Changing the Way We Pay for Health Care: Is Value the New Plastic?

DISCLOSURES: Navarro is a clinical professor in the College of Pharmacy at the University of Florida, Gainesville, and is an assistant editor with the Journal of Managed Care and Specialty Pharmacy. Navarro reports consulting fees from Analysis Group, Amgen, Novartis, and Allergan.

Performance-Based Risk-Sharing Arrangements: U.S. Payer Experience.

BACKGROUND: As a result of global concern about rising drug costs, many U.S. payers and European agencies such as the National Health Service have partnered with pharmaceutical companies in performance-based risk-sharing arrangements (PBRSAs) by which manufacturers share financial risk with health care purchasing entities and authorities. However, PBRSAs present many administrative and legal challenges that have minimized successful contract experiences in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To (a) identify drug and disease characteristics and contract components that contribute to successful PBRSA experiences and the primary barriers to PBRSA execution and (b) explore solutions to facilitate contract negotiation and execution. METHODS: A 37-item, web-based survey instrument (Qualtrics), approximately 20 minutes in duration, was open during July and August 2016. The survey was emailed to 90 pharmacy and medical directors of various health care organizations. Statistical analysis included the Kruskal-Wallis test and chi-square tests to examine differences among payer responses. Survey responses were anonymized and data were aggregated. RESULTS: Twenty-seven individuals completed the survey (30% completion rate). The majority of respondents worked for regional health plans (52%, n = 14), covering at least 1 million lives (63%, n = 17), with at least 7 years of managed care experience (81%, n = 22). A total of 51 PBRSAs were active among respondents at the time of the survey. Easily obtainable and evaluable drug data and medical data were the most important drug and disease attributes for successful PBRSAs, respectively. Pharmacy claims and patient demographic data were assessed as "very easy and inexpensive" to collect. Type and amount of manufacturer payment for drug outcome performance failure, endpoint measurement, and necessary clinical data for drug performance measurement were all critical factors for successful PBRSAs. Standardized contract templates and transparent contract financial risk evaluation and modeling ranked highest among methods of manufacturer facilitation of PBRSAs. This study was limited by sample size and survey questions were limited to explanation of PBRSAs at the disease state level. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of PBRSA experiences, respondents noted that drug use in chronic medical conditions and objective drug outcome performance measurements were favorable drug characteristics and serve as the primary source of satisfaction for these types of contracts. Third parties and manufacturers can facilitate the uptake and success of PBRSAs by developing standardized contracting templates in addition to other methods that increase their stake in the arrangement. Looking forward, mounting perceptions of success in this realm of contracting for pharmaceuticals may contribute in the quest for value-based payments in the U.S. health care system. DISCLOSURES: The construction of the survey and payment for survey respondents were supported by Charles River Associates. Parece is an employee of Charles River Associates. Goble and Ung are completing fellowship training sponsored by Novartis and Celgene, respectively, but do not have any conflicts of interest and did not receive any funding related to this study. Navarro reports consulting fees from Analysis Group, TEVA, and Amgen, unrelated to this study. Van Boemmel-Wegmann declares no conflict of interest. Study concept and design were contributed by Navarro, Goble, Ung, and Parece. Navarro took the lead in data collection, along with Goble and Ung, and data interpretation was performed by van Boemmel-Wegmann, Goble, and Ung. The manuscript was written by Goble, Ung, Navarro, and van Boemmel-Wegmann and revised by all of the authors.

Outcomes-Based Contracting Experience: Research Findings from U.S. and European Stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes-based contracts (OBCs), a type of risk-sharing arrangement (RSA), have emerged as a promising avenue for payers to engage with pharmaceutical manufacturers to share risk and improve patient access to medicines via evaluation of real-world outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To assess the level of recent OBC activity and stakeholder perceptions of these arrangements, as well as the outlook for future OBC activity from a payer and manufacturer perspective in the United States and EU-5 (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom). METHODS: Using a structured questionnaire, interviews were conducted with 27 experts, including 14 U.S. payers, 5 EU-5 national payers, and 8 manufacturer pricing/market access executives (4 U.S., 4 EU-5). We also used the University of Washington's Performance Based Risk-Sharing (PBRS) database and other targeted publicly available information. RESULTS: Publicly disclosed information on OBCs understates the level of OBC activity, since many arrangements are confidential. Overall, U.S. and EU-5 interviewees generally expected that 2 to 3 times more OBCs would be implemented in the next 5 years than in the previous 5 years. Key drivers included the introduction of a national OBC framework in Spain, potentially a similar framework in the United Kingdom, a growing sickness fund activity in Germany, and a U.S. movement towards accountable care. Motivation for OBCs varied markedly across markets and stakeholders, with operational feasibility noted as a significant hurdle in the United States and France. Along with improving health outcomes, cost and financial risk reduction were the primary OBC motivators for payers, while potential access or reimbursement gains were key factors for manufacturers. CONCLUSIONS: Using direct input from U.S. and EU-5 payer and pharmaceutical manufacturer decision makers, this research suggests that high OBC growth is expected in the EU-5 and, to a more moderate extent, in the United States, particularly if clear, simpler OBC frameworks can be developed. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Novartis employees were involved in all aspects of this study. Vegesna and Sasane are employed by and own stock in Novartis. Nazareth and Ko were employees of Novartis at the time of this study. Frois, Demean, Carpenter, and Wu are or have been employed by Analysis Group, which received a grant from Novartis for this research. Navarro received consulting fees from Novartis for his involvement in this research. Study concept and design were contributed by Sasane, Frois, Nazareth, and Wu. Navarro, Demean, and Frois took the lead in data collection, assisted by Carpenter, Ko, and Nazareth. Data interpretation was provided by Frois, Carpenter, Nazareth, and Ko, along with Sasane, Demean, Wu, and Navarro. The manuscript was written by Frois, Demean, Nazareth, and Ko, along with Sasane, Carpenter, Wu, and Navarro, and revised by Frois, Ko, and Vegesna, along with Sasane, Nazareth, Wu, and Navarro.

Assessment of the Level of Satisfaction and Unmet Data Needs for Specialty Drug Formulary Decisions in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Formulary management within a limited budget is critical, especially for specialty drugs, which are used for serious medical conditions and are very expensive. Despite attempts to summarize the pertinent evidence, it is uncertain whether data needs of formulary decision makers for specialty drugs are satisfied. OBJECTIVE: To assess the level of satisfaction of specialty drug formulary decision makers with regards to the strength of current available data sources and unmet needs regarding clinical, economic, and unpublished evidence. METHODS: This study targeted pharmacists and physicians involved with formulary decision making at health plans or pharmacy benefit management companies at the national, large regional, and local levels. 95 individuals were invited to participate (without compensation) in a 21-item, web-based survey (Qualtrics), which was open from June 14 to July 31, 2014. The responses were coded for descriptive and statistical analysis. Statistical analyses included the Kruskal-Wallis test, analysis of variance, and the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test. RESULTS: Of 95 pharmacists or physicians, 40 respondents initiated the survey, and 33 respondents completed the survey (response rate = 34.7%). Drug formulary decision makers infrequently rated data evidence strength (17.1% "always"). Clinical data evidence strength was rated highest with published randomized controlled trials (RCTs; mean [SD] = 4.06 [0.87] of 5.0), while participant organizations' internal data were rated highest for economic data evidence strength (mean [SD] = 3.91 [1.07] of 5.0). Decision makers rated the highest unmet need as more data generated from head-to-head RCTs (mean [SD] = 2.94 [0.25] of 3.0) and cost-effectiveness analyses (mean [SD] = 2.53 [0.67] of 3.0). The participants believed manufacturers might be in the best position to satisfy their desire for head-to-head RCTs (mean [SD] = 4.31 [1.09] of 5.0). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a variety of data sources, drug formulary decision makers continue to rely on published RCTs or internal economic analyses as having the strongest evidence strength. The study respondents believed that pharmaceutical manufacturers would be best able to satisfy the greatest clinical data unmet need, that is, head-to-head RCTs in specialty drug formulary decisions. DISCLOSURES: This study was not funded by any company or pharmaceutical manufacturer. Navarro has worked as a consultant for Biogen, Purdue Pharma, and Novartis and has offered expert testimony on behalf of AstraZeneca. The authors declare no other potential conflicts of interest. Study design was contributed primarily by Navarro, along with Choi. Choi took the lead in data collection and interpretation, assisted by Navarro. Both authors contributed equally to manuscript writing and revision.

Considerations for the optimal use of immunoglobulin.

Immunoglobulins are large Y-shaped proteins produced by B-cells and plasma cells that are used by the immune system to identify and neutralize foreign objects such as bacteria and viruses. Immunoglobulin G (IgG) preparations are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of primary immunodeficiency disease, idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, Kawasaki disease, chronic lymphocytic leukemia with frequent infections, bone marrow transplantation, to prevent infection in pediatric human immunodeficiency virus, and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. However, IgG products are frequently used off label in many autoimmune conditions. The advent of numerous intravenous and subcutaneous formulations of IgG presents new opportunities impacting patient preferences, site of care, and costs. The appropriate and optimal use of IgG is reviewed based on discussions from an expert roundtable panel and review of the scientific literature. Clinicians and payers should consider patient preferences, evidence- based guidelines, and policies when selecting an IgG product.

Improving outcomes in patients at risk for venous thromboembolism following total knee and total hip replacement: implications for managed care.

An estimated 1 million Americans suffer from venous thromboembolism (VTE) annually and more than 600,000 experience symptomatic VTE events each year. Patients undergoing total knee replacement (TKR) and total hip replacement (THR) are at high risk for developing VTE (40%-60% risk without prophylaxis). The economic burden of post-TKR/THR VTE is very large, with the average length of stay more than double that of patients without VTE, and risk-adjusted overall costs 4 and 5 times greater among the TKR and THR populations, respectively, compared with non-VTE patients. Efforts are underway, however, in the public and private sectors to increase the rates of appropriate VTE thromboprophylaxis. Payers are experimenting with quality measurement and improvement programs to incentivize clinical behavior toward optimizing outcomes; the role of patient education in VTE prophylaxis is also evolving. There is an excellent opportunity to reshape the current patient education approach and develop appropriate, accessible materials, but, ultimately, a multipronged effort that targets as many variables related to VTE risk as possible is necessary in order to achieve success in lowering the burden of post-TKR/THR VTE.

Contemporary management strategies for fibromyalgia.

A roundtable meeting that comprised clinical, patient advocacy, and managed care experts discussed issues regarding the diagnosis and management of fibromyalgia. The panel agreed that earlier diagnosis and treatment, additional education for the medical community, and appropriate management by health plans, including patient access to US Food and Drug Administration-approved fibromyalgia medications, are needed. In addition, physicians, payers, and patient advocates must work to improve clinical, economic, and quality-of-life outcomes for fibromyalgia patients. Finally, treatment and diagnostic guidelines must be updated as advances in disease management are made (including approvals of 3 new pharmacologic agents), and development of a therapeutic category for "fibromyalgia" on payer formularies is needed.

Asthma management guidelines: updates, advances, and new options.

BACKGROUND: Asthma still poses a substantial and unacceptable health and economic burden. The National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) guidelines for the management of asthma continue to evolve based on emerging clinical data, improving the understanding of asthma and approaches to its management. OBJECTIVE: To examine the clinical implications of current NAEPP guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of asthma and the potential impact of the proposed 2007 guidelines update on asthma management. To examine the role of managed care organizations in fostering evidence-based asthma management. SUMMARY: Current NAEPP guidelines recognize symptom control as the chief therapeutic target in the management of asthma. The proposed update to NAEPP guidelines places greater emphasis on symptom control by expanding its definition to not only include measures of impairment but also the risk for deteriorating pulmonary function, asthma exacerbations, and controller medication side effects. Although inhaled corticosteroids remain central to achieving long-term asthma control in both current and proposed guidelines, the latter offers greater treatment flexibility and recognizes combination therapy as a preferred choice for achieving control in many patients with moderate persistent asthma. Managed care organizations, primarily using disease management programs, provide impetus for the widespread adoption of evidence-based asthma treatment guidelines. CONCLUSION: Widespread adoption of evidence-based asthma management programs offers the opportunity for achieving and maintaining asthma control.

Asthma treatment guidelines: how do we measure up?

The use of clinical guidelines for the management of asthma can help improve patient outcomes and control costs. This article explores ways that managed care organizations can encourage physicians to follow guidelines more consistently to achieve better asthma management outcomes among their patients and reduce healthcare spending.

Cost effectiveness of asthma controller therapies: influence of disease severity and other variables.

A comprehensive literature review was conducted to compare the cost effectiveness of controller therapies for the treatment of persistent asthma. Health economic evaluations of asthma controllers demonstrate that inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) are more cost effective than as-needed short-acting beta2-adrenergic agonists and alternative controller therapies in children and adults. Moreover, combination therapy with an ICS and a long-acting beta2-adrenergic agonist appears to be cost effective relative to ICSs or leukotriene-receptor antagonists (LTRAs) alone and to ICS/LTRA combination therapy for patients with more severe disease. Even in mild persistent asthma, ICS therapy provides significant clinical improvement at a savings in both direct and indirect costs.

Pharmacoeconomic and clinical outcomes in oncology using oral chemotherapy.

Oral dosage forms are the most common mode of drug delivery in most disease areas. However, cancer therapy is associated predominately with intravenous (IV) chemotherapy. Interest in oral anticancer drugs is growing because they may reduce costs and improve patient satisfaction. Continued research comparing oral with IV drug therapy will increase physician and patient confidence in oral therapy. Medicare must expand its coverage to include legitimate oral chemotherapy, and coverage rules must be clearly communicated to physicians. The adoption of appropriate oral chemotherapy reimbursement standards will probably prompt the pharmaceutical industry to continue research and development of oral dosage forms. Oral therapy can potentially reduce resource utilization and health care system costs, improve drug safety, and enhance patient satisfaction.