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.

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.

Evaluating the Importance of Heterogeneity of Treatment Effect: Variation in Patient Utilities Can Influence Choice of the "Optimal" Oral Anticoagulant for Atrial Fibrillation.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) for anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation across subgroups defined by 1) clinical characteristics and 2) variation in patient utilities for benefits and harms of treatment. METHODS: We reanalyzed aggregate data from a published network meta-analysis that compared four anticoagulants for atrial fibrillation (apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban) as well as warfarin. Event rates for stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding were generated for each agent across seven subgroups, and rankings were developed on the basis of clinical performance. Utilities were derived from a national catalog and then applied to generate summary measures of benefit. The choice between any two agents was examined across a range of plausible utility values, defined as the interquartile range for stroke/SE and major bleeding. RESULTS: Little HTE was apparent in clinical and utility-adjusted analyses. Dabigatran 150 mg produced the lowest rates of stroke/SE, and edoxaban 30 mg had the lowest rate of major bleeding. Greater HTE was observed when utilities were varied across a plausible utility range. For example, among patients 75 years and older, dabigatran 150 mg would be preferred over edoxaban 30 mg when mean utility estimates are used. The preferred agent, however, would change at plausible utility thresholds of 0.6 and 0.7 for major bleeding and stroke/SE, respectively. Nearly 25% of all possible comparisons would see a change in preferred treatment within the plausible utility range. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal choice of anticoagulant in atrial fibrillation differs across subgroups defined by clinical characteristics and reasonable ranges of utilities.

Transparency in evidence evaluation and formulary decision-making: from conceptual development to real-world implementation.

OBJECTIVE: Establishing a better understanding of the relationship between evidence evaluation and formulary decision-making has important implications for patients, payers, and providers. The goal of our study was to develop and test a structured approach to evidence evaluation to increase clarity, consistency, and transparency in formulary decision-making. STUDY DESIGN: The study comprised three phases. First, an expert panel identified key constructs to formulary decision-making and created an evidence-assessment tool. Second, with the use of a balanced incomplete block design, the tool was validated by a large group of decision-makers. Third, the tool was pilot-tested in a real-world P&T committee environment. METHODS: An expert panel identified key factors associated with formulary access by rating the level of access that they would give a drug in various hypothetical scenarios. These findings were used to formulate an evidence-assessment tool that was externally validated by surveying a larger sample of decision-makers. Last, the tool was pilot-tested in a real-world environment where P&T committees used it to review new drugs. RESULTS: Survey responses indicated that a structured approach in the formulary decision-making process could yield greater clarity, consistency, and transparency in decision-making; however, pilot-testing of the structured tool in a real-world P&T committee environment highlighted some of the limitations of our structured approach. CONCLUSION: Although a structured approach to formulary decision-making is beneficial for patients, health care providers, and other stakeholders, this benefit was not realized in a real-world environment. A method to improve clarity, consistency, and transparency is still needed.

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.

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.

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.

The relationship between the prevalence of nighttime gastroesophageal reflux disease and disease severity.

BACKGROUND: Nighttime gastrointestinal reflux disease (GERD) prevalence and severity estimates vary substantially across studies. METHODS: We assessed nighttime GERD (NTG) prevalence and symptom frequency and severity through a web survey of US adults, using the GERD Symptom and Medication Questionnaire (GERD-SMQ), a validated symptom questionnaire. NTG was based on episodes of nighttime heartburn per week and time of occurrence. Symptom severity and impact were assessed and compared for GERD cases with and without NTG. RESULTS: GERD prevalence among respondents (n = 2,603) was 27%. Forty-five percent of symptomatic GERD respondents had NTG. Among respondents with both daytime and nighttime symptoms, 51% reported that nighttime symptoms were more bothersome. NTG respondents reported greater disease severity compared with those without (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: NTG symptoms are very common among those identified with GERD. People with nighttime symptoms have greater disease severity than those with exclusively or primarily daytime symptoms.

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 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.

Cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim primary prophylaxis in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor reduces the risk for febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. OBJECTIVE: We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis (starting in cycle 1 of chemotherapy) with pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy in the United States. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was constructed from a health payer's perspective with a lifetime study horizon. The model considered direct medical costs and outcomes related to reduced FN and potential survival benefits due to reduced FN-related mortality and on-time receipt of full-dose chemotherapy. Sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Pegfilgrastim was cost-saving and more effective (ie, dominant strategy) than 11-day filgrastim. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for pegfilgrastim versus 6-day filgrastim was $12,904 per FN episode avoided. Adding the survival benefit due to reduced FN mortality and receipt of optimal chemotherapy dose yielded an ICER of $31,511 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and $14,415 per QALY gained, respectively. The most influential factors included inpatient FN case-fatality rate, cost of pegfilgrastim and filgrastim, baseline probability of FN, relative risk for FN between filgrastim and pegfil-grastim, and cost of administration of filgrastim. CONCLUSION: Pegfilgrastim was cost-saving compared with 11-day filgrastim and cost-effective compared with 6-day filgrastim from a health payer's perspective for the primary prophylaxis of FN in these women with early-stage breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

Cost-effectiveness of primary versus secondary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: Prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) reduces the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness of G-CSF pegfilgrastim primary (starting in cycle 1 and continuing in subsequent cycles of chemotherapy) versus secondary (only after an FN event) prophylaxis in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy with a >or=20% FN risk. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was constructed from a health insurer's perspective with a lifetime study horizon. The model considers direct medical costs and outcomes related to reduced FN and potential survival benefits because of reduced FN-related mortality. Inputs for the model were obtained from the medical literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted across plausible ranges in parameter values. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of pegfilgrastim as primary versus secondary prophylaxis was $48,000/FN episode avoided. Adding survival benefit from avoiding FN mortality yielded an ICER of $110,000/life-year gained (LYG) or $116,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The most influential factors included FN case-fatality, FN relative risk reduction from primary prophylaxis, and age at diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with secondary prophylaxis, the cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis may be equivalent or superior to other commonly used supportive care interventions for women with breast cancer. Further assessment of the direct impact of G-CSF on short- and long-term survival is needed to substantiate these findings.

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.

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.

Impact of systemic hypertension on the cardiovascular benefits of statin therapy--a meta-analysis.

The ASCOT-LLA and ALLHAT-LLT trials provide conflicting evidence of the efficacy of statins in decreasing cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality in hypertensive patients. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the overall efficacy of statins in hypertensive and nonhypertensive patients enrolled in major randomized clinical trials. We systematically reviewed PubMed publications from 1985 onward for placebo-controlled randomized trials that examined the effect of statins on cardiac morbidity and mortality. Only trials that followed >or=1,000 patients for >or=2 years were included in the meta-analysis. Outcomes included cardiac or CV death, major coronary events, or major CV events. Pooled estimates of relative risk (RR) were calculated separately for hypertensive and nonhypertensive patients. The moderating effect of the percentage of hypertensive patients at baseline was tested using meta-regression. Besides the ASCOT-LLA and ALLHAT-LLT, 12 trials enrolling 69,984 patients met inclusion criteria. Overall, in these 12 trials, statin therapy decreased cardiac death by 24% (RR 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71 to 0.82). There was no evidence of difference in RR estimates for hypertensive (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.84) and nonhypertensive (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.80) patients. Similarly, meta-regression showed that the efficacy of statins was not moderated by the percentage of hypertensive patients at baseline (Q estimate 1.51, p=0.22). In conclusion, statin therapy effectively decreases CV morbidity and mortality to the same extent in hypertensive and nonhypertensive patients.