Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Pharmacist-Led Medication Therapy Management Program: Hypertension Management.

OBJECTIVES: Uncontrolled hypertension is a common cause of cardiovascular disease, which is the deadliest and costliest chronic disease in the United States. Pharmacists are an accessible community healthcare resource and are equipped with clinical skills to improve the management of hypertension through medication therapy management (MTM). Nevertheless, current reimbursement models do not incentivize pharmacists to provide clinical services. We aim to investigate the cost-effectiveness of a pharmacist-led comprehensive MTM clinic compared with no clinic for 10-year primary prevention of stroke and cardiovascular disease events in patients with hypertension. METHODS: We built a semi-Markov model to evaluate the clinical and economic consequences of an MTM clinic compared with no MTM clinic, from the payer perspective. The model was populated with data from a recently published controlled observational study investigating the effectiveness of an MTM clinic. Methodology was guided using recommendations from the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, including appropriate sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Compared with no MTM clinic, the MTM clinic was cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $38 798 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The incremental net monetary benefit was $993 294 considering a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY. Health-benefit benchmarks at $100 000 per QALY and $150 000 per QALY translate to a 95% and 170% increase from current reimbursement rates for MTM services. CONCLUSIONS: Our model shows current reimbursement rates for pharmacist-led MTM services may undervalue the benefit realized by US payers. New reimbursement models are needed to allow pharmacists to offer cost-effective clinical services.

The effectiveness and value of emicizumab and valoctocogene roxaparvovec for the management of hemophilia A without inhibitors.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, California Health Care Foundation, The Donaghue Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from AbbVie, Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Agboola, Rind, Herron-Smith, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Walton and Quach, through the University of Illinois at Chicago, received funding from ICER for development of the economic model described in this report.