This multicenter longitudinal study found that 40% of ARDS survivors reported at least one post-discharge hospitalization during 12-month follow-up. Few patient- or ICU-related variables were associated with hospitalization; however, physical, psychiatric, and quality of life measures at 6-month follow-up were associated with subsequent hospitalization. Interventions to reduce post-ARDS morbidity may be important to improve patient outcomes and reduce healthcare utilization.

Although limited by few data, this review suggests that multiple antidepressant classes are potentially efficacious in the treatment of depression in PD, but that further comparative efficacy and tolerability research is needed.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

The high prices of specialty pharmaceuticals are causing some public programs to ration care and many private insurers, including Medicare drug plans, to place specialty drugs on high cost-sharing tiers. As a result, access to these drugs is often restricted, and only a small portion of the population with a disease may receive treatment. This concern has generated a wide range of proposed solutions. We conducted a literature review and identified 52 solutions in the peer-reviewed literature that we classified into five broad categories: revising the patent system, encouraging research to increase development of new drugs, altering pharmaceutical regulation, decreasing market demand, and developing innovative pricing strategies. We discuss the rationale for these five approaches and summarize the proposed solutions. We also discuss four empirical issues that are particularly important in any discussion of policy options.

Objective. The present study was undertaken to investigate whether Latina and African American women with arthritis-related knee pain and primary care providers who treat them believe their treatment decisions would benefit from having more information about the impact of treatment on their quality of life, medical care costs, and work productivity.Methods. We conducted 4 focus groups of Latina and African American women over age 45 years who had knee pain. We also conducted 2 focus groups with primary care providers who treated Latina and African American women for knee pain. The participants were recruited from the community. They were asked their opinions about a decision tool that presented information on a range of treatment options and their impacts on quality of life, medical care costs, and work productivity. They were asked whether providing this information would help them make better treatment decisions. We analyzed the focus group transcripts using ATLAS.ti.Results. We found that minority women and primary care providers endorsed the use of a decision-making tool that provided information of the impact of treatment on quality of life, medical care costs, and work productivity. Providers felt that patients would benefit from having the additional information but were concerned about its complexity and some patients' ability to comprehend the information.Conclusion. Latina and African American women could make more informed treatment decisions for their knee pain using a decision-making tool that provides them with significant information about how various treatment options may impact their quality of life, medical care costs, and workforce productivity.

Using dual-entitlement theory as the guide, we conducted a survey of economists from the National Bureau of Economic Research asking them a series of questions about the fairness of drug prices in the United States. Public opinion surveys have repeatedly shown that the public perceives drug prices to be unfair, but economists trained in laws of supply and demand may have different perceptions. Three hundred and ten senior economists responded to our survey. Forty-five percent agreed that drug prices were unfair when people, specifically low-income individuals, could not afford their prescription medications. Sixty-five percent oppose a dollar threshold, or upper limit, on drug prices. The economists recommend the most promising policy change would be to provide the government additional negotiating power and price controls would moderately impact investment in pharmaceutical research and development.

BackgroundHigh drug spending is a concern for policy makers due to limits on access for patients. Numerous policies have been proposed to address high drug spending. The existence of multifarious proposals makes it difficult for policy makers to consider all the alternatives. We developed an approach to select the most viable options to present to policy makers.MethodsWe identified 41 different proposals in the peer-reviewed literature to reduce the level of spending or change the incentives for branded prescription drugs; ten of which we identified as promising proposals. Based on criterion used to assess various legislative proposals regarding branded pharmaceuticals we developed a framework to evaluate the ten promising proposals. We then used a modified Delphi technique to iteratively evaluate these ten proposals starting with the initial criterion. During each iteration, five researchers independently evaluated the ten policies based on available criterion and assessed how to modify the criterion to achieve consensus on what attributes the criterion were intended to measure. We highlight areas of disagreement to show where modifications to existing criterion are needed.ResultsWe found general agreement for most policy-criterion combinations after three iterations. Areas with the greatest remaining disagreement include possible unintended consequences, the concept of value implied by many of the policies, and secondary effects by the pharmaceutical industry, insurers, and the FDA.ConclusionsOur analysis provides an approach that can be applied to evaluate policy proposals. It also suggests factors that policy analysts and researchers should consider when they propose policy options and where additional research is needed to assess policy impacts. Developing an objective approach to compare alternatives may facilitate the adoption of policies for branded prescription drugs in the U.S. by allowing policy makers to focus on the most viable options.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s40545-017-0115-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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