[Pay for performance in public directly managed healthcare centers. Part 2: The Spanish National Health System. SESPAS Report 2024]. / Evaluación del rendimiento y compensación en centros sanitarios de gestión directa. Parte 2: el Sistema Nacional de Salud. Informe SESPAS 2024.

In Spain, the compensation model for statutory health personnel is complex, heterogeneous, and more oriented to rewarding complementary functions and activities, than to paying for the actual performance in the position of employee. The various attempts to incorporate incentives have been distorted by a civil service egalitarianist culture, and weak systemic governance. External attractors (private practice, etc.) for healthcare professionals are becoming more important and neutralize many intramural incentives. There are few prospects of relevant or general changes, since the main actors involved are reforms-averse; but some environmental factors can lead to incremental improvements in employment contracts, in the information available to improve benchmarking, and in the creation of islands of good clinical governance and management. The economic scenario, increasingly concerned about inflationary trends and sustainability risks, may have a revitalizing effect of some governance and management reforms.

Concordance of Disclosed Hospital Prices With Total Reimbursements for Hospital-Based Care Among Commercially Insured Patients in the US.

Importance: To improve health care price transparency and promote cost-conscious selection of health care organizations and practitioners, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) required that hospitals share payer-specific negotiated prices for selected shoppable health services by January 2021. While this regulation improves price transparency, it is unclear whether disclosed prices reflect total costs of care, since many hospital-based services are delivered and billed separately by independent practitioners or other health care entities. Objective: To assess the extent to which prices disclosed under the new hospital price transparency regulation are correlated with total costs of care among commercially insured individuals. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used a large database of commercial claims from 2018 to analyze encounters at US hospitals for shoppable health care services for which price disclosure is required by CMS. Data were analyzed from November 2020 to February 2021. Exposures: Whether the service was billed by the hospital or another entity. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes of interest were the percentage of encounters with at least 1 service billed by an entity other than the hospital providing care, number of billing entities, amounts billed by nonhospital entities, and the correlation between hospital and nonhospital reimbursements. Results: The study analyzed 4 545 809 encounters for shoppable care. Independent health care entities were involved in 7.6% (95% CI, 6.7% to 8.4%) to 42.4% (95% CI, 39.1% to 45.6%) of evaluation and management encounters, 15.9% (95% CI, 15.8% to 16%) to 22.2% (95% CI, 22% to 22.4%) of laboratory and pathology services, 64.9% (95% CI, 64.2% to 65.7%) to 87.2% (95% CI, 87.1% to 87.3%) of radiology services, and more than 80% of most medicine and surgery services. The median (IQR) reimbursement of independent practitioners ranged from $61 ($52-$102) to $412 ($331-$466) for evaluation and management, $5 ($4-$6) to $7 ($4-$12) for laboratory and pathology, $26 ($20-$32) to $210 ($170-$268) for radiology, and $47 ($21-$103) to $9545 ($7750-$18 277) for medicine and surgery. The reimbursement for services billed by the hospital was not strongly correlated with the reimbursement of independent clinicians, ranging from r = -0.11 (95% CI, -0.69 to 0.56) to r = 0.53 (95% CI, 0.13 to 0.78). Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found that independent practitioners were frequently involved in the delivery of shoppable hospital-based care, and their reimbursement may have represented a substantial portion of total costs of care. These findings suggest that disclosed hospital reimbursement was usually not correlated with total cost of care, limiting the potential benefits of the hospital price transparency rule for improving consumer decision-making.

Private payers' varicose vein policies are inaccurate, disparate, and not evidence based, which mandates a proposal for a reasonable and responsible policy for the treatment of venous disease.

Varicose veins afflict more than one in five Americans, and although varicose veins may be an asymptomatic cosmetic concern in some, many others experience symptoms of pain, aching, heaviness, itching, and swelling. More advanced venous disease can result from untreated venous insufficiency. The complications of chronic venous disease, including bleeding, thrombosis, and ulceration, are seen in up to 2 million Americans annually. Numerous reports have documented venous disease adversely affects quality of life and that treatment of venous disease can improve quality of life. It has previously been documented that private insurers, and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services subcontractors for that matter, have disparate policies that in many instances are self-serving, contain mistakes, use outdated evidence, and disregard evidence-based guidelines. The two leading venous medical societies, the American Venous Forum and the American Venous and Lymphatic Society, have come together to review the varicose vein coverage policies of seven major U.S. private medical insurance carriers whose policies cover more than 150 million Americans. The authors reviewed the policies for venous disease and, if significant gaps or inconsistencies are found, we hope to point them out, and, finally, to propose a thoughtful and reasonable policy based on the best available evidence.

Financial Implications of Avapritinib for Treatment of Unresectable Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors in Patients With a PDGFRA Exon 18 Variant or After 3 Previous Therapies in a Hypothetical US Health Plan.

Importance: With the approval of avapritinib for adults with unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) harboring a platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha (PDGFRA) exon 18 variant, including PDGFRA D842V variants, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline recommendations as an option for patients with GIST after third-line treatment, it is important to estimate the potential financial implications of avapritinib on a payer's budget. Objective: To estimate the budget impact associated with the introduction of avapritinib to a formulary for metastatic or unresectable GISTs in patients with a PDGFRA exon 18 variant or after 3 or more previous treatments from the perspective of a US health plan. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this economic evaluation, a 3-year budget impact model was developed in March 2020, incorporating costs for drug acquisition, testing, monitoring, adverse events, and postprogression treatment. The model assumed that avapritinib introduction would be associated with increased PDGFRA testing rates from the current 49% to 69%. The health plan population was assumed to be mixed 69% commercial, 22% Medicare, and 9% Medicaid. Base case assumptions included a GIST incidence rate of 9.6 diagnoses per million people, a metastatic PDGFRA exon 18 mutation rate of 1.9%, and progression rate from first-line to fourth-line treatment of 17%. Exposures: The model compared scenarios with and without avapritinib in a formulary. Main Outcomes and Measures: Annual, total, and per member per month (PMPM) budget impact. Results: In a hypothetical 1-million member plan, fewer than 0.1 new patients with a PDGFRA exon 18 variant per year and 1.2 patients receiving fourth-line therapy per year were eligible for treatment. With avapritinib available, the total increase in costs in year 3 for all eligible adult patients with a PDGFRA exon 18 variant was $46 875, or $0.004 PMPM. For patients undergoing fourth-line treatment, the total increase in costs in year 3 was $69 182, or $0.006 PMPM. The combined total budget impact in year 3 was $115 604, or $0.010 PMPM, including an offset of $3607 in postprogression costs avoided or delayed. The higher rates of molecular testing resulted in a minimal incremental testing cost of $453 in year 3. Conclusions and Relevance: These results suggest that adoption of avapritinib as a treatment option would have a minimal budget impact to a hypothetical US health plan. This would be primarily attributable to the small eligible patient population and cost offsets from reduced or delayed postprogression costs.

The Economic Burden of Out-of-Pocket Expenses for Plastic Surgery Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Health insurance reimbursement structure has evolved, with patients becoming increasingly responsible for their health care costs through rising out-of-pocket expenses. High levels of cost sharing can lead to delays in access to care, influence treatment decisions, and cause financial distress for patients. METHODS: Patients undergoing the most common outpatient reconstructive plastic surgery operations were identified using Truven MarketScan databases from 2009 to 2017. Total cost of the surgery paid to the insurer and out-of-pocket expenses, including deductible, copayment, and coinsurance, were calculated. Multivariable generalized linear modeling with log link and gamma distribution was used to predict adjusted total and out-of-pocket expenses. All costs were inflation-adjusted to 2017 dollars. RESULTS: The authors evaluated 3,165,913 outpatient plastic and reconstructive surgical procedures between 2009 and 2017. From 2009 to 2017, total costs had a significant increase of 25 percent, and out-of-pocket expenses had a significant increase of 54 percent. Using generalized linear modeling, procedures performed in outpatient hospitals conferred an additional $1999 in total costs (95 percent CI, $1978 to $2020) and $259 in out-of-pocket expenses (95 percent CI, $254 to $264) compared with office procedures. Ambulatory surgical center procedures conferred an additional $1698 in total costs (95 percent CI, $1677 to $1718) and $279 in out-of-pocket expenses (95 percent CI, $273 to $285) compared with office procedures. CONCLUSIONS: For outpatient plastic surgery procedures, out-of-pocket expenses are increasing at a faster rate than total costs, which may have implications for access to care and timing of surgery. Providers should realize the increasing burden of out-of-pocket expenses and the effect of surgical location on patients' costs when possible.

Disparities in Outcomes by Insurance Payer Groups for Patients Undergoing Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective, observational study of clinical outcomes at a single institution. OBJECTIVE: To compare postoperative complication and readmission rates of payer groups in a cohort of patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Studies examining associations between primary payer and outcomes in spine surgery have been equivocal. METHODS: Patients at Mount Sinai having undergone ACDF from 2008 to 2016 were queried and assigned to one of five insurance categories: uninsured, managed care, commercial indemnity insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid, with patients in the commercial indemnity group serving as the reference cohort. Multivariable logistic regression equations for various outcomes with the exposure of payer were created, controlling for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiology Physical Status Classification (ASA Class), the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, and number of segments fused. A Bonferroni correction was utilized, such that alpha = 0.0125. RESULTS: Two thousand three hundred eighty seven patients underwent ACDF during the time period. Both Medicare (P < 0.0001) and Medicaid (P < 0.0001) patients had higher comorbidity burdens than commercial patients when examining ASA Class. Managed care (2.86 vs. 2.72, P = 0.0009) and Medicare patients (2.99 vs. 2.72, P < 0.0001) had more segments fused on average than commercial patients. Medicaid patients had higher rates of prolonged extubation (odds ratio [OR]: 4.99; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.13-22.0; P = 0.007), and Medicare patients had higher rates of prolonged length of stay (LOS) (OR: 2.44, 95% CI: 1.13-5.27%, P = 0.004) than the commercial patients. Medicaid patients had higher rates of 30- (OR: 4.12; 95% CI: 1.43-11.93; P = 0.0009) and 90-day (OR: 3.28; 95% CI: 1.34-8.03; P = 0.0009) Emergency Department (ED) visits than the commercial patients, and managed care patients had higher rates of 30-day readmission (OR: 3.41; 95% CI: 1.00-11.57; P = 0.0123). CONCLUSION: Medicare and Medicaid patients had higher rates of prolonged LOS and postoperative ED visits, respectively, compared with commercial patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Among Medicaid Beneficiaries: The Role of Physician Payment and Managed Care.

Medicaid-insured women have low rates of cancer screening. There are multiple policy levers that may influence access to preventive services such as screening, including physician payment and managed care. We examine the relationship between each of these factors and breast and cervical cancer screening among nonelderly nondisabled adult Medicaid enrollees. We combine individual-level data on Medicaid enrollment, demographics, and use of screening services from the Medicaid Analytic eXtract files with data on states' Medicaid-to-Medicare fee ratios and estimate their impact on screening services. Higher physician fees are associated with greater screening for comprehensive managed care enrollees; for enrollees in fee-for-service Medicaid, the findings are mixed. Patient participation in primary care case management is a significant moderator of the relationship between physician fees and the rate of screening, as interactions between enrollee primary care case management status and the Medicaid fee ratio are consistently positive across models of screening.

Variation in expenditure for common, high cost surgical procedures in a working age population: implications for reimbursement reform.

BACKGROUND: In the move toward value-based care, bundled payments are believed to reduce waste and improve coordination. Some commercial insurers have addressed this through the use of bundled payment, the provision of one fee for all care associated with a given index procedure. This system was pioneered by Medicare, using a population generally over 65 years of age, and despite its adoption by mainstream insurers, little is known of bundled payments' ability to reduce variation or cost in a working-age population. This study uses a universally-insured, nationally-representative population of adults aged 18-65 to examine the effect of bundled payments for five high-cost surgical procedures which are known to vary widely in Medicare reimbursement: hip replacement, knee replacement, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), lumbar spinal fusion, and colectomy. METHODS: Five procedures conducted on adults aged 18-65 were identified from the TRICARE database from 2011 to 2014. A 90-day period from index procedure was used to determine episodes of associated post-acute care. Data was sorted by Zip code into hospital referral regions (HRR). Payments were determined from TRICARE reimbursement records, they were subsequently price standardized and adjusted for patient and surgical characteristics. Variation was assessed by stratifying the HRR into quintiles by spending for each index procedure. RESULTS: After adjusting for case mix, significant inter-quintile variation was observed for all procedures, with knee replacement showing the greatest variation in both index surgery (107%) and total cost of care (75%). Readmission was a driver of variation for colectomy and CABG, with absolute cost variation of $17,257 and $13,289 respectively. Other post-acute care spending was low overall (≤$1606, for CABG). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates significant regional variation in total spending for these procedures, but much lower spending for post-acute care than previously demonstrated by similar procedures in Medicare. Targeting post-acute care spending, a common approach taken by providers in bundled payment arrangements with Medicare, may be less fruitful in working aged populations.

Evolution of the TRICARE Pharmacy Benefit: A Decade of Change.

TRICARE is the military's health plan that provides coverage to 9.4 million active duty and retired uniformed services personnel and their family members. The TRICARE pharmacy benefit has undergone many changes in the last decade. These changes include assigning newly approved drugs to nonformulary status after regulatory approval, the addition of weight loss medications to the benefit, channel management point-of-service requirements for some medications, and copay increases. Several initiatives have resulted in significant cost avoidance to the Department of Defense (DoD). The purpose of this article is to discuss the changes to the TRICARE pharmacy benefit, describe the continual challenges, and estimate cost savings associated with implementation of these changes. DoD implemented its 3-tier Uniform Formulary in 2005. Since then, many changes have been enacted, including more extensive use of prior authorization, step therapy, and quantity limits; coverage of over-the-counter medications; the retail refund program; coverage of vaccines and smoking cessation agents; mandatory mail/military treatment facility requirements; rapid review and initial nonformulary status for newly approved innovator drugs; revisions to the compounded drug benefit; initial deployment of a new medical record system; coverage of weight loss medications; and the ability to exclude medications from the Uniform Formulary. Although the TRICARE pharmacy benefit has evolved significantly, the focus remains on the beneficiaries, with an overall goal of providing integrated, affordable, and high quality health services for the Military Health System. Challenges for the future include maximizing clinical effectiveness in the face of rising pharmaceutical costs and cost avoidance, while supporting the needs of TRICARE beneficiaries. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors declare no conflicts of interest, real or apparent, and no financial interests in any company, product, or service mentioned in this program, including grants, employment, gifts, stock holdings, and honoraria. The information discussed here represents the views of the authors and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Defense Health Agency (DHA), the Department of Defense (DoD), or the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The authors have nothing to disclose that presents a potential conflict of interest.

Medicaid managed care: issues for enrollees with serious mental illness.

OBJECTIVES: To inform state Medicaid programs and managed care organizations, as well as to build their capacity to serve enrollees with complex needs related to serious mental illness (SMI). STUDY DESIGN: Quantitative and qualitative analyses of survey results from a sample of Medicaid enrollees with SMI in Kansas in 2016 and 2017 (N = 189). METHODS: Surveys were conducted by telephone or in person at community mental health centers. Analyses of descriptive statistics from closed-item responses and coded transcripts were used to identify major themes in open-item responses. RESULTS: Respondents reported high rates of comorbid physical and mental health conditions and current or past tobacco use. Most were unemployed, and some were homeless or living in unstable conditions. Participants indicated a need for better information and communication; improved access to prescriptions, dental care, reliable transportation, medical supplies, and equipment; and a wider physician/provider network. They wanted care coordinators to provide more frequent and responsive contact, better information about benefits and resources, and help navigating the system. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with chronic and complex conditions can be challenging for managed care organizations to support, especially Medicaid enrollees with SMI, who experience high rates of comorbid physical health conditions and complex healthcare needs. To the extent that managed care organizations can help this population navigate their coverage and use more of the available benefits, barriers to care and unmet needs can be reduced or eliminated and outcomes subsequently improved.

Managed care opportunities and approaches to supporting appropriate selection of treatment for sight preservation.

When evaluating the impact of vision-destroying diseases, pharmacologic therapies represent a significant cost to patients, insurance providers, and society. Currently, up to 11 million people in the United States have some form of age-related macular degeneration (AMD), which is one of the leading causes of vision loss in older Americans. Ophthalmologists have administered more than 6 million intravitreal injections of aflibercept, bevacizumab, pegaptanib, and ranibizumab last year. Comprehensive assessment requires managed care administrators and clinicians to understand the direct and indirect costs of vision loss as well as the comparative safety and efficacy profiles for each agent. In AMD, it is critical to understand the established and emerging treatment patterns.

Health Care Burden Associated with Outpatient Opioid Use Following Inpatient or Outpatient Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of postsurgical pain with prescription opioids has been associated with persistent opioid use and increased health care utilization and costs. OBJECTIVE: To compare the health care burden between opioid-naive adult patients who were prescribed opioids after a major surgery and opioidnaive adult patients who were not prescribed opioids. METHODS: Administrative claims data from the IBM Watson Health MarketScan Research Databases for 2010-2016 were used. Opioid-naive adult patients who underwent major inpatient or outpatient surgery and who had at least 1 year of continuous enrollment before and after the index surgery date were eligible for inclusion. Cohorts were defined based on an opioid pharmacy claim between 7 days before index surgery and 1 year after index surgery (opioid use during surgery and inpatient use were not available). To ensure an opioid-naive population, patients with opioid claims between 365 and 8 days before surgery were excluded. Acute medical outcomes, opioid utilization, health care utilization, and costs were measured during the post-index period (index surgery hospitalization and day of index outpatient surgery not included). Predicted costs were estimated from multivariable log-linked gamma-generalized linear models. RESULTS: The final sample consisted of 1,174,905 opioid-naive patients with an inpatient surgery (73% commercial, 20% Medicare, 7% Medicaid) and 2,930,216 opioid-naive patients with an outpatient surgery (74% commercial, 23% Medicare, and 3% Medicaid). Opioid use after discharge was common among all 3 payer types but was less common among Medicare patients (63% inpatient/43% outpatient) than patients with commercial (80% inpatient/75% outpatient) or Medicaid insurance (86% inpatient/81% outpatient). Across all 3 payers, opioid users were younger, were more likely to be female, and had a higher preoperative comorbidity burden than nonopioid users. In unadjusted analyses, opioid users tended to have more hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and pharmacy claims. Adjusted predicted 1-year post-period total health care costs were significantly higher (P< 0.001) for opioid users than nonopioid users for commercial insurance (inpatient: $22,209 vs. $14,439; outpatient: $13,897 vs. $8,825), Medicare (inpatient: $31,721 vs. $26,761; outpatient: $24,529 vs. $15,225), and Medicaid (inpatient: $13,512 vs. $9,204; outpatient: $11,975 vs. $8,212). CONCLUSIONS: Filling an outpatient opioid prescription (vs. no opioid prescription) in the 1 year after inpatient or outpatient surgery was associated with increased health care utilization and costs across all payers. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was provided by Heron Therapeutics, which participated in analysis and interpretation of data, drafting, reviewing, and approving the publication. All authors contributed to the development of the publication and maintained control over the final content. Brummett is a paid consultant for Heron Therapeutics and Recro Pharma and reports receipt of research funding from MDHHS (Sub K Michigan Open), NIDA (Centralized Pain Opioid Non-Responsiveness R01 DA038261-05), NIH0DHHS-US-16 PAF 07628 (R01 NR017096-05), NIH-DHHS (P50 AR070600-05 CORT), NIH-DHHS-US (K23 DA038718-04), NIH-DHHS-US-16-PAF06270 (R01 HD088712-05), NIH-DHHS-US-17-PAF02680 (R01 DA042859-05), and UM Michigan Genomics Initiative and holding a patent for peripheral perineural dexmedetomidine. Oderda is a paid consultant for Heron Therapeutics. Pawasauskas is a paid consultant to Heron Therapeutics and Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals. England and Evans-Shields are employees of Heron Therapeutics. Kong, Lew, Zimmerman, and Henriques are employees of IBM Watson Health, which was compensated by Heron Therapeutics for conducting this research. Portions of this work were presented as a poster at the AMCP Managed Care and Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting 2019; March 25-28, 2019; San Diego, CA.

Health Care Resource Utilization and Costs Associated with Corticosteroid Use in Patients with Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: An Administrative Claims Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroids are used in the management of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) to reduce tumor-related symptoms because of CRPC therapies. Since corticosteroids have been associated with a range of toxicities, their use may increase the economic burden sustained by patients with CRPC. However, the economic impact of using corticosteroids in patients with CRPC has not been well characterized. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of previous corticosteroid use on health care resource utilization (HRU) and health care costs among men with CRPC. METHODS: Using administrative claims data (2007-2016), adult chemotherapy-naive patients who initiated CRPC treatment following surgical or medical castration were identified. Based on the cumulative corticosteroid dose during the 12 months before CRPC treatment initiation, patients were grouped into 4 cohorts: no corticosteroid (0 gm), low corticosteroid (< 0.5 gm), medium corticosteroid (0.5-2.0 gm), and high corticosteroid (> 2.0 gm). All-cause HRU and costs (2017 U.S. dollars) were compared between cohorts during the 1-year study period following CRPC treatment initiation using the no corticosteroid cohort as reference. Multivariable regression models were used to adjust for baseline covariates, including age, region, index year, Charlson Comorbidity Index score, presence of bone metastases, baseline all-cause HRU, and corticosteroid-related clinical events during baseline. RESULTS: 9,425 patients were included (no corticosteroid = 6,765, low corticosteroid = 1,660, medium corticosteroid = 655, and high corticosteroid = 345). On average, patients in the no corticosteroid cohort were older and had a lower baseline HRU and comorbidity burden than patients in the other 3 cohorts. During the study period, patients with corticosteroid exposure (across all corticosteroid cohorts) had significantly more inpatient admissions (high corticosteroid vs. no corticosteroid adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.56; P < 0.001), emergency department visits (high corticosteroid vs. no corticosteroid adjusted IRR = 1.30; P = 0.001), and outpatient visits (high corticosteroid vs. no corticosteroid adjusted IRR = 1.11; P < 0.001). In addition, compared with the no corticosteroid cohort, patients with corticosteroid exposure had significantly higher monthly total costs (high corticosteroid vs. no corticosteroid adjusted difference = $2,600; P < 0.001), including medical service costs (high corticosteroid vs. no corticosteroid adjusted difference = $1,564; P < 0.001) and pharmacy costs (high corticosteroid vs. no corticosteroid adjusted difference = $825; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Cumulative corticosteroid exposure before CRPC treatment initiation was associated with significantly higher HRU and costs. This increase in economic burden was more prominent among patients with annual cumulative corticosteroid doses of more than 2.0 gm. These results suggest that previous corticosteroid use may result in a higher economic burden among patients with CRPC. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Astellas Pharma (Northbrook, IL) and Medivation, a Pfizer Company (San Francisco, CA), the codevelopers of enzalutamide. The study sponsor was involved in the study design, data interpretation, and review. All authors contributed to the development of the manuscript and maintained control over the final content. Schultz and Wilson are employed by Astellas Pharma. Schultz owns stock in Gilead Sciences and Shire. Song and Yang are employed by Analysis Group, which received consultancy fees from Astellas Pharma. Ramaswamy is employed by Pfizer, and Lowentritt is employed by Chesapeake Urology and has served as a speaker and consultant for Astellas Pharma, Pfizer, Bayer, Dendreon, and Janssen. A synopsis of the current research was presented in poster format at the AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting 2019, which took place in San Diego, CA, on March 25-28, 2019.

Assessment of Health Care Utilization and Cost of Targeted Drug Delivery and Conventional Medical Management vs Conventional Medical Management Alone for Patients With Cancer-Related Pain.

Importance: Targeted drug delivery (TDD) has potential for cost savings compared with conventional medical management (CMM). Despite positive clinical and economic evidence, TDD remains underused to treat cancer pain. Objective: To assess the cost of TDD and CMM in treating cancer-related pain. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective economic evaluation using propensity score-matched analysis was conducted using MarketScan commercial claims data on beneficiaries receiving TDD and CMM or CMM only for cancer pain from January 1, 2009, to September 30, 2015. Participants were matched on age, sex, cancer type, comorbidity score, and pre-enrollment characteristics. Data analysis was performed from June 1 to September 30, 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Total 2-, 6-, and 12-month costs, number of health care encounters, length of hospital stay, additional components of cost, and health care utilization. Results: A total of 376 TDD and CMM patients (mean [SD] age, 51.88 [9.98] years; 216 [57.5%] female) and 4839 CMM only patients (mean [SD] age, 51.52 [11.16] years; 3005 [62.1%] female) were identified for study inclusion. After matching, 536 patients were included in the study: 268 patients in the TDD and CMM group and 268 in the CMM only group. Compared with CMM only, TDD and CMM was associated with mean total cost savings of $15 142 (95% CI, $3690 to $26 594; P = .01) at 2 months and $63 498 (95% CI, $4620 to $122 376; P = .03) at 12 months; cost savings at 6 months were not statistically different ($19 577; 95% CI, -$12 831 to $51 984; P = .24). The TDD and CMM group had fewer inpatient visits (2-month mean difference [MD], 1.0; 95% CI, 0.8-1.2; P < .001; 6-month MD, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.8-1.7; P < .001; 12-month MD, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2-3.4; P < .001) and shorter hospital stays (2-month MD, 6.8 days; 95% CI, 5.0-8.7 days; P < .001; 6-month MD, 6.8 days; 95% CI, 3.1-10.5 days; P < .001; 12-month MD, 10.6 days; 95% CI, 2.9-18.3 days; P = .007). Use of CMM only was associated with greater opioid use at 12 months (MD, 3.2; 95% CI, 0.4-6.0; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: Compared with CMM alone, TDD and CMM together were associated with significantly lower cost and health care utilization. The findings suggest that TDD is a cost-saving therapy that should be considered in patients with cancer for whom oral opioids are inadequate or produce intolerable adverse effects and should be expanded as health care systems transition to value-based models.

Evaluating the Presence of Cognitive Biases in Health Care Decision Making: A Survey of U.S. Formulary Decision Makers.

BACKGROUND: Behavioral economics is a field of economics that draws on insights from psychology to understand and identify patterns of decision making. Cognitive biases are psychological tendencies to process information in predictable patterns that result in deviations from rational decision making. Previous research has not evaluated the influence of cognitive biases on decision making in a managed care setting. OBJECTIVE: To assess the presence of cognitive biases in formulary decision making. METHODS: An online survey was conducted with a panel of U.S. pharmacy and medical directors who worked at managed care organizations and served on pharmacy and therapeutics committees. Survey questions assessed 4 cognitive biases: relative versus absolute framing effect, risk aversion, zero-risk bias, and delay discounting. Simulated data were presented in various scenarios related to adverse event profiles, drug safety and efficacy, and drug pricing for new hypothetical oncology products. Survey questions prompted participants to select a preferred drug based on the information provided. Survey answers were analyzed to identify decision patterns that could be explained by the cognitive biases. Likelihood of bias was analyzed via chi-square tests for framing effect, risk aversion, and zero-risk bias. The delay discounting section used a published algorithm to characterize discounting patterns. RESULTS: A total of 35 pharmacy directors and 19 medical directors completed the survey. In the framing effect section, 80% of participants selected the suboptimal choice in the relative risk frame, compared with 38.9% in the absolute risk frame (P < 0.0001). When assessing risk aversion, 42.6% and 61.1% of participants displayed risk aversion in the cost- and efficacy-based scenarios, respectively, but these were not statistically significant (P = 0.27 and P = 0.10, respectively). In the zero-risk bias section, results from each scenario diverged. In the first zero-risk bias scenario, 90.7% of participants selected the drug with zero risk (P < 0.001), but in the second scenario, only 32.1% chose the zero-risk option (P < 0.01). In the section assessing delay discounting, 54% of survey participants favored a larger delayed rebate over a smaller immediate discount. A shallow delay discounting curve was produced, which indicated participants discounted delayed rewards to a minimal degree. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacy and medical directors, like other decision makers, appear to be susceptible to some cognitive biases. Directors demonstrated a tendency to underestimate risks when they were presented in relative risk terms but made more accurate appraisals when information was presented in absolute risk terms. Delay discounting also may be applicable to directors when choosing immediate discounts over delayed rebates. However, directors neither displayed a statistically significant bias for risk aversion when assessing scenarios related to drug pricing or clinical efficacy nor were there significant conclusions for zero-risk biases. Further research with larger samples using real-world health care decisions is necessary to validate these findings. DISCLOSURES: This research was funded by Xcenda. Mezzio, Nguyen, and O'Day are employees of Xcenda. Kiselica was employed by Xcenda at the time the study was conducted. The authors have nothing to disclose. A portion of the preliminary data was presented as posters at the 2017 AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting; March 27-30, 2017; in Denver, CO, and the 2017 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 22nd Annual International Meeting; May 20-24, 2017; in Boston, MA.

Evaluation of patient-focused interventions to promote colorectal cancer screening among new york state medicaid managed care patients.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate an ongoing initiative to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake in the New York State (NYS) Medicaid managed care population. METHODS: Patients aged 50 to 75 years who were not up to date with CRC screening and resided in 2 NYS regions were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 cohorts: no mailed reminder, mailed reminder, and mailed reminder + incentive (in the form of a $25 cash card). Screening prevalence and the costs of the intervention were summarized. RESULTS: In total, 7123 individuals in the Adirondack Region and 10,943 in the Central Region (including the Syracuse metropolitan area) were included. Screening prevalence in the Adirondack Region was 7.2% in the mailed reminder + incentive cohort, 7.0% in the mailed reminder cohort, and 5.8% in the no mailed reminder cohort. In the Central Region, screening prevalence was 7.2% in the mailed reminder cohort, 6.9% in the mailed reminder + incentive cohort, and 6.5% in the no mailed reminder cohort. The cost of implementing interventions in the Central Region was approximately 53% lower than in the Adirondack Region. CONCLUSIONS: Screening uptake was low and did not differ significantly across the 2 regions or within the 3 cohorts. The incentive payment and mailed reminder did not appear to be effective in increasing CRC screening. The total cost of implementation was lower in the Central Region because of efficiencies generated from lessons learned during the first round of implementation in the Adirondack Region. More varied multicomponent interventions may be required to facilitate the completion of CRC screening among Medicaid beneficiaries.

AMCP Partnership Forum: Driving Value and Outcomes in Oncology.

Cancer is one of the most costly medical conditions to treat in the United States due in part to increasingly innovative, but expensive, chemotherapeutic, immuno-oncologic, and biologic treatments. At the same time, health insurance in the United States is increasingly shifting a larger part of the costs to patients through higher premiums, deductibles, and coinsurance and copayment rates. These shifts are driving the need for quality measures and value measurements in oncology that assess the total effect on care and can be used to develop payment models. Measures that consider the patient's experience are emerging as important factors for evaluating value in cancer care. To address these issues, the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) convened a stakeholder forum, Driving Value and Outcomes in Oncology, on November 14-15, 2017, in Arlington, Virginia. The goals of the forum were to (a) understand which oncology-specific quality measures are important for managed care decision makers; (b) prioritize the gaps related to the use of pharmaceuticals in measuring oncology outcomes; (c) develop a list of recommendations for how a collaboration of payers, providers, and AMCP may drive improvements in oncology care; and (d) define solutions for addressing causes of patient financial burdens for cancer care. More than 30 national and regional health care leaders representing health plans, integrated delivery systems, pharmacy benefit managers, pharmacists, employers, patient advocates, national professional associations, and biopharmaceutical companies participated in the forum. DISCLOSURES: This AMCP Partnership Forum and the development of this proceedings report were supported in collaboration with Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Foundation Medicine, Genentech, Gilead, Eli Lilly, Merck, Sanofi, Takeda Oncology, and Xcenda.

Societal burden of cluster headache in the United States: a descriptive economic analysis.

AIM: To estimate direct and indirect costs in patients with a diagnosis of cluster headache in the US. METHODS: Adult patients (18-64 years of age) enrolled in the Marketscan Commercial and Medicare Databases with ≥2 non-diagnostic outpatient (≥30 days apart between the two outpatient claims) or ≥1 inpatient diagnoses of cluster headache (ICD-9-CM code 339.00, 339.01, or 339.02) between January 1, 2009 and June 30, 2014, were included in the analyses. Patients had ≥6 months of continuous enrollment with medical and pharmacy coverage before and after the index date (first cluster headache diagnosis). Three outcomes were evaluated: (1) healthcare resource utilization, (2) direct healthcare costs, and (3) indirect costs associated with work days lost due to absenteeism and short-term disability. Direct costs included costs of all-cause and cluster headache-related outpatient, inpatient hospitalization, surgery, and pharmacy claims. Indirect costs were based on an average daily wage, which was estimated from the 2014 US Bureau of Labor Statistics and inflated to 2015 dollars. RESULTS: There were 9,328 patients with cluster headache claims included in the analysis. Cluster headache-related total direct costs (mean [standard deviation]) were $3,132 [$13,396] per patient per year (PPPY), accounting for 17.8% of the all-cause total direct cost. Cluster headache-related inpatient hospitalizations ($1,604) and pharmacy ($809) together ($2,413) contributed over 75% of the cluster headache-related direct healthcare cost. There were three sub-groups of patients with claims associated with indirect costs that included absenteeism, short-term disability, and absenteeism + short-term disability. Indirect costs PPPY were $4,928 [$4,860] for absenteeism, $803 [$2,621] for short-term disability, and $3,374 [$3,198] for absenteeism + disability. CONCLUSION: Patients with cluster headache have high healthcare costs that are associated with inpatient admissions and pharmacy fulfillments, and high indirect costs associated with absenteeism and short-term disability.

High-Expenditure Pharmaceutical Use Among Children in Medicaid.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Medication use may be a target for quality improvement, cost containment, and research. We aimed to identify medication classes associated with the highest expenditures among pediatric Medicaid enrollees and to characterize the demographic, clinical, and health service use of children prescribed these medications. METHODS: Retrospective, cross-sectional study of 3 271 081 Medicaid-enrolled children. Outpatient medication spending among high-expenditure medication classes, defined as the 10 most expensive among 261 mutually exclusive medication classes, was determined by using transaction prices paid to pharmacies by Medicaid agencies and managed care plans among prescriptions filled and dispensed in 2013. RESULTS: Outpatient medications accounted for 16.6% of all Medicaid expenditures. The 10 most expensive medication classes accounted for 63.9% of all medication expenditures. Stimulants (amphetamine-type) accounted for both the highest proportion of expenditures (20.6%) and days of medication use (14.0%) among medication classes. Users of medications in the 10 highest-expenditure classes were more likely to have a chronic condition of any complexity (77.9% vs 41.6%), a mental health condition (35.7% vs 11.9%), or a complex chronic condition (9.8% vs 4.3%) than other Medicaid enrollees (all P < .001). The 4 medications with the highest spending were all psychotropic medications. Polypharmacy was common across all high-expenditure classes. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid expenditure on pediatric medicines is concentrated among a relatively small number of medication classes most commonly used in children with chronic conditions. Interventions to improve medication safety and effectiveness and contain costs may benefit from better delineation of the appropriate prescription of these medications.