No abstract

No abstract

The shift to a value-based health care system has incentivized providers to implement strategies that improve population health outcomes while minimizing downstream costs. Given their accessibility and expanded clinical care models, community pharmacists are well positioned to join interdisciplinary care teams to advance efforts in effectively managing the health of populations. In this Viewpoints article, we discuss the expanded role of community pharmacists and potential barriers limiting the uptake of these services. We then explore strategies to integrate, leverage, and sustain these services in a value-based economy.Although community pharmacists have great potential to improve population health outcomes because of their accessibility and clinical interventions that have demonstrated improved outcomes, pharmacists are not recognized as merit-based incentive eligible providers and, as a result, may be underutilized in this role. Additional barriers include lack of formal billing codes, which limits patient access to services such as hormonal contraception; fragmentation of Medicare, which prevents alignment of medical and pharmaceutical costs; and continued fee-for-service payment models, which do not incentivize quality.Despite these barriers, there are several opportunities for continued pharmacist involvement in new care models such as patient-centered medical homes (PCMH), accountable care organizations, and other valuebased payment models. Community pharmacists integrated within PCMHs have demonstrated improved hemoglobin A1c, blood pressure control, and immunization rates. Likewise, other integrated, value-based models that used community pharmacists to provide medication therapy management services have reported a positive return on investment in overall health care costs. To uphold these efforts and effectively leverage community pharmacist services, we recommend the following: (a) recognition of pharmacists as providers to facilitate full participation in performance-based models, (b) increased integration of pharmacists in emerging delivery and payment models with rapid cycle testing to further clarify the role and value of pharmacists, and (c) enhanced collaborative relationships between pharmacists and other providers to improve interdisciplinary care.

BACKGROUND: As healthcare reimbursement shifts from being volume to value-focused, new delivery models aim to coordinate care and improve quality. The patientcentered medical home (PCMH) model is one such model that aims to deliver coordinated, accessible healthcare to improve outcomes and decrease costs. It is unclear how the types of delivery systems in which PCMHs operate differentially impact outcomes. We aim to describe economic, utilization, quality, clinical, and patient satisfaction outcomes resulting from PCMH interventions operating within integrated delivery and finance systems (IDFS), government systems including Veterans Administration, and non-integrated delivery systems. METHODS: We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase from 2004 to 2017. Observational studies and clinical trials occurring within the USA that met PCMH criteria (as defined by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality), addressed ambulatory adults, and reported utilization, economic, clinical, processes and quality of care, or patient satisfaction outcomes. RESULTS: Sixty-four studies were included. Twenty-four percent were within IDFS, 29% were within government systems, and 47% were within non-IDFS. IDFS studies reported decreased emergency department use, primary care use, and cost relative to other systems after PCMH implementation. Government systems reported increased primary care use relative to other systems after PCMH implementation. Clinical outcomes, processes and quality of care, and patient satisfaction were assessed heterogeneously or infrequently. DISCUSSION: Published articles assessing PCMH interventions generally report improved outcomes related to utilization and cost. IDFS and government systems exhibit different outcomes relative to non-integrated systems, demonstrating that different health systems and populations may be particularly sensitive to PCMH interventions. Both the definition of PCMH interventions and outcomes measured are heterogeneous, limiting the ability to perform direct comparisons or meta-analysis.

Objective: The objective of this study was to describe national changes in utilization and associated costs of antidiabetic medications in the United States from 2014 to 2019, across different drug classes and insurance plans. Research Design and Methods: This retrospective, cross-sectional study examined administrative claims from a large national pharmacy benefits manager from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2019. Patients aged 18 years and above enrolled in commercial, Medicare, or Medicaid health plans who filled ≥1 prescription claim for an antidiabetic medication(s) during the 6-year period were included. Utilization was examined as the total number of 30-day adjusted prescription fills per user per month (PUPM). Gross costs were calculated as the sum of plan costs (net of rebates) and member out-of-pocket costs. Differences in mean utilization and costs PUPM between 2014 and 2019 for each medication class were calculated. Results: The final analytic sample increased from 745,290 patients in 2014 to 1,596,006 in 2019. Antidiabetic medication utilization increased by 8.8% from 2014 to 2019, driven by increases in sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (48.7%; P<0.001), glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (11.8%; P<0.001), insulin (8.1%; P<0.001), and metformin (2.9%; P<0.05) utilization. Average costs PUPM rose 47.5% (P<0.001), from $126.52 in 2014 to $186.58 in 2019. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists, and combination drugs contributed significantly to these increased costs, with 6-year cost differences of 57.3%, 46.9%, and 47.2%, respectively (all P<0.001). Conclusion: Our study demonstrates a shift in antidiabetic medication class utilization from 2014 to 2019, where associated costs net of rebates significantly increased to a disproportionately greater extent than the significant increase in utilization PUPM.

Introduction Value-based contracts (VBCs) that link drug payments to disease-related performance metrics aim to increase the value and lower the cost of medications by aligning incentives and sharing risk between payers and pharmaceutical manufacturers. This study sought to identify outcome measures that are meaningful to key stakeholders to inform VBCs for coronary artery disease (CAD) medications. Methods We administered a modified Delphi survey to gather expert opinion from a diverse panel of patients ( n = 9), cardiologists ( n = 4), primary care physicians ( n = 5), payers ( n = 2), pharmacy benefits managers ( n = 3), and pharmaceutical company representatives ( n = 2). A list of 16 CAD-associated clinical indicators was generated from the literature and expert consultation. Delphi participants rated the importance of each outcome on a five-point Likert scale, and selected the three most meaningful outcomes. We defined consensus as ≥ 75% agreement on the importance of an outcome (Likert scores 4 or 5 or selection of an outcome as most meaningful). Results Eleven of 13 outcomes reached consensus for importance on the Likert scale. “Preventing heart attacks” was selected as the most meaningful outcome (80%) while “preventing death” ranked second (76%). Conclusions Our study results verify the utility of a widely used clinical CAD outcome measure, myocardial infarction events, for the purpose of pharmaceutical value-based contracting. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s40119-019-0132-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

BACKGROUND: Value-based contracts link medication payments to performance measures with the ultimate goal of lowering costs while improving patient outcomes. Previous multiple sclerosis (MS) value-based contracts have focused on indicators easily collected from claims or electronic health record data as their value-based outcomes, even though numerous other MS clinical indicators of interest exist. Uncertainty remains regarding which MS indicators are most meaningful to all stakeholders affected by a value-based contract. OBJECTIVE: To identify meaningful MS indicators among key stakeholders for the purpose of informing a value-based contract for MS medications.METHODS: Using a modified Delphi method, we surveyed 26 diverse stakeholders, including 8 patients and caregivers; 9 providers (neurologists, nurses, physician assistants, and specialty pharmacists); 2 pharmaceutical company representatives; 5 payers; and 2 pharmacy benefits managers. A list of 12 MS indicators was created from subject matter expert consultation and a literature review. All stakeholders reported on the meaningfulness and value of these 12 indicators through a 5-point Likert scale and forced selection of the 3 most meaningful indicators. All nonpatient stakeholders were additionally surveyed on collection feasibility of the same 12 indicators using a 5-point Likert scale. We defined consensus as ≥ 75% agreement on the meaningfulness and feasibility of an indicator (Likert scores 4 or 5). We performed a Fisher's exact test to assess differences between nonpatient and patient stakeholder rankings of indicators. RESULTS: Consensus was reached for at least 1 indicator for all questions after 2 rounds. "Worsening physical disability" and "functional impairment" achieved 92% agreement on a Likert-scale question assessing indicator value, and 100% of participants selected "worsening physical disability" when asked to choose the 3 most meaningful indicators. "MS flares requiring an emergency department visit" and "MS flares requiring inpatient admission" were rated as the 2 most feasibly collected indicators (both received 89% agreement).CONCLUSIONS: Using the Delphi method, we identified that disability and functional impairment are meaningful MS indicators to diverse stakeholders. These findings support the incorporation of important patient-reported outcomes into value-based contracts for MS medications.