Developing Prioritization Criteria to Identify Target Drugs for CalRx, the California Generic Drugs Initiative.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to establish criteria to identify priority drugs for CalRx, a California-sponsored initiative to support the manufacture and distribution of affordable generic drugs. METHODS: A web-based ranking exercise was implemented with key stakeholders in August 2020, using pricing, spending, and public health criteria identified through a review of academic literature and public health agency reports. A total of 39 of 40 invited stakeholders in 4 different categories-patient advocates, healthcare providers, health insurers, and health policy and economic experts-participated in this study (98% response rate). RESULTS: Drugs that treat large populations, drugs that represent high cost to payors, and drugs that represent high cost to consumers were ranked a priority, receiving > 10% of ranking weights. Drugs that treat conditions with high morbidity or mortality, drugs without therapeutic alternatives, and drugs treating vulnerable populations represented criteria of further interest (9%-10% of weights). Shortage risk and curative effect (8%-9% of the weights), high price increases, communicable disease treatments, and high unit prices (< 8% of the weights) represented the bottom of the priority distribution. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that drugs that treat large populations, drugs that represent large costs to payors, and drugs that represent large costs to consumers should be the priority for California's CalRx generic drug initiative. A prioritizing algorithm will assist California in determining top drugs to target from a public health and spending perspective as it plans the rollout of the CalRx initiative and negotiates with drug manufacturers.

Growth of Accountable Care Organizations in California: Number, Characteristics, and State Regulation.

Accountable care organizations (ACOs) result in physician organizations' and hospitals' receiving risk-based payments tied to costs, health care quality, and patient outcomes. This article (1) describes California ACOs within Medicare, the commercial market, and Medi-Cal and the safety net; (2) discusses how ACOs are regulated by the California Department of Managed Health Care and the California Department of Insurance; and (3) analyzes the increase of ACOs in California using data from Cattaneo and Stroud. While ACOs in California are well established within Medicare and the commercial market, they are still emerging within Medi-Cal and the safety net. Notwithstanding, the state has not enacted a law or issued a regulation specific to ACOs; they are regulated under existing statutes and regulations. From August 2012 to February 2014, the number of lives covered by ACOs increased from 514,100 to 915,285, representing 2.4 percent of California's population, including 10.6 percent of California's Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries and 2.3 percent of California's commercially insured lives. By emphasizing health care quality and patient outcomes, ACOs have the potential to build and improve on California's delegated model. If recent trends continue, ACOs will have a greater influence on health care delivery and financial risk sharing in California.

Review of Medicare, Medicaid, and Commercial Quality of Care Measures: Considerations for Assessing Accountable Care Organizations.

Accountable care organizations (ACOs) have proliferated under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). If ACOs are to improve health care quality and lower costs, quality measures will be increasingly important in determining if provider consolidations associated with the development of ACOs are achieving their intended purpose. This article assesses quality measurement across public and private sectors. We reviewed available quality measures for a subset of programs in six organizations and assessed the number and domain of measures (structure, process, outcomes, and patient experience). Two-thirds of all quality measures were categorized as process measures. Outcome measures made up nearly 20 percent of measures. Patient experience and structure measures made up approximately 8 percent and 7 percent, respectively. We propose further improvements to quality measurement initiatives. For example, programs that reward providers should consider reward size and distribution within the organization. Quality improvement initiatives should consider what encourages provider buy-in and participation and the effects on populations with disproportionate health care needs. As the focus of quality initiatives may change from year to year, measures should be periodically revisited to ensure continued improvement and sustainability. Finally, we suggest quality measures that regulators could use prior to ACO formation or in the year or two following formation.