Ionization Cross Sections of Hydrogen Molecule by Electron and Positron Impact.

We present ionization cross sections of hydrogen molecules by electron and positron impact for impact energies between 20 and 1000 eV. A three-body Classical Trajectory Monte Carlo approximation is applied to mimic the collision system. In this approach, the H2 molecule is modeled by a hydrogen-type atom with one active electron bound to a central core of effective charge with an effective binding energy. Although this model is crude for describing a hydrogen molecule, we found that the total cross sections for positron impact agree reasonably well with the experimental data. For the electron impact, our calculated cross sections are in good agreement with the experimental data in impact energies between 80 eV and 400 eV but are smaller at higher impact energies and larger at lower impact energies. Our calculated cross sections are compared with the scaled cross sections obtained experimentally for an atomic hydrogen target. We also present single differential cross sections as a function of the energy and angle of the ejected electron and scattered projectiles for a 250 eV impact. These are shown to agree well with available data. Impact parameter distributions are also compared for several impact energies.

The Dollar or Disease Burden: Caps on Healthcare Spending May Save Money, but at What "Cost" to Patients?

OBJECTIVES: Various strategies to address healthcare spending and medical costs continue to be debated and implemented in the United States. To date, these efforts have failed to adequately contain the growth of healthcare cost. An alternative strategy that has elicited rising interest among policymakers is budget caps. As budget caps become more prevalent, it is important to identify which features are needed to ensure success, both in terms of cost reduction and health improvement. METHODS: We explored the impacts of different features of budget caps by comparing hypothetical service level and global budget caps across 3 annual budget cap growth strategies over a 10-year timeframe in 2005-2015 for 8 of the most commonly occurring conditions in the United States. Health was assessed by a measure of disease burden (disability-adjusted life years). RESULTS: The results indicate that budget caps have the potential for creating savings but can also result in patient harm if not designed well. As a result of these findings, 5 principles were developed for designing budget caps and should guide the use of budget caps to address medical spending. CONCLUSIONS: As public discussion grows about the use of budget caps to constrain health spending, it is critical to recognize that the budget cap design and the resulting healthcare provider behavior will determine whether there is potential harm to public health. Budget cap design should consider variability at the condition level, including patient population, improvements in health, treatment costs, and the innovations available, to both create savings and maximize patient health. In assessing the impact of healthcare spending caps on costs and disease burden, we demonstrate that budget cap design determines potential harm to public health.

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.

A Comparison of Coverage Restrictions for Biopharmaceuticals and Medical Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Differences in payer evaluation and coverage of pharmaceuticals and medical procedures suggest that coverage may differ for medications and procedures independent of their clinical benefit. We hypothesized that coverage for medications is more restricted than corresponding coverage for nonmedication interventions. METHODS: We included top-selling medications and highly utilized procedures. For each intervention-indication pair, we classified value in terms of cost-effectiveness (incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year), as reported by the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry. For each intervention-indication pair and for each of 10 large payers, we classified coverage, when available, as either "more restrictive" or as "not more restrictive," compared with a benchmark. The benchmark reflected the US Food and Drug Administration label information, when available, or pertinent clinical guidelines. We compared coverage policies and the benchmark in terms of step edits and clinical restrictions. Finally, we regressed coverage restrictiveness against intervention type (medication or nonmedication), controlling for value (cost-effectiveness more or less favorable than a designated threshold). RESULTS: We identified 392 medication and 185 procedure coverage decisions. A total of 26.3% of the medication coverage and 38.4% of the procedure coverage decisions were more restrictive than their corresponding benchmarks. After controlling for value, the odds of being more restrictive were 42% lower for medications than for procedures. Including unfavorable tier placement in the definition of "more restrictive" greatly increased the proportion of medication coverage decisions classified as "more restrictive" and reversed our findings. CONCLUSIONS: Therapy access depends on factors other than cost and clinical benefit, suggesting potential health care system inefficiency.

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.

Concerns Around Budget Impact Thresholds: Not All Drugs Are the Same.

BACKGROUND: The use of budget thresholds is a recent development in the United States (e.g., the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review drug assessments). Budget thresholds establish limits that require some type of budgetary action if exceeded. This research focused on the advisability of using product-level budget thresholds as fixed spending caps by examining whether they are likely to improve or worsen market efficiency over status quo. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether fixed product-level spending caps are advisable for biopharmaceuticals. METHODS: We systematically examined 5-year, postlaunch revenue for drugs that launched in the United States between 2003 and 2014 using the IMS MIDAS database. For products launched between 2011 and 2014, we used historical revenue as the baseline and trended out 60 months postlaunch based on exponential smoothing. Forecasted fifth-year revenue was compared to analyst reports. Fifth-year revenue was compared against a hypothetical $904 million spending cap to determine the amount of annual spending that might require reallocation. Descriptive statistics of 5-year, postlaunch revenue and annual spending requiring reallocation were calculated. RESULTS: Adhering to a $904 million product-level spending cap requires that approximately one-third of new drug spending be reallocated to other goods and services that have the potential to be less cost-effective due to significant barriers. CONCLUSION: Fixed product-level spending caps have the potential to reduce market efficiency due to their independence from value and the presence of important operational challenges.

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.

Heterogeneity in action: the role of passive personalization in comparative effectiveness research.

Despite the goal of comparative effectiveness research (CER) to inform patient-centered care, most studies fail to account for the patient-centeredness of care that already exist in practice, which we denote as passive personalization (PP). Because CER studies describe the average effectiveness of treatments rather than heterogeneity in how individual patients respond to therapies, clinical or coverage policies that respond to CER results may undermine PP in clinical practice and generate worse outcomes. We study this phenomenon empirically in the context of use of antipsychotic drugs in Medicaid patients with schizophrenia using novel instrumental variable methods. We find strong support for PP in clinical practice and demonstrate that the average effects from a CER study cannot be replicated in practice because of the presence of PP. In contrast, providing physicians with evidence to further personalize treatment can produce significant benefits.

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.

What might have happened: the impact of interrupting entry of innovative drugs on disease outcomes in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: The study estimated the extent to which drug innovations over the past 30 years may have improved outcomes for six diseases. AREAS COVERED: We analyzed six diseases (ischemic heart disease, lung cancer, breast cancer, human immunodeficiency virus [HIV] infection, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and rheumatoid arthritis [RA]) with significant mortality or morbidity for which there have been major drug innovations over the past 30 years. We used U.S. data from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) database and a patient registry to perform counterfactual time-series analyses predicting the improved health outcomes that may have been associated with major drug innovations. For 5 conditions using data from the GBD study, years of life lost per individual with the condition could have been higher by 17.1% (breast cancer) to 660.6% (HIV infection) in 2017 had the major drug innovations not been introduced. For RA, using patient registry data, patients' functional status could have been 11.5% worse had biological therapies not been introduced. EXPERT OPINION: Policies targeting drug prices should be broadened to consider the price and value of all health-care services. The societal importance of the pharmaceutical industry's ability to respond rapidly to emerging diseases should be recognized.

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.

Barriers and Solutions to the Inclusion of Broader Benefits in Biopharmaceutical Value Assessments.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this was to evaluate how institutional barriers prevent the inclusion of broader individual and societal benefits associated with new health care innovations from being considered when assessing the value of medical treatments and making health care coverage determinations. METHODS: A survey of health insurance providers, pharmacy benefit managers, employee benefit consultancies, and employer group representatives in the United States queried respondents' opinions regarding the feasibility of evaluating indirect treatment benefits in four domains: absenteeism, presenteeism, caregiver burden, and quality of life. RESULTS: Inclusion of indirect benefits (including absenteeism and presenteeism) in the assessment of a treatment's value was of low importance to payers, but higher importance to employer stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: Therapies that improve physical or mental function accrue benefits both directly and indirectly and can only be adequately assessed if measurement standards for indirect benefits and quantifiable measures are established.

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.