Validity of ICD-10-based algorithms to identify patients with influenza in inpatient and outpatient settings.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the validity of ICD-10-CM code-based algorithms as proxies for influenza in inpatient and outpatient settings in the USA. METHODS: Administrative claims data (2015-2018) from the largest commercial insurer in New Jersey (NJ), USA, were probabilistically linked to outpatient and inpatient electronic health record (EHR) data containing influenza test results from a large NJ health system. The primary claims-based algorithms defined influenza as presence of an ICD-10-CM code for influenza, stratified by setting (inpatient/outpatient) and code position for inpatient encounters. Test characteristics and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using test-positive influenza as a reference standard. Test characteristics of alternative outpatient algorithms incorporating CPT/HCPCS testing codes and anti-influenza medication pharmacy claims were also calculated. RESULTS: There were 430 documented influenza test results within the study period (295 inpatient, 135 outpatient). The claims-based influenza definition had a sensitivity of 84.9% (95% CI 72.9%-92.1%), specificity of 96.3% (95% CI 93.1%-98.0%), and PPV of 83.3% (95% CI 71.3%-91.0%) in the inpatient setting, and a sensitivity of 76.7% (95% CI 59.1%-88.2%), specificity of 96.2% (95% CI 90.6%-98.5%), PPV of 85.2% (95% CI 67.5%-94.1%) in the outpatient setting. Primary inpatient discharge diagnoses had a sensitivity of 54.7% (95% CI 41.5%-67.3%), specificity of 99.6% (95% CI 97.7%-99.9%), and PPV of 96.7% (95% CI 83.3%-99.4%). CPT/HCPCS codes and anti-influenza medication claims were present for few outpatient encounters (sensitivity 3%-10%). CONCLUSIONS: In a large US healthcare system, inpatient ICD-10-CM codes for influenza, particularly primary inpatient diagnoses, had high predictive value for test-positive influenza. Outpatient ICD-10-CM codes were moderately predictive of test-positive influenza.

Association of Potentially Modifiable Diabetes Care Factors With Glycemic Control in Patients With Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes.

Importance: Numerous factors are associated with the ability of patients with type 2 diabetes to achieve optimal glycemic control. However, many of these factors are not modifiable by quality improvement interventions. In contrast, the structure of how diabetes care is delivered, such as whether patients visit an endocrinologist or how prescriptions are filled, is potentially modifiable, yet its associations with glycemic control have not been rigorously evaluated. Objective: To investigate the association of diabetes care delivery with glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes using insulin. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used baseline claims and laboratory insurer data within a large pragmatic trial to identify individuals with type 2 diabetes using insulin with data for at least 1 hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) test result from before trial randomization (July 1, 2014, to October 5, 2016) and for key nonmodifiable patient factors as well as diabetes care delivery and behavioral factors measured before the HbA1c test. Analyses were conducted from February 4, 2017, to November 13, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Multivariable modified Poisson regression was used to evaluate the independent associations of nonmodifiable patient factors and potentially modifiable diabetes care delivery and patient behavioral factors with achieving adequate diabetes control (ie, HbA1c level <8%). The extent of measured variation explained in glycemic control by these factors was also explored using pseudo R2 and C statistics. Results: Of 1423 patients included, 565 (39.7%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 56.4 (9.0) years. In total, 690 (48.5%) had HbA1c levels less than 8%. Age (relative risk [RR] per 1-unit increase, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02), persistent use of basal insulin (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.00-1.43), more frequent filling of glucose self-testing supplies (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.01-1.02), visiting an endocrinologist (RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.19-1.67), and receipt of insulin prescriptions by mail order (RR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.03-1.48) were all independently associated with adequate control. Measured potentially modifiable diabetes care factors explained more variation in adequate glycemic control than measured nonmodifiable patient factors (C statistic, 0.661 vs 0.598; pseudo R2 = 0.11 vs 0.04). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that for patients with type 2 diabetes using insulin, the way in which care is delivered may be more strongly associated with achieving adequate control of HbA1c levels than patient factors that cannot be altered are. Given the potential for intervention, these care delivery factors could be the focus of efforts to improve diabetes outcomes.

Fournier's gangrene in patients with type 2 diabetes using second-line antidiabetic medications.

Cases of a rare but serious infection called Fournier's gangrene have been reported with sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i). To evaluate the safety signal in a population of patients with type 2 diabetes, we used administrative claims data from Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey from 2014 through 2017 to estimate incidence rates of Fournier's gangrene or necrotizing fasciitis of the perineum among patients treated with a second-line antidiabetic drug. We found very low incidence rates of Fournier's gangrene or necrotizing fasciitis. While we found no indication of an increased risk among SGLT-2i users compared with similar patients treated with other second-line antidiabetic medications, the small number of events yielded wide confidence intervals.

Ongoing strategies to improve the management of upper respiratory tract infections and reduce inappropriate antibiotic use particularly among lower and middle-income countries: findings and implications for the future.

Introduction: Antibiotics are indispensable to maintaining human health; however, their overuse has resulted in resistant organisms, increasing morbidity, mortality and costs. Increasing antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a major public health threat, resulting in multiple campaigns across countries to improve appropriate antimicrobial use. This includes addressing the overuse of antimicrobials for self-limiting infections, such as upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), particularly in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where there is the greatest inappropriate use and where antibiotic utilization has increased the most in recent years. Consequently, there is a need to document current practices and successful initiatives in LMICs to improve future antimicrobial use.Methodology: Documentation of current epidemiology and management of URTIs, particularly in LMICs, as well as campaigns to improve future antimicrobial use and their influence where known.Results: Much concern remains regarding the prescribing and dispensing of antibiotics for URTIs among LMICs. This includes considerable self-purchasing, up to 100% of pharmacies in some LMICs. However, multiple activities are now ongoing to improve future use. These incorporate educational initiatives among all key stakeholder groups, as well as legislation and other activities to reduce self-purchasing as part of National Action Plans (NAPs). Further activities are still needed however. These include increased physician and pharmacist education, starting in medical and pharmacy schools; greater monitoring of prescribing and dispensing practices, including the development of pertinent quality indicators; and targeted patient information and health education campaigns. It is recognized that such activities are more challenging in LMICs given more limited resources and a lack of healthcare professionals.Conclusion: Initiatives will grow across LMICs to reduce inappropriate prescribing and dispensing of antimicrobials for URTIs as part of NAPs and other activities, and these will be monitored.

Actionable Real-World Evidence to Improve Health Outcomes and Reduce Medical Spending Among Risk-Stratified Patients with Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a chronic condition with a high economic burden as well as drug treatments that have not all demonstrated effects on longevity. Managed care organizations want to improve health outcomes in these complex patients but lack actionable evidence to make informed decisions on which therapies are most effective among their members and may also control total health care spending. OBJECTIVE: To produce actionable evidence by identifying antidiabetic treatments that are effective and may reduce total cost of care in various risk groups of patients with T2DM, using insurance claims data that includes medical claims and pharmacy dispensing data among members of Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey with T2DM. METHODS: We identified patients with T2DM in longitudinal claims data from Horizon between 2014 and 2017 with demographic and enrollment information, inpatient and outpatient diagnoses and procedures, and pharmacy dispensing. Outcomes included myocardial infarction, heart failure (HF), stroke, percutaneous revascularization, health care services utilization, and plan costs (i.e., medical, pharmacy, and total cost of care). After propensity score decile adjustment on over 20 covariates, we evaluated the effectiveness and safety of second-line antidiabetic treatment that included sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, sulfonylureas (SUs), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. RESULTS: Among 115,308 members with T2DM, the most common comorbidities were cardiovascular risk factors, including hyperlipidemia (56%), hypertension (50%), and existing cardiovascular disease (CVD; 55%). Among members receiving dual antidiabetic treatment (n = 20,204), the most prevalent treatments were metformin plus the following second-line medications: SUs (42%), DPP-4 inhibitors (29%), SGLT-2 inhibitors (10%), or GLP-1 receptor agonists (3%). Approximately 20% of members accounted for 79% of total cost of care, with an average of $9,605 per member per year (PMPY). Compared with SU initiation and after propensity score decile adjustment, new users of SGLT-2 inhibitors had a reduced risk for HF hospitalization (HR = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.13-0.89), hypoglycemia, albuminuria, microvascular disease, and metabolic failure. Among SGLT-2 inhibitor initiators with established CVD, the savings in total cost of care compared with SU initiators was $5,520 per member over an average treatment duration of 6 months and an approximate savings of $11,000 PMPY if patients persisted on treatment for 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: In the Horizon membership, we confirmed that SGLT-2 inhibitors reduce HF hospitalizations, resulting in reduced medical spending and savings in total cost of care. Regulatory-grade analytics of local data provided the confidence to encourage increased SGLT-2 inhibitor use to produce better outcomes and save total cost of care despite higher pharmacy spending. DISCLOSURES: This research did not receive outside funding; however, Aetion has since begun a contractual relationship with Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey. Garry, Petruski-Ivleva, Cheever, and Rajan are employees of and have stock options in Aetion, a company that makes software for the analysis of real-world data. Eapen was an employee of Aetion during the implementation of this study. Rassen is an employee of and has ownership interest in Aetion. Murk is a consultant to Aetion of which he owns equity. Schneeweiss is a consultant to WHISCON and to Aetion, of which he also owns equity. He is the principal investigator of investigator-initiated grants to the Brigham and Women's Hospital from Bayer, Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Vertex. Gambino is an employee and officer at Horizon Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Jersey. He was recently appointed to a board observer position at Aetion, as Horizon has small equity interest in Aetion. Jan is an employee of Rutgers State University and Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey and has no conflict of interest or association with Aetion or any pharmaceutical company. Jang and Rubin are employees of Horizon Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Jersey and have no conflict of interest or association with Aetion. This work was presented as a poster at AMCP Nexus 2018, October 22-25, 2018, in Orlando, FL; as part of a continuing education session at the AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy 2019 Annual Meeting in San Diego, CA, March 25-28, 2019; as invited podium presenter at the Blue Cross Blue Shield 2019 National Summit conference in Grapevine, TX, April 29-May 2, 2019; and was accepted for a podium presentation at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) 2019 annual conference in New Orleans, LA, May 18-22, 2019, where it won an award for Best Podium Presentation.

Impact of a novel pharmacist-delivered behavioral intervention for patients with poorly-controlled diabetes: The ENhancing outcomes through Goal Assessment and Generating Engagement in Diabetes Mellitus (ENGAGE-DM) pragmatic randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Many factors contribute to suboptimal diabetes control including insufficiently-intensive treatment and non-adherence to medication and lifestyle. Determining which of these is most relevant for individual patients is challenging. Patient engagement techniques may help identify contributors to suboptimal adherence and address barriers (using motivational interviewing) and help facilitate choices among treatment augmentation options (using shared decision-making). These methods have not been used in combination to improve diabetes outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a telephone-based patient-centered intervention on glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) control for individuals with poorly-controlled diabetes. DESIGN: Two-arm pragmatic randomized control trial within an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design. SUBJECTS: 1,400 participants 18-64 years old with poorly-controlled type 2 diabetes. INTERVENTION: The intervention was delivered over the telephone by a clinical pharmacist and consisted of a 2-step process that integrated brief negotiated interviewing and shared decision-making to identify patient goals and options for enhancing diabetes management. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was change in HbA1c. Secondary outcomes were medication adherence measures. Outcomes were evaluated using intention-to-treat principles; multiple imputation was used for missing values in the 12-month follow-up. We used information from pharmacist notes to elicit factors to potentially explain the intervention's effectiveness. KEY RESULTS: Participants had a mean age of 54.7 years (SD:8.3) and baseline HbA1c of 9.4 (SD:1.6). Change in HbA1c from baseline was -0.79 (SD:2.01) in the control arm and -0.75 (SD:1.76) in the intervention arm (difference:+0.04, 95%CI: -0.22, 0.30). There were no significant differences in adherence. In as-treated analyses, the intervention significantly improved diabetes control (-0.48, 95%CI: -0.91, -0.05). Qualitative findings provided several potential explanations for the findings, including insufficiently addressing patient barriers. CONCLUSIONS: A novel telephone-based patient-centered intervention did not improve HbA1c among individuals with poorly-controlled diabetes, though as-treated analyses suggest that the intervention was effective for those who received it. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02910089.

Effectiveness of Targeted Insulin-Adherence Interventions for Glycemic Control Using Predictive Analytics Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Patient adherence to antidiabetic medications, especially insulin, remains poor, leading to adverse outcomes and increased costs. Most adherence interventions have only been modestly effective, partly because they are not targeted to patients who could benefit most. Objective: To evaluate whether delivering more intensive insulin-adherence interventions only to individuals with type 2 diabetes predicted to benefit most was more effective than delivering a lower-intensity intervention to a larger group of unselected individuals. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 3-arm pragmatic randomized clinical trial used data from Horizon, the largest health insurer in New Jersey, on 6000 participants 18 years or older with type 2 diabetes who were receiving basal insulin. Patients were excluded if they were insured by Medicaid or Medicare or had fewer than 3 months of continuous enrollment. The study was conducted from July 7, 2016, through October 5, 2017. Analyses were conducted from February 5 to September 24, 2018. Interventions: Eligible patients were randomized to 3 arms in a 1:1:1 ratio. Randomization was stratified based on baseline availability of 1 or more glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) test values. All arms were designed to cost the same, and each cohort received a tailored pharmacist telephone consultation varying based on (1) proportion receiving the intervention and (2) intensity, including follow-up frequency and cointerventions. Arm 1 offered a low-intensity intervention to all patients. Arm 2 offered a moderate-intensity intervention to 60% of patients based on their predicted risk of insulin nonadherence. Arm 3 offered a high-intensity intervention to 40% of patients based on glycemic control and predicted risk of insulin nonadherence. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was insulin persistence. Secondary outcomes were changes in HbA1c level and health care utilization. Outcomes were evaluated in arms 2 and 3 vs arm 1 using claims data, intention-to-treat principles, and multiple imputation for missing values in the 12-month follow-up. Results: Among 6000 participants, mean (SD) age was 55.9 (11.0) years and 3344 (59.8%) were male. Compared with arm 1, insulin nonpersistence did not differ in arm 2 (relative risk, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75-1.03) or arm 3 (relative risk, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.77-1.06). Glycemic control was similar in arm 2 and arm 1 (absolute HbA1c level difference, -0.15%; 95% CI, -0.34% to 0.05%) but was better in arm 3 (absolute HbA1c level difference, -0.25%; 95% CI, -0.43% to -0.06%). Total spending and office visits did not differ, but arm 2 (moderate intensity intervention) had more hospitalizations (odds ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.06-1.41) and emergency department visits (odds ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.24-1.53) than did arm 1 (low intensity intervention). Conclusions and Relevance: Compared with an untargeted low-intensity intervention, delivering a highly targeted high-intensity intervention did not improve insulin persistence but modestly improved mean glycemic control. A partially targeted moderate-intensity intervention did not change insulin persistence or HbA1c level but was associated with a small increase in hospitalizations. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02846779.

Targeted Adherence Intervention to Reach Glycemic Control with Insulin Therapy for patients with Diabetes (TARGIT-Diabetes): rationale and design of a pragmatic randomised clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Adherence to and persistence of medications for chronic diseases remains poor and many interventions to improve medication use have only been modestly effective. Targeting interventions to patients who are most likely to benefit should improve their efficiency and clinical impact. This study aims to test the impact of three cost-equivalent pharmacist-led interventions on insulin persistence and glycaemic control among patients with diabetes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: TARGIT-Diabetes (Targeted Adherence Intervention to Reach Glycemic Control with Insulin Therapy for patients with Diabetes) is a randomised controlled trial that will evaluate three different multifaceted pharmacist-outreach strategies for improving long-term insulin use among individuals with diabetes. We will randomise 6000 patients in a large insurer to one of three arms. The arms are designed to deliver an increasingly intensive intervention to a progressively targeted population, identified using predictive analytics. The central component of the intervention in all arms is a tailored telephone consultation with a pharmacist which varies across arms based on the: (A) proportion of patients offered the intervention and (B) intervention intensity, including follow-up frequency and cointerventions such as text reminders and interactions with patients' providers. The primary outcome is insulin persistence, assessed using pharmacy claims data, and the secondary outcomes are glycaemic control as measured by glycosylated haemoglobin values, healthcare utilisation and healthcare spending. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of Brigham and Women's Hospital and the Privacy Board of Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey. We plan to present the results of this trial at national meetings and in manuscripts submitted to peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT 02846779.

Rationale and design of the ENhancing outcomes through Goal Assessment and Generating Engagement in Diabetes Mellitus (ENGAGE-DM) pragmatic trial.

BACKGROUND: Poor glycemic control among patients with diabetes may stem from poor medication and lifestyle adherence or a failure to appropriately intensify therapy. A patient-centered approach could discern the most likely possibility and would then, as appropriate, address patient barriers to non-adherence (using behavioral interviewing methods such as motivational interviewing) or help facilitate choices among treatment augmentation options (using methods such as shared decision-making). OBJECTIVE: To test the impact of a novel telephone-based patient-centered intervention on glycemic control for patients with poorly-controlled diabetes. METHODS/DESIGN: ENGAGE-DM (ENhancing outcomes through Goal Assessment and Generating Engagement in Diabetes Mellitus) is a pragmatic trial of patients with poorly-controlled diabetes receiving treatment with an oral hypoglycemic agent. We randomized 1400 patients in a large health insurer to intervention or usual care. The intervention is delivered over the telephone by a pharmacist and consists of a 2-step process that integrates brief negotiated interviewing and shared decision-making to identify patient-concordant goals and options for enhancing patients' diabetes management. The trial's primary outcome is disease control, assessed using glycosylated hemoglobin values. Secondary outcomes include medication adherence measures, assessed using pharmacy claims data. CONCLUSIONS: This trial will determine whether a novel highly-scalable patient engagement strategy improves disease control and adherence to medications among individuals with poorly-controlled diabetes.

Introduction and Utilization of High Priced HCV Medicines across Europe; Implications for the Future.

BACKGROUND: Infection with the Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) is a widespread transmittable disease with a diagnosed prevalence of 2.0%. Fortunately, it is now curable in most patients. Sales of medicines to treat HCV infection grew 2.7% per year between 2004 and 2011, enhanced by the launch of the protease inhibitors (PIs) boceprevir (BCV) and telaprevir (TVR) in addition to ribavirin and pegylated interferon (pegIFN). Costs will continue to rise with new treatments including sofosbuvir, which now include interferon free regimens. OBJECTIVE: Assess the uptake of BCV and TVR across Europe from a health authority perspective to offer future guidance on dealing with new high cost medicines. METHODS: Cross-sectional descriptive study of medicines to treat HCV (pegIFN, ribavirin, BCV and TVR) among European countries from 2008 to 2013. Utilization measured in defined daily doses (DDDs)/1000 patients/quarter (DIQs) and expenditure in Euros/DDD. Health authority activities to influence treatments categorized using the 4E methodology (Education, Engineering, Economics and Enforcement). RESULTS: Similar uptake of BCV and TVR among European countries and regions, ranging from 0.5 DIQ in Denmark, Netherlands and Slovenia to 1.5 DIQ in Tayside and Catalonia in 2013. However, different utilization of the new PIs vs. ribavirin indicates differences in dual vs. triple therapy, which is down to factors including physician preference and genotypes. Reimbursed prices for BCV and TVR were comparable across countries. CONCLUSION: There was reasonable consistency in the utilization of BCV and TVR among European countries in comparison with other high priced medicines. This may reflect the social demand to limit the transmission of HCV. However, the situation is changing with new curative medicines for HCV genotype 1 (GT1) with potentially an appreciable budget impact. These concerns have resulted in different prices across countries, with their impact on budgets and patient outcomes monitored in the future to provide additional guidance.

Are new models needed to optimize the utilization of new medicines to sustain healthcare systems?

Medicines have made an appreciable contribution to improving health. However, even high-income countries are struggling to fund new premium-priced medicines. This will grow necessitating the development of new models to optimize their use. The objective is to review case histories among health authorities to improve the utilization and expenditure on new medicines. Subsequently, use these to develop exemplar models and outline their implications. A number of issues and challenges were identified from the case histories. These included the low number of new medicines seen as innovative alongside increasing requested prices for their reimbursement, especially for oncology, orphan diseases, diabetes and HCV. Proposed models center on the three pillars of pre-, peri- and post-launch including critical drug evaluation, as well as multi-criteria models for valuing medicines for orphan diseases alongside potentially capping pharmaceutical expenditure. In conclusion, the proposed models involving all key stakeholder groups are critical for the sustainability of healthcare systems or enhancing universal access. The models should help stimulate debate as well as restore trust between key stakeholder groups.

Personalizing health care: feasibility and future implications.

Considerable variety in how patients respond to treatments, driven by differences in their geno- and/ or phenotypes, calls for a more tailored approach. This is already happening, and will accelerate with developments in personalized medicine. However, its promise has not always translated into improvements in patient care due to the complexities involved. There are also concerns that advice for tests has been reversed, current tests can be costly, there is fragmentation of funding of care, and companies may seek high prices for new targeted drugs. There is a need to integrate current knowledge from a payer's perspective to provide future guidance. Multiple findings including general considerations; influence of pharmacogenomics on response and toxicity of drug therapies; value of biomarker tests; limitations and costs of tests; and potentially high acquisition costs of new targeted therapies help to give guidance on potential ways forward for all stakeholder groups. Overall, personalized medicine has the potential to revolutionize care. However, current challenges and concerns need to be addressed to enhance its uptake and funding to benefit patients.

Dabigatran - a case history demonstrating the need for comprehensive approaches to optimize the use of new drugs.

BACKGROUND: There are potential conflicts between authorities and companies to fund new premium priced drugs especially where there are safety and/or budget concerns. Dabigatran, a new oral anticoagulant for the prevention of stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF), exemplifies this issue. Whilst new effective treatments are needed, there are issues in the elderly with dabigatran due to variable drug concentrations, no known antidote and dependence on renal elimination. Published studies have shown dabigatran to be cost-effective but there are budget concerns given the prevalence of AF. There are also issues with potentially re-designing anticoagulant services. This has resulted in activities across countries to better manage its use. OBJECTIVE: To (i) review authority activities in over 30 countries and regions, (ii) use the findings to develop new models to better manage the entry of new drugs, and (iii) review the implications for all major stakeholder groups. METHODOLOGY: Descriptive review and appraisal of activities regarding dabigatran and the development of guidance for groups through an iterative process. RESULTS: There has been a plethora of activities among authorities to manage the prescribing of dabigatran including extensive pre-launch activities, risk sharing arrangements, prescribing restrictions, and monitoring of prescribing post-launch. Reimbursement has been denied in some countries due to concerns with its budget impact and/or excessive bleeding. Development of a new model and future guidance is proposed to better manage the entry of new drugs, centering on three pillars of pre-, peri-, and post-launch activities. CONCLUSION: Models for introducing new drugs are essential to optimize their prescribing especially where there are concerns. Without such models, new drugs may be withdrawn prematurely and/or struggle for funding.

The impact of reducing cardiovascular medication copayments on health spending and resource utilization.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of reductions in statin and clopidogrel copayments on cardiovascular resource utilization, major coronary events, and insurer spending. BACKGROUND: Copayments are widely used to contain health spending but cause patients to reduce their use of essential cardiovascular medications. Reducing copayments for post-myocardial infarction secondary prevention has beneficial effects, but the impact of this strategy for lower risk patients and other drugs remains unclear. METHODS: An evaluation was conducted of health care spending and resource use by a large self-insured employer that reduced statin copayments for patients with diabetes or vascular disease and reduced clopidogrel copayments for all patients prescribed this drug. Eligible individuals in the intervention company (n = 3,513) were compared with a control group from other companies without such a policy (n = 49,803). Analyses were performed using segmented regression models with generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Lowering copayments was associated with significant reductions in rates of physician visits (relative change: statin users 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57 to 0.98; clopidogrel users: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.59 to 0.96) and hospitalizations and emergency department admissions (relative change: statin users 0.90; 95% CI: 0.80 to 0.92; clopidogrel users: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.74 to 0.90) although not major coronary events. Patient out-of-pocket spending for drugs and other medical services decreased (relative change: statin users 0.79; 95% CI: 0.75 to 0.83; clopidogrel users 0.74; 95% CI: 0.66 to 0.82). Providing more generous coverage did not increase overall spending (relative change: statin users 1.03; 95% CI: 0.97 to 1.09; clopidogrel users 0.94; 95% CI: 0.87 to 1.03). CONCLUSIONS: Lowering copayments for statins and clopidogrel was associated with reductions in health care resource use and patient out-of-pocket spending. The policy appeared cost neutral with respect to overall health spending.

Rheumatoid arthritis decision making: many information sources but not all rated as useful.

BACKGROUND: Patients who make high-quality medical decisions are more likely to have better health outcomes. One of the central components to a high-quality decision is the well-informed manner in which it is made. However, there has been little research studying patient behaviors regarding how they seek information about treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We conducted a pilot study surveying beneficiaries of a health plan who had 2 or more visits coded for RA. Of 799 invited subjects, 101 (13%) completed interviews. Participants answered a questionnaire regarding sources of RA treatment information and their usefulness, sociodemographic items, and scales regarding their attitudes toward providers and medicines. Outcomes of interest included the average number of sources described (range, 0-10) and the usefulness for each source (1 "not useful" and 4 "extremely useful"). RESULTS: Methotrexate was the most widely used medication reported. The mean (SD) number of information sources used was 5.0 (2.1). Participants rated the information they used with a mean (SD) score of 2.8 (0.7). We found no strong patient correlates of these outcomes when compared with the aforementioned domains. Of the 98% of the total sample who referred to a rheumatologist for information, 87% rated the source as extremely useful. The Internet was the most frequently used nonprovider source, with 63% of subjects reporting use, and a mean (SD) usefulness rating of 3.0 (1.03). CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, participants used many sources of information regarding treatment decisions for RA. Ninety-eight percent of the participants used rheumatologists as a source and found them extremely useful. Of the nonprovider sources, the Internet was most common, and 40% found it very useful.

Utilization patterns of extended-release naltrexone for alcohol dependence.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate health plan member utilization patterns of extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) and assess the cost of alcohol-related hospitalizations and medical and pharmacy costs. This is the first known study that examined post-XR-NTX therapy outcomes and costs. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of claims data. METHODS: A sample of 48 members was identified with continuous pharmacy and medical benefit enrollment between July 1, 2006, and December 31, 2008, and a medical claim for reimbursement code J2315 (naltrexone for extended-release injectable suspension) with a date of service between July 1, 2007, and December 31, 2007. RESULTS: The average duration of XR-NTX therapy was 3 months. Among the 40% of patients who received 3 or more months of therapy, 58% had gaps in therapy. Post-XR-NTX therapy, alcohol-related hospitalization, medical, and pharmacy costs significantly decreased. CONCLUSION: Findings validate that abstinence from alcohol remains an issue after discontinuing therapy. Despite most patients being on therapy for less than 6 months, there were significant reductions in costs for alcohol-related hospitalizations, as well as total medical and total pharmacy costs.

Understanding barriers to medication adherence in the hypertensive population by evaluating responses to a telephone survey.

BACKGROUND: Although hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease, adherence to hypertensive medications is low. Previous research identifying factors influencing adherence has focused primarily on broad, population-based approaches. Identifying specific barriers for an individual is more useful in designing meaningful targeted interventions. Using customized telephonic outreach, we examined specific patient-reported barriers influencing hypertensive patients' nonadherence to medication in order to identify targeted interventions. METHODS: A telephone survey of 8692 nonadherent hypertensive patients was conducted. The patient sample comprised health plan members with at least two prescriptions for antihypertensive medications in 2008. The telephone script was based on the "target" drug associated with greatest nonadherence (medication possession ratio [MPR] <80%) during the four-month period preceding the survey. RESULTS: The response rate was 28.2% of the total sample, representing 63.8% of commercial members and 37.2% of Medicare members. Mean age was 63.4 years. Mean MPR was 61.0% for the target drug. Only 58.2% of Medicare respondents and 60.4% of commercial respondents reported "missing a dose of medication". The primary reason given was "forgetfulness" (61.8% Medicare, 60.8% commercial), followed by "being too busy" (2.7% Medicare, 18.5% commercial) and "other reasons" (21.9% Medicare, 8.1% commercial) including travel, hospitalization/sickness, disruption of daily events, and inability to get to the pharmacy. Prescription copay was a barrier for less than 5% of surveyed patients. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that events interfering with daily routine had a significant impact on adherence. Medication adherence appears to be a patterned behavior established through the creation of a routine and a reminder system for taking the medication. Providers should assess patients' daily schedules and medication-taking competency to develop and promote a medication routine.

Comparing pre-gap and gap behaviors for Medicare beneficiaries in a Medicare managed care plan.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of the coverage gap on pharmacy use, expenditures, and out-of-pocket costs for Medicare managed care beneficiaries before and after reaching the gap. STUDY DESIGN: A longitudinal comparison of behaviors for beneficiaries with non-gap coverage before and after reaching the gap. METHODS: Prescription drug use and expenditures were assessed for Medicare beneficiaries who reached the gap, including subsets with one of four chronic disorders (congestive heart failure (CHF), diabetes, dyslipidemia, or hypertension). Differences in pre- and post-prescription use were calculated using generalized estimating equations. Time until the end and start of the gap was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model. Expenditure data were estimated using bootstrap methods. RESULTS: Roughly a quarter (27.1 percent) of patients reached the gap in 2006, of whom 3.6 percent passed through the gap. The most prevalent disease state was hypertension (58.5 percent). Beneficiaries took an average of 8.1 months to reach the gap. Patients <65 years (HR = 1.42, 95% CI = 1.29 - 1.56) and those with diabetes (HR = 1.19, 95% CI = 1.12 - 1.27) were more likely to reach the gap sooner as compared to older beneficiaries (aged 65 to 74) and those without diabetes. These individuals were more likely to pass through the gap as well. Beneficiaries faced a 60.7 percent increase in out-of-pocket expenditures in the gap phase. Brand-name medication use decreased by 9.3 percent, while generic medication use increased by 7.4 percent. For chronic conditions, however, over 90 percent of individuals continued brand-name medication use in the gap. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that, in general, beneficiaries take lower-cost generics while in the gap. However, taking brand-name medications is the predominant behavior for beneficiaries with chronic diseases. Health care reform provisions that close the gap over the next ten years may facilitate continuity of medication use while in the gap.

At Pitney Bowes, value-based insurance design cut copayments and increased drug adherence.

To date, there has been little empirical evidence to support the broader use of value-based insurance design, which lowers copayments for services with high value relative to their costs. To address this lack of data, we evaluated the impact of the value-based insurance program of a US corporation, Pitney Bowes. The program eliminated copayments for cholesterol-lowering statins and reduced them for clopidogrel, a blood clot inhibitor. We found that the policy was associated with an immediate 2.8 percent increase in adherence to statins relative to controls, which was maintained for the subsequent year. For clopidogrel, the policy was associated with an immediate stabilizing of the adherence rate and a four-percentage-point difference between intervention and control subjects a year later. Our study thus provides an empirical basis for the use of this approach to improve the quality of health care.

Risk sharing arrangements for pharmaceuticals: potential considerations and recommendations for European payers.

BACKGROUND: There has been an increase in 'risk sharing' schemes for pharmaceuticals between healthcare institutions and pharmaceutical companies in Europe in recent years as an additional approach to provide continued comprehensive and equitable healthcare. There is though confusion surrounding the terminology as well as concerns with existing schemes. METHODS: A literature review was undertaken to identify existing schemes supplemented with additional internal documents or web-based references known to the authors. This was combined with the extensive knowledge of health authority personnel from 14 different countries and locations involved with these schemes. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: A large number of 'risk sharing' schemes with pharmaceuticals are in existence incorporating both financial-based models and performance-based/outcomes-based models. In view of this, a new logical definition is proposed. This is "risk sharing' schemes should be considered as agreements concluded by payers and pharmaceutical companies to diminish the impact on payers' budgets for new and existing schemes brought about by uncertainty and/or the need to work within finite budgets". There are a number of concerns with existing schemes. These include potentially high administration costs, lack of transparency, conflicts of interest, and whether health authorities will end up funding an appreciable proportion of a new drug's development costs. In addition, there is a paucity of published evaluations of existing schemes with pharmaceuticals. CONCLUSION: We believe there are only a limited number of situations where 'risk sharing' schemes should be considered as well as factors that should be considered by payers in advance of implementation. This includes their objective, appropriateness, the availability of competent staff to fully evaluate proposed schemes as well as access to IT support. This also includes whether systematic evaluations have been built into proposed schemes.