Designing a Value-Based Formulary for a Commercial Health Plan: A Simulated Case Study of Diabetes Medications.

OBJECTIVES: The healthcare expenditure for managing diabetes with glucose-lowering medications has been substantial in the United States. We simulated a novel, value-based formulary (VBF) design for a commercial health plan and modeled possible changes in spending and utilization of antidiabetic agents. METHODS: We designed a 4-tier VBF with exclusions in consultation with health plan stakeholders. The formulary information included covered drugs, tiers, thresholds, and cost sharing amounts. The value of 22 diabetes mellitus drugs was determined primarily in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Using pharmacy claims database (2019-2020), we identified 40 150 beneficiaries who were on the included diabetes mellitus medicines. We simulated future health plan spending and out-of-pocket costs with 3 VBF designs, using published own price elasticity estimates. RESULTS: The average age of the cohort is 55 years (51% female). Compared with the current formulary, the proposed VBF design with exclusions is estimated to reduce total annual health plan spending by 33.2% (current: $33 956 211; VBF: $22 682 576), saving $281 in annual spending per member (current: $846; VBF: $565) and $100 in annual out-of-pocket spending per member (current: $119; VBF: $19). Implementing the full VBF with new cost shares, along with exclusions, has the potential to achieve the greatest savings, compared with the 2 intermediate VBF designs (ie, VBF with prior cost sharing and VBF without exclusions). Sensitivity analyses using various price elasticity values showed declines in all spending outcomes. CONCLUSION: Designing a VBF with exclusions in a US employer-based health plan has the potential to reduce health plan and patient spending.

Identifying and prioritising gaps in colorectal cancer trials research in Australia.

OBJECTIVES: To identify gaps in colorectal cancer clinical trials research in Australia and to suggest and prioritise trials to fill those gaps. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective review of colorectal cancer trial activity from 1 January 2005 to 1 July 2011 in Australia and internationally, followed by a consensus meeting of consumers, health care professionals, researchers and funding agencies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of Phase III and randomised clinical trials in the areas of prevention, screening, surgery, adjuvant therapy, advanced disease and behavioural interventions, and priority areas of research identified by participants at the consensus meeting. RESULTS: The registry search identified 76 colorectal cancer clinical trials (all phases) registered in Australia from 1 January 2005 to 1 July 2011, of which 51 were Phase III or randomised, and 323 Phase III and randomised trials registered worldwide. In Australia, most trials were in advanced colorectal cancer (32), screening (10), and behavioural interventions (9). Worldwide, most Phase III or randomised trials were in advanced disease (94, 29.1%), surgery (64, 19.8%), behavioural interventions (38, 11.8%), and screening (30, 9.3%). At the consensus meeting, all participant groups emphasised the need for research in secondary prevention, screening, individualised treatments and follow-up care after treatment for colorectal cancer. CONCLUSIONS: There is a mismatch between the high proportion of registered trials in advanced colorectal cancer and the areas of priority identified. The development of specific trials in these priority areas depends on the availability of funding and the existence of plausible interventions likely to improve patient outcomes.

Reducing the risks of diabetes complications through diabetes self-management education and support.

People with diabetes are at risk of developing complications that contribute to substantial morbidity and mortality. In 2011, the American Association of Diabetes Educators convened an invitational Reducing Risks Symposium, during which an interdisciplinary panel of 11 thought leaders examined current knowledge about the reduction and prevention of diabetes-related risks and translated evidence into diabetes care and self-management education. Symposium participants reviewed findings from the literature and engaged in a moderated roundtable discussion. This report summarizes the discussion and presents recommendations to incorporate into practice to improve outcomes. The objective of the symposium was to develop practical advice for diabetes educators and other members of the diabetes care team regarding the reduction of diabetes-related risks. Optimal diabetes management requires patients to actively participate in their care, which occurs most effectively with a multidisciplinary team. Diabetes education is an integral part of this team approach because it not only helps the patient understand diabetes, its progression, and possible complications, but also provides guidance and encouragement to the patient to engage in proactive risk-reduction decisions for optimal health. A variety of tools are available to help the diabetes educator develop an individualized, patient-centered plan for risk reduction. More research is needed regarding intervention efficacy, best practices to improve adherence, and quantification of benefits from ongoing diabetes support in risk reduction. Diabetes educators are urged to stay abreast of evolving models of care and to build relationships with health care providers both within and beyond the diabetes care team.

Healthy coping: issues and implications in diabetes education and care.

Psychological, emotional, and social factors not only impact quality of life, but also often play a role in chronic illness outcomes. Diabetes care, in particular, is greatly influenced by psychosocial factors when they hinder a person's ability to manage the disease and achieve metabolic control. Healthy coping, defined as responding to a psychological and physical challenge by recruiting available resources to increase the probability of favorable outcomes in the future, is essential to effective self-management by people with diabetes. In June 2009, the American Association of Diabetes Educators convened a multidisciplinary expert panel to discuss healthy coping in diabetes. The panel included diabetes educators and behavioral science and mental health professionals. Drawing on their knowledge and experiences, as well as information presented at the symposium, the panel probed several aspects of healthy coping including what it entails, common barriers, assessment, population diversity, and clinical applications. A team approach to addressing the patient's coping is critical. Team involvement relieves the diabetes educator of the entire burden of supporting the patient in this regard. The team should be broadly defined and include those who are formally and informally involved. Healthy coping is a complex, qualitative behavior that cannot be easily quantified. Future efforts to address the issue of healthy coping should add to the body of literature regarding diabetes self-management at the individual and population-based levels.