In the US commercial payer markets, there is continued interest among some manufacturers and payers in outcomes-based RSAs. Despite continued discussion and activity, the number of new agreements is still small.

Developing evidence that is fit for purpose: a framework for payer and research dialogue

OBJECTIVES

Matching the supply and demand of evidence requires an understanding of when more evidence is needed, as well as the type of evidence that will meet this need. This article describes efforts to develop and refine a decision-making framework that considers payers' perspectives on the utility of evidence generated by different types of research methods, including real-world evidence.

STUDY DESIGN

Conceptual framework development with subsequent testing during a roundtable dialogue.

METHODS

The framework development process included a literature scan to identify existing frameworks and relevant articles on payer decision making. The framework was refined during a stand-alone roundtable in December 2013 hosted by the research team, which included representatives from public and private payers, pharmacy benefit management, the life sciences industry, and researchers. The roundtable discussion also included an application of the framework to 3 case studies.

RESULTS

Application of the framework to the clinical scenarios and the resulting discussion provided key insights into when new evidence is needed to inform payer decision making and what questions should be addressed. Payers are not necessarily seeking more evidence about treatment efficacy; rather, they are seeking more evidence for relevant end points that illustrate the differences between treatment alternatives that can justify the resources required to change practice. In addition, payers are interested in obtaining new evidence that goes beyond efficacy, with an emphasis on effectiveness, longer-term safety, and delivery system impact.

CONCLUSIONS

We believe that our decision-making framework is a useful tool to increase dialogue between evidence generators and payers, while also allowing for greater efficiency in the research process.

Clinical evidence inputs to comparative effectiveness research could impact the development of novel treatments

Aim: This study aims to analyze the impacts of a range of clinical evidence generation scenarios associated with comparative effectiveness research (CER) on pharmaceutical innovation. Materials & methods: We used the Global Pharmaceutical Policy Model to project the effect of changes in pharmaceutical producer costs, revenues and timings on drug innovation and health for the age 55+ populations in the USA and Europe through year 2060 using three clinical scenarios. Results: Changes in producer incentives from widespread CER evidence generation and use had varied but often large predicted impacts on simulated outcomes in 2060. Effect on the number of new drug introductions ranged from a 81.1% reduction to a 45.5% increase, and the effect on population-level life expectancy ranged from a 15.6% reduction to a 11.4% increase compared to baseline estimates. Conclusion: The uncertainty surrounding the consequences of increased clinical evidence generation and use on innovation calls for a carefully measured approach to CER implementation, balancing near-term benefits to spending and health with long-term implications for innovation.

Best practices: an electronic drug alert program to improve safety in an accountable care environment

BACKGROUND

The accountable care organization (ACO), one of the most promising and talked about new models of care, focuses on improving communication and care transitions by tying potential shared savings to specific clinical and financial benchmarks. An important factor in meeting these benchmarks is an ACO's ability to manage medications in an environment where medical and pharmacy care has been integrated. The program described in this article highlights the critical components of Marshfield Clinic's Drug Safety Alert Program (DSAP), which focuses on prioritizing and communicating safety issues related to medications with the goal of reducing potential adverse drug events.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Once the medication safety concern is identified, it is reviewed to evaluate whether an alert warrants sending prescribers a communication that identifies individual patients or a general communication to all physicians describing the safety concern. Instead of basing its decisions regarding clinician notification about drug alerts on subjective criteria, the Marshfield Clinic's DSAP uses an internally developed scoring system. The scoring system includes criteria developed from previous drug alerts, such as level of evidence, size of population affected, severity of adverse event identified or targeted, litigation risk, available alternatives, and potential for duration of medication use. Each of the 6 criteria is assigned a weight and is scored based upon the content and severity of the alert received. 

OBSERVATIONS

In its first 12 months, the program targeted 6 medication safety concerns involving the following medications: topiramate, glyburide, simvastatin, citalopram, pioglitazone, and lovastatin. Baseline and follow-up prescribing data were gathered on the targeted medications. Follow-up review of prescribing data demonstrated that the DSAP provided quality up-to-date safety information that led to changes in drug therapy and to decreases in potential adverse drug events. In aggregate, nearly 10,000 total potential adverse drug events were identified with baseline data from the DSAP initiatives, and nearly 8,000 were resolved by changes in prescribing. 

IMPLICATIONS

Implications and additional thoughts from The Working Group on Optimizing Medication Therapy in Value-Based Healthcare were provided for the following categories: leveraging electronic health records, importance of data collection and reassessment, preventing alert fatigue utilizing various techniques, relevance to ACO quality measurement, and limitations of a retrospective system.

RECOMMENDATIONS

While health information technologies have been recognized as a cornerstone for an ACO's success, additional research is needed on comparing these types of technological innovations. Future research should focus on reviewing comparable scoring criteria and alert systems utilized in a variety of ACOs. In addition, an examination of different data mining procedures used within different electronic health record platforms would prove useful to ACOs looking to improve the care of not only the subpopulations with specific metrics associated with them, but their patient population as a whole. The authors also highlight the need for additional research on health information exchanges, including the cost and resource requirements needed to successfully participate in these types of networks.

The Affordable Care Act: how can we know whether the intended consequences are occurring and the unintended ones are being avoided?

When the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was signed into law on March 23, 2010, policymakers intended that it would improve access to care by lowering the uninsured rate, improve health care quality, and lower costs. Now, 4 years later, researchers and policymakers need to ask whether those intentions have been realized or whether the ACA has produced unintended consequences that affect patient care. This article raises the importance of assessing what changes in patient access and clinical care have occurred, points out how challenging those assessments may be to conduct, and concludes with a call to action about how those challenges might be addressed.

Best practices: improving patient outcomes and costs in an ACO through comprehensive medication therapy management

BACKGROUND

One of the most important and often overlooked challenges for accountable care organizations (ACOs) is ensuring the optimal use of pharmaceuticals, which can be accomplished by utilizing pharmacists' skillsets and leveraging their full clinical expertise. Developing capabilities that support, monitor, and ensure appropriate medication use, efficacy, and safety is critical to achieving optimal patient outcomes and, ultimately, to an ACO's success. The program described in this article highlights the best practices of Fairview Pharmacy Services' Medication Therapy Management (MTM) program with additional thoughts and considerations on this and similar MTM programs provided by The Working Group on Optimizing Medication Therapy in Value-Based Healthcare.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Fairview Pharmacy Services utilizes 23 MTM pharmacists (approximately 18 full-time equivalents) working in 30 locations, who conduct pharmacotherapy workups as part of the MTM services that Fairview provides. Pharmacists focus on patients in a comprehensive manner and assess all of their diseases and medications. Responsibilities include (a) identification of a patient's drug-related needs with a commitment to meet those needs; (b) an assessment and confirmation that all of a patient's drug therapy is appropriately indicated, effective and safe, and that the patient is compliant; (c) achievement of therapy outcomes and ensuring documentation of those outcomes; and (d) collaboration with all members of a patient's care team.

OBSERVATIONS

Since 1998, pharmacists have cared for more than 20,000 patients and resolved more than 107,000 medication-related problems which, if left unresolved, could have led to hospital readmissions and emergency visits. Since becoming a Pioneer ACO, Fairview pharmacists have focused on the highest-risk members and have seen over 670 ACO patients, resolving over 2,780 medication-related problems. In terms of clinical outcomes, MTM contributed to optimal care in complex patients with diabetes. A review of 2007 data found that the percentage of diabetes patients optimally managed (as measured by a composite of hemoglobin A1c, low-density lipoprotein, blood pressure, aspirin use, and no smoking) was significantly higher for MTM patients (21% vs. 45%, P < 0.01). The Fairview MTM also showed a 12:1 return on investment (ROI) when comparing the overall health care costs of patients receiving MTM services with patients who did not receive those services.

IMPLICATIONS

Developing an MTM program to manage and optimize pharmaceuticals will be a cornerstone to managing the health of a population. Important lessons have been learned that may be helpful to other health systems developing MTM programs. In an accountable care environment measuring the return on the investment of all care interventions, including MTM will be essential to maintain the program. The ACO will also have to be able to correctly identify which patients are candidates for MTM services and provide pharmacists with enough autonomy, including scheduling face-to-face interactions with patients and the ability to change prescriptions if necessary, to ensure that timely and effective care is delivered. In order for an ACO to deliver high quality patient-centered medication services, there must be clear lines of communication between providers, pharmacists, and the other care providers within the organization. Finally, a strong and visionary leader is critical to ensuring the success of an MTM program and ultimately the ACO itself.

RECOMMENDATIONS

While there is a plethora of literature touting the benefits of either in-person or telephonic-based MTM, there is little research to date that directly compares these 2 MTM delivery types. It is critical for research to address the direct and indirect costs associated with starting and maintaining an MTM program. Information such as technologies required to start a program and length of time until a program breaks even or meets a sufficient ROI can be helpful for health care providers in similar health systems pitching a similar type of program. Finally, there has yet to be significant empirical research into the cost savings of utilizing a pharmacist and MTM services associated with meeting quality and cost benchmarks in an accountable care payment arrangement.

Best Practices: Improving Patient Outcomes and Costs in an ACO Through Comprehensive Medication Therapy Management

BACKGROUND

One of the most important and often overlooked challenges for accountable care organizations (ACOs) is ensuring the optimal use of pharmaceuticals, which can be accomplished by utilizing pharmacists' skillsets and leveraging their full clinical expertise. Developing capabilities that support, monitor, and ensure appropriate medication use, efficacy, and safety is critical to achieving optimal patient outcomes and, ultimately, to an ACO's success. The program described in this article highlights the best practices of Fairview Pharmacy Services' Medication Therapy Management (MTM) program with additional thoughts and considerations on this and similar MTM programs provided by The Working Group on Optimizing Medication Therapy in Value-Based Healthcare.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Fairview Pharmacy Services utilizes 23 MTM pharmacists (approximately 18 full-time equivalents) working in 30 locations, who conduct pharmacotherapy workups as part of the MTM services that Fairview provides. Pharmacists focus on patients in a comprehensive manner and assess all of their diseases and medications. Responsibilities include (a) identification of a patient's drug-related needs with a commitment to meet those needs; (b) an assessment and confirmation that all of a patient's drug therapy is appropriately indicated, effective and safe, and that the patient is compliant; (c) achievement of therapy outcomes and ensuring documentation of those outcomes; and (d) collaboration with all members of a patient's care team.

OBSERVATIONS

Since 1998, pharmacists have cared for more than 20,000 patients and resolved more than 107,000 medication-related problems which, if left unresolved, could have led to hospital readmissions and emergency visits. Since becoming a Pioneer ACO, Fairview pharmacists have focused on the highest-risk members and have seen over 670 ACO patients, resolving over 2,780 medication-related problems. In terms of clinical outcomes, MTM contributed to optimal care in complex patients with diabetes. A review of 2007 data found that the percentage of diabetes patients optimally managed (as measured by a composite of hemoglobin A1c, low-density lipoprotein, blood pressure, aspirin use, and no smoking) was significantly higher for MTM patients (21% vs. 45%, P  less than  0.01). The Fairview MTM also showed a 12:1 return on investment (ROI) when comparing the overall health care costs of patients receiving MTM services with patients who did not receive those services. 

IMPLICATIONS

Developing an MTM program to manage and optimize pharmaceuticals will be a cornerstone to managing the health of a population. Important lessons have been learned that may be helpful to other health systems developing MTM programs. In an accountable care environment measuring the return on the investment of all care interventions, including MTM will be essential to maintain the program. The ACO will also have to be able to correctly identify which patients are candidates for MTM services and provide pharmacists with enough autonomy, including scheduling face-to-face interactions with patients and the ability to change prescriptions if necessary, to ensure that timely and effective care is delivered. In order for an ACO to deliver high quality patient-centered medication services, there must be clear lines of communication between providers, pharmacists, and the other care providers within the organization. Finally, a strong and visionary leader is critical to ensuring the success of an MTM program and ultimately the ACO itself.

RECOMMENDATIONS

While there is a plethora of literature touting the benefits of either in-person or telephonic-based MTM, there is little research to date that directly compares these 2 MTM delivery types. It is critical for research to address the direct and indirect costs associated with starting and maintaining an MTM program. Information such as technologies required to start a program and length of time until a program breaks even or meets a sufficient ROI can be helpful for health care providers in similar health systems pitching a similar type of program. Finally, there has yet to be significant empirical research into the cost savings of utilizing a pharmacist and MTM services associated with meeting quality and cost benchmarks in an accountable care payment arrangement.

Individual treatment effects: implications for research, clinical practice, and policy

Funding for comparative effectiveness research (CER) has focused attention on what treatments work best under what specific clinical circumstances, and for whom. Because not all patients respond in the same way, treatment decisions, clinical guidelines, and coverage policies applied in a "one-size-fits-all" fashion based upon the population "average" response may lead to suboptimal outcomes. Existing frameworks focus on why patients respond differently to treatments. We propose a framework that identifies when these differences are likely to be clinically important. Scenarios are presented in which it may be most critical for clinical decisions and policies to distinguish between the average and the individual patient so that treatment recommendations provide the greatest benefits for the largest number of patients. We provide recommendations for researchers to help identify issues to study, for providers to help assist them in recommending optimal treatment for individual patients, and for payers or public health bodies to help balance societal needs with those of the individual.

When is evidence sufficient for decision-making? A framework for understanding the pace of evidence adoption

Translation of medical evidence into practice has not kept pace with the growth of medical technology and knowledge. We present three case studies--statins, drug eluting stents and bone marrow transplantation for breast cancer--to propose a framework for describing five factors that may influence the rate of adoption. The factors are: validity, reliability and maturity of the science available before widespread adoption; communication of the science; economic drivers; patients' and physicians' ability to apply published scientific findings to their specific clinical needs; and incorporation into practice guidelines.

The value of specialty pharmaceuticals - a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Novel specialty biopharmaceuticals hold promise for patients living with complex and chronic conditions. However, high research and development costs, special handling, and other necessary enhancements to patient support programs all contribute to frequently higher prices for these products. This study sought to assess the value of specialty pharmaceuticals through an examination of the clinical, functional, and economic benefits of these treatments for the top 3 disease areas by pharmaceutical spend: rheumatoid arthritis (RA), multiple sclerosis (MS), and breast cancer (BC).

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic literature review.

METHODS

A systematic review of market research and cost-effectiveness articles was conducted for each disease area to assess clinical, functional, and economic outcomes associated with specialty medicine treatments versus the previous standard of care.

RESULTS

All RA clinical (American College of Rheumatology) and functional (Health Assessment Questionnaire) outcome articles were classified as positive. The median cost-effectiveness ratio was $38,900 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). All MS clinical outcome (relapse rate) articles were positive. The MS functional outcome (Expanded Disability Status Scale) findings were less conclusive. The median cost-effectiveness ratio was $248,000 per QALY. The majority of BC articles yielded statistically inconclusive results for survival. All functional outcome (Quality of Life Questionnaire- Core 30) articles were positive. The median cost-effectiveness ratio was $51,900 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Novel specialty therapies hold promise for arresting disease progression and improving quality of life for the 3 conditions associated with the highest specialty pharmaceutical spend. These findings demonstrate a strong value proposition for specialty pharmaceuticals, and suggest even greater potential individual patient benefit with consideration of patient heterogeneity.

Are ACOs ready to be accountable for medication use?

BACKGROUND

Accountable care organizations (ACOs) have the potential to lower costs and improve quality through incentives and coordinated care. However, the design brings with it many new challenges. One such challenge is the optimal use of pharmaceuticals. Most ACOs have not yet focused on this integral facet of care, even though medications are a critical component to achieving the lower costs and improved quality that are anticipated with this new model.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether ACOs are prepared to maximize the value of medications for achieving quality benchmarks and cost offsets.

METHODS

During the fall of 2012, an electronic readiness self-assessment was developed using a portion of the questions and question methodology from the National Survey of Accountable Care Organizations, along with original questions developed by the authors. The assessment was tested and subsequently revised based on feedback from pilot testing with 5 ACO representatives. The revised assessment was distributed via e-mail to a convenience sample (n=175) of ACO members of the American Medical Group Association, Brookings-Dartmouth ACO Learning Network, and Premier Healthcare Alliance.

RESULTS

The self-assessment was completed by 46 ACO representatives (26% response rate). ACOs reported high readiness to manage medications in a few areas, such as transmitting prescriptions electronically (70%), being able to integrate medical and pharmacy data into a single database (54%), and having a formulary in place that encourages generic use when appropriate (50%). However, many areas have substantial room for improvement with few ACOs reporting high readiness. Some notable areas include being able to quantify the cost offsets and hence demonstrate the value of appropriate medication use (7%), notifying a physician when a prescription has been filled (9%), having protocols in place to avoid medication duplication and polypharmacy (17%), and having quality metrics in place for a broad diversity of conditions (22%).

CONCLUSIONS

Developing the capabilities to support, monitor, and ensure appropriate medication use will be critical to achieve optimal patient outcomes and ACO success. The ACOs surveyed have embarked upon an important journey towards this goal, but critical gaps remain before they can become fully accountable. While many of these organizations have begun adopting health information technologies that allow them to maximize the value of medications for achieving quality outcomes and cost offsets, a significant lag was identified in their inability to use these technologies to their full capacities. In order to provide further guidance, the authors have begun documenting case studies for public release that would provide ACOs with examples of how certain medication issues have been addressed by ACOs or relevant organizations. The authors hope that these case studies will help ACOs optimize the value of pharmaceuticals and achieve the "triple aim" of improving care, health, and cost.

Interview: A private sector life in comparative effectiveness research. Interview with Robert W Dubois

Robert W Dubois joined the National Pharmaceutical Council (Washington, DC, USA) in October 2010 as its Chief Science Officer. In this role, he oversees the National Pharmaceutical Council's research on policy issues related to comparative effectiveness research, as well as on how health outcomes are valued. Dr Dubois has cofounded and led various healthcare research organizations in developing quality research with practical application. Throughout his career, Dr Dubois' primary interest has centered on defining 'what works' in healthcare and finding ways for that evidence to inform healthcare decision-making. He is a recognized expert in the areas of defining best practice, disease management and appropriateness of care. He has authored more than 100 peer-reviewed articles on comparative effectiveness, evidence-based medicine, the development of practice guidelines and determining the optimal use of high-cost medical services. Dr Dubois received his AB from Harvard College (MA, USA), his MD from the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine (MD, USA) and his PhD in Health Policy from the RAND Graduate School (CA, USA). In addition, he is the associate editor of the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research and is on the editorial board for Health Affairs.

Transparency in evidence evaluation and formulary decision-making: from conceptual development to real-world implementation

OBJECTIVE

Establishing a better understanding of the relationship between evidence evaluation and formulary decision-making has important implications for patients, payers, and providers. The goal of our study was to develop and test a structured approach to evidence evaluation to increase clarity, consistency, and transparency in formulary decision-making.

STUDY DESIGN

The study comprised three phases. First, an expert panel identified key constructs to formulary decision-making and created an evidence-assessment tool. Second, with the use of a balanced incomplete block design, the tool was validated by a large group of decision-makers. Third, the tool was pilot-tested in a real-world P&T committee environment.

METHODS

An expert panel identified key factors associated with formulary access by rating the level of access that they would give a drug in various hypothetical scenarios. These findings were used to formulate an evidence-assessment tool that was externally validated by surveying a larger sample of decision-makers. Last, the tool was pilot-tested in a real-world environment where P&T committees used it to review new drugs.

RESULTS

Survey responses indicated that a structured approach in the formulary decision-making process could yield greater clarity, consistency, and transparency in decision-making; however, pilot-testing of the structured tool in a real-world P&T committee environment highlighted some of the limitations of our structured approach.

CONCLUSION

Although a structured approach to formulary decision-making is beneficial for patients, health care providers, and other stakeholders, this benefit was not realized in a real-world environment. A method to improve clarity, consistency, and transparency is still needed.

Heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) in stage IV prostate cancer (S4PC)

180

Background: HTE occurs when individual patient factors modify a treatment’s effect on health outcomes in a non-random and predictable manner. HTE results in specific subgroups of patients in the same study having different responses to the same treatment due to interactions between their individual factors and the treatment. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted of articles published between 1946 and 2011. Inclusion criteria required that articles examine the impact of HTE factors on survival outcomes (OS, TTP, PFS) or QOL among S4PC patients, in the context of a specific treatment. The quality of evidence was graded as good, fair or poor, per AHRQ guidelines. Results: The search identified 2,659 articles of which 92 met study inclusion criteria. Most articles (46%) were post-hoc analyses of randomized clinical trials. PC treatments included chemotherapy, radiation, hormonal therapy (74%) and bone-modifying agents. HTE in S4PC was identified for both biologic and non-biologic factors. Factors related to clinical signs/symptoms, laboratory tests and disease severity have been extensively studied in the literature (Table). Age and race seldom showed any correlation with PC outcomes. Conclusions: Current evidence reveals diverse factors contributing to HTE in S4PC. Ultimately, such knowledge can help oncologists prescribe more personalized medicine, help patients make more informed treatment choices, and inform policy making and treatment coverage decisions. [Table: see text]

Imputing productivity gains from clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

To respond to employer and payer interest in the extent to which productivity gains offset therapy costs by identifying clinical trials that did not include such measures and using their clinical data to impute productivity impact.

METHODS

A PubMed search identified the sample of 25 clinical trials of musculoskeletal pain medications and antidepressants. Next, we applied regression coefficients, quantifying the empirical relationship between clinical measures to each trial's clinical outcomes data. This validated methodology provides estimates of Work Limitations Questionnaire Productivity Loss scores.

RESULTS

Based on imputation, musculoskeletal medications and antidepressants achieved median productivity gains of approximately 0.5% and 1.0%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Accounting for productivity gains based on the Work Limitations Questionnaire could substantially influence cost-effectiveness results reported in the health economics literature.