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.

What's Been The Bang For The Buck? Cost-Effectiveness Of Health Care Spending Across Selected Conditions In The US.

The continued rise in health care spending has led to an intense debate among policy makers and other health care stakeholders on how to best manage increasing costs, leading to a focus on cost increases with little consideration of the associated change in outcomes. We identified the extent to which increased medical intervention spending on seven prevalent chronic conditions in the US over a twenty-year period has been a good investment. The results provide disease-level cost-effectiveness ratios for comparing changes in medical care spending to changes in health outcomes for patients diagnosed with one of the conditions. This study has two key findings: First, dollars spent on medical care can be a source of high value creation, and such investment should continue. Second, significant variability in value exists across diseases, which highlights the need for disease-specific spending approaches.

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 DatabaseSM. 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.

PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL EDITORS' VIEWS ON REAL-WORLD EVIDENCE.

OBJECTIVES: Peer-review publication is a critical step to the translation and dissemination of research results into clinical practice guidelines, health technology assessment (HTA) and payment policies, and clinical care. The objective of this study was to examine current views of journal editors regarding: (i) The value of real-world evidence (RWE) and how it compares with other types of studies; (ii) Education and/or resources journal editors provide to their peer reviewers or perceive as needed for authors, reviewers, and editors related to RWE. METHODS: Journal editors' views on the value of RWE and editorial procedures for RWE manuscripts were obtained through telephone interviews, a survey, and in-person, roundtable discussion. RESULTS: In total, seventy-nine journals were approached, resulting in fifteen telephone interviews, seventeen survey responses and eight roundtable participants. RWE was considered valuable by all interviewed editors (n = 15). Characteristics of high-quality RWE manuscripts included: novelty/relevance, rigorous methodology, and alignment of data to research question. Editors experience challenges finding peer reviewers; however, these challenges persist across all study designs. Journals generally do not provide guidance, assistance, or training for reviewers, including for RWE studies. Health policy/health services research (HSR) editors were more likely than specialty or general medicine editors to participate in this study, potentially indicating that HSR researchers are more comfortable/interested in RWE. CONCLUSIONS: Editors report favorable views of RWE studies provided studies examine important questions and are methodologically rigorous. Improving peer-review processes across all study designs, has the potential to improve the evidence base for decision making, including HTA.

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.

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.