[Common inflammatory diseases of the urinary tract. I..].

N. Lubsen

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Outcomes-Based Pricing and Reimbursement Arrangements for Pharmaceutical Products in the Us and Eu-5: Payer and Manufacturer Experience and Outlook

T. Nazareth,J. J. Ko,C. Frois,S. Carpenter,S. Demean,E. Q. Wu,R. Sasane,R. Navarro

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.03.586

IF: 5.156

2015-01-01

Value in Health

Abstract:Outcomes-based pricing and reimbursement arrangements (OPRAs), a type of performance-based risk-sharing (PBRS) arrangements, have emerged as a promising avenue for payers to share pharmaceutical risk and for manufacturers to improve access. The aim of this study was to explore the U.S. and EU-5 perspectives regarding historical and future activity for OPRAs as well as payers’ and manufacturers’ perceptions of OPRAs. Our study combined 2 approaches: targeted literature review and primary research with U.S. and EU-5 stakeholders. The targeted literature review included the following sources: University of Washington’s PBRS Database, payer and health technology assessment agencies’ websites, Factiva, PubMed, and congress abstracts. Only schemes relating to pharmaceuticals were included. Twenty-seven experts were interviewed using a structured questionnaire: 14 US payers, 5 EU-5 national payers, 8 manufacturers’ pricing/market access executives (4 US, 4 EU-5). A total of 117 arrangements were identified from 1994 to 2014. This understates the level of OPRA activity as many schemes are confidential. U.S. and EU-5 interviewees expect that 2 to 10 times more OPRAs will be implemented in the next 5 years than in the previous 5 years. Historically, Italy has accounted for most OPRA activity; however, other nations are expected to increase OPRA activity. Key drivers include the introduction of a national OPRA framework in Spain, potentially a similar framework in the United Kingdom, a growing sick-fund activity in Germany, and a US movement towards accountable care. Motivation for OPRAs varies markedly across markets and stakeholders, with operational feasibility a significant hurdle in the U.S. and France. Cost and risk reduction were the primary focus for payers, while improving access was key for manufacturers. This research suggests high OPRA growth is expected in the EU-5 and, to a lesser extent in the U.S., particularly if clear, uncomplicated OPRA frameworks can be developed.
[A case of treatment on traumatic pseudoaneurysm of internal carotid artery occurred epistaxis].

T. Ichihashi,Yasuhiro Matsushita,Y. Tsuji,H. Harano,H. Nakagawa

2003-04-01

Abstract:We reported a case of traumatic pseudoaneurysm of internal carotid artery accompanied by skull base fracture, for which Guglielmi detachable coil(GDC) embolization surgery was very effective for recovery. A 53-year-old man met a traffic accident and was admitted to our hospital with blindness and epistaxis accompanied with shock. Balloon occlusion test showed a positive sign of traumatic pseudoaneurysm of internal carotid artery, and under the diagnosis GDC embolization surgery was performed on six days after the onset. The patient has completely recovered and keeps his wellness untill now after six months from the surgery except for loss of left eye vision. We believe that the endovascular surgery using stents will become the prime modality for treatment of traumatic pseudoaneurysm in the future.
Performance-based risk-sharing arrangements for devices and diagnostics in the United States: a systematic review

Yilin Chen,Josh J Carlson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2022.28.1.78

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Performance-based risksharing arrangements (PBRSAs) have continued to emerge and evolve over the last 2 decades. To date, most of the attention and available literature have focused on pharmaceuticals. OBJECTIVE: To assess the current status and trends regarding the use of PBRSAs for diagnostics and devices in the United States. METHODS: We reviewed publicly available PBRSAs for diagnostics and devices using the University of Washington Performance Based Risk Sharing Database. We augmented the review using PubMed, Google, and payer and industry websites. Key words and phrases such as outcomes-based, value-based, coverage with evidence development, performance-based, and risk-sharing were used in combination with device or diagnostic. To characterize arrangements in terms of product and market attributes, we extracted data for each product, including arrangement descriptions, arrangement type, year, therapeutic area, product manufacturer, payer, and product type. Arrangements were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Fifty-two arrangements were identified between the years 2001 and 2019, with 30 (57.7%) for devices and 22 (42.3%) for diagnostic tests. Among these, 23 (44.2%) were coverage with evidence development (CED), only in research; 17 (32.7%) were performance-linked reimbursement (PLR); and 12 (23.1%) were CED, only with research. The majority of arrangements for devices were developed in cardiology (12, 40%), endocrinology (4, 13.3%), and radiology (3, 10%). Most of arrangements for identified diagnostic tests were in oncology (17, 77.3%). Over time, there has been a trend towards increasing adoption of PLR and CED, only with research, especially since 2014. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to comprehensively review PBRSA arrangements for diagnostics and devices in the United States. Our findings demonstrated that there is substantial PBRSA activity for devices and diagnostics, and the pace of PBRSA adoption appears to be increasing in terms of frequency and variety. These arrangements have implications for managed care into the future as the health care system shifts towards value-based care and value-based pricing to contain cost for payers and ensure value in the patient populations. DISCLOSURES: No funding supported this study. The authors have nothing to disclose.
Outcome-Based Reimbursement: The Solution to High Drug Spending?

Liang Xu,Hongmin Li,Hui Zhao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2021.1051

2022-01-19

Manufacturing and Service Operations Management

Abstract:Problem definition: The continuously soaring prices of new drugs and their uncertain effectiveness in clinical practice have put substantial risks on insurers/payers. To induce insurer coverage of their new drugs, manufacturers start to propose an innovative outcome-based reimbursement (OBR) scheme under which manufacturers refund insurers (and possibly patients) if the drugs fail to achieve a prespecified treatment target. We investigate the impact of OBR on insurers, manufacturers, and patients. Academic/practical relevance: Although OBR sounds intuitively appealing, its true impact is under much debate and depends particularly on the design of OBR. Our study sheds light on the optimal design of OBR and the debate around OBR, considering key trade-offs and key elements not covered in prior literature. Methodology: We develop a Stackelberg game under which the manufacturer designs a rebate scheme for its drug, either non-OBR or OBR, considering the trade-off between a favorable formulary position and the rebate provided. The insurer subsequently determines its formulary for the drug as well as other alternative drugs within the same disease category considering the trade-off between its spending and patient health benefits. Using data on 14 drugs treating a common disease, hyperlipidemia, we estimate through a multinomial logit model the demand of the 14 drugs and conduct counterfactual analyses on the impact of OBR. Results: Under the optimal OBR, the manufacturer lowers the insurer’s risk but inflates the wholesale price (hence, may not reduce insurer spending). OBR also induces a better formulary position for the manufacturer, which, hence, improves patient access to new drugs. Further, rebates to the insurer and patients affect demand through different mechanisms. Including patient rebates in OBR lowers patient expenses and increases drug demand but further increases insurer spending. Managerial implications: We demonstrate the structure of an optimal formulary and its application in practice. We caution insurers/payers who are seeking OBR to reduce their spending.
It Takes 2 to Tango. Setting Out the Conditions in Which Performance-Based Risk-Sharing Arrangements Work for Both Parties

Adrian Towse,Elisabeth Fenwick

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2024.03.2196

Abstract:Objectives: Faster regulatory approval processes often fail to achieve faster patient access. We seek an approach, using performance-based risk-sharing arrangements, to address uncertainty for payers regarding the relative effectiveness and value for money of products launched through accelerated approval schemes. One important reason for risk sharing is to resolve differences of opinion between innovators and payers about a technology's underlying value. To date, there has been no formal attempt to set out the circumstances in which risk sharing can address these differences. Methods: We use a value of information framework to understand what a performance-based risk-sharing arrangements can, in principle, add to a reimbursement scheme, separating payer perspectives on cost-effectiveness and the value of research from those of the innovator. We find 16 scenarios, developing 5 rules to analyze these 16 scenarios, identifying cases in which risk sharing adds value for both parties. Results: We find that risk sharing provides an improved solution in 9 out of 16 combinations of payer and innovator expectations about treatment outcome and the value of further research. Among our assumptions, who pays for research and scheme administration costs are key. Conclusions: Steps should be undertaken to make risk sharing more practical, ensuring that payers consider it an option. This requires additional costs to the health system falling on the innovator in an efficient way that aligns incentives for product development for global markets. Health systems benefits are earlier patient access to cost-effective treatments and payers with higher confidence of not wasting money. Innovators get greater returns while conducting research.
Outcomes-based Risk-sharing Schemes: is There a Potential Role in the Asia-Pacific Markets?

Lisbet Coulton,Lieven Annemans,Rob Carter,Maya Baltazar Herrera,Hasbullah Thabrany,Jeremy Lim,Kenneth K.C. Lee,Wen Chen,Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk,Herng-Der Chern,Tae-Jin Lee,Hiroshi Nakamura,Tony Yen-Huei Tarn,Abdulkadir Keskinaslan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ehrm.2012.07.002

2012-01-01

Health Outcomes Research in Medicine

Abstract:To provide a commentary on outcomes-based risk-sharing schemes in Europe and the US, and to assess characteristics of such schemes and whether they have a potential role in the Asia-Pacific markets. This commentary also examines current experience in the Asia-Pacific markets and considers criteria for such agreements as they might relate to the different health care environments. Future opportunities for patient access schemes, and specifically, a role for outcomes-based risk-sharing schemes, exist in the Asia-Pacific markets. Four types of agreements across the Asia-Pacific markets were identified that are not purely outcomes-based or risk-sharing, but cover innovative high-cost medicines, areas of high unmet need, areas affecting small patient populations, and medicines where the evidence is uncertain. Key factors for consideration are the public environment and the general acceptance of such agreements; the level of available resources that impact the health care priorities in each market and the public demand for access to medicines and to innovation. The ability to undertake such agreements appears to depend significantly on the degree of centralized decision-making and the dominance of a “single payer” for negotiation; the ability to manage data – both to undertake health technology assessments and to have systems/infrastructure to collect data and demonstrate outcomes; the nature of local health care structures and the capabilities to implement schemes where the financing is linked to outcomes. Caution was shared across markets with a trend to “watch and wait” while evidence emerges elsewhere.
AMCP Partnership Forum: Advancing Value-Based Contracting

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2017.17342

Abstract:During the past decade, payment models for the delivery of health care have undergone a dramatic shift from focusing on volume to focusing on value. This shift began with the Affordable Care Act and was reinforced by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA), which increased the emphasis on payment for delivery of quality care. Today, value-based care is a primary strategy for improving patient care while managing costs. This shift in payment models is expanding beyond the delivery of health care services to encompass models of compensation between payers and biopharmaceutical manufacturers. Value-based contracts (VBCs) have emerged as a mechanism that payers may use to better align their contracting structures with broader changes in the health care system. While pharmaceuticals represent a small share of total health care spending, it is one of the fastest-growing segments of the health care marketplace, and the increasing costs of pharmaceuticals necessitate more flexibility to contract in new ways based on the value of these products. Although not all products or services are appropriate for these types of contracts, VBCs could be a part of the solution to address increasing drug prices and overall drug spending. VBCs encompass a variety of different contracting strategies for biopharmaceutical products that do not base payment rates on volume. These contracts instead may include payment on the achievement of specific goals in a predetermined patient population and offer innovative solutions for quantifying and rewarding positive outcomes or otherwise reducing payer risk associated with pharmaceutical costs. To engage national stakeholders in a discussion of current practices, barriers, and potential benefits of VBCs, the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) convened a Partnership Forum on Advancing Value-Based Contracting in Arlington, Virginia, on June 20-21, 2017. The goals of the VBC forum were as follows: (a) agree to a definition of a VBC for facilitating discussion with key policy makers and regulators; (b) determine strategies for advancing the development and utilization of performance benchmarks; (c) identify best practices in evaluating, implementing, and monitoring VBCs; and (d) develop action plans to mitigate legal and regulatory barriers to VBCs. More than 30 national and regional health care leaders representing health plans, integrated delivery systems, pharmacy benefit managers, employers, data and analytics companies, and biopharmaceutical companies participated. Speakers, panelists, and stakeholders attended the forum and explored the current environment for VBCs, identified challenges to the expansion of VBCs, offered potential solutions to those challenges, and developed an action plan for addressing selected challenges. The forum recommendations will be used by AMCP to establish a coalition of organizations to seek broader acceptance of VBCs in the marketplace and by policymakers. The recommendations will also help AMCP provide tools and resources to stakeholders in managing VBCs. Disclosures: This Partnership Forum was supported by Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, the National Pharmaceutical Council, Novo Nordisk, Premier, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, RxAnte, Takeda, and Xcenda.
Opportunities and challenges surrounding financial models for high-investment medications: A survey of access decision-makers and employers

Erin Lopata,Christopher Terrone,Ami Gopalan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2023.22436

Abstract:BACKGROUND: As an increasing number of cell and gene therapies are US Food and Drug Administration approved, health care stakeholders are attempting to strike a balance between patient access to innovative treatments and overall affordability. Access decision-makers and employers are evaluating how implementation of innovative financial models can support coverage of high-investment medications. OBJECTIVE: To understand how access decision-makers and employers are using innovative financial models for highinvestment medications. METHODS: A survey was conducted with access and employer decision-makers recruited from a proprietary database of market access decision-makers from April 1 to August 29, 2022. Respondents were asked about their experiences using innovative financing models for high-investment medications. RESULTS: Across both stakeholder segments, stop-loss/reinsurance was the most utilized financial model, with 65% of access decision-makers and 50% of employers currently using this financial model. More than half (55%) of access decision-makers and nearly one-third of employers (30%) currently use a provider contract negotiation strategy, with similar percentages of access decision-makers (20%) and employers (25%) planning to implement this strategy in the future. Aside from stop-loss/reinsurance and provider contract negotiation, no other financial models exceeded 25% penetration in the employer market. Subscription models and warranties were the least common models currently used by access decision-makers (10% and 5%, respectively). The greatest growth for access decision-makers is expected for annuities, amortization or installment strategies, outcomes-based annuities, and warranties, with 55% of access decision-makers planning to implement each. Few employers are seeking to implement new financial models in the next 18 months. Both segments prioritized financial models that can address the actuarial or financial risk arising from uncertainty in the number of patients likely to be treated with a durable cell or gene therapy. Many access decision-makers cited a lack of opportunities from manufacturers as a reason for not using a model, whereas employers also identified lack of information and financial viability as reasons for not using a model. In most cases, both stakeholder segments prefer to work with current partners as opposed to a third party when executing an innovative model. CONCLUSIONS: Access decision-makers and employers are adopting innovative financial models as traditional management techniques are insufficient to manage the financial risk associated with highinvestment medications. Although both stakeholder segments see a need for alternative payment models, they also recognize the challenges and complexity associated with their implementation and execution of these types of partnerships. DISCLOSURES: This research was sponsored by the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy and PRECISIONvalue. Dr Lopata, Mr Terrone, and Dr Gopalan are employees of PRECISIONvalue.
[Delayed results of orbital trauma in children].

J. Duszowa,T. Niebrój,M. Formińska,B. Hermel,W. Illg

1975-06-01

Klinika Oczna

Abstract:
Experiences and Interest in Value‐Based Payment Arrangements for Medical Products Among Medicaid Agencies: An Exploratory Analysis

BEENA BHUIYAN KHAN,VICTORIA GEMME,ETHAN CHUPP,APARNA HIGGINS,CORINNA SORENSON

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12703

2024-06-09

Milbank Quarterly

Abstract:Policy Points State Medicaid experience with value‐based payment (VBP) arrangements for medical products is still relatively limited, and states face a number of challenges in designing and implementing such arrangements, particularly because of the resource‐intensive nature of arrangements and data needed to support measurement of desired outcomes. A number of success factors and opportunities to support VBP arrangement efforts were identified through this study, including leveraging established venues or processes for collaboration with manufacturers, engaging external and internal partners in VBP efforts to bolster capabilities, acquiring access to new data sources, and utilizing annual renegotiation of contracts to allow for adjustments. Context To date, uptake of value‐based payment (VBP) arrangements for medical products and knowledge of their design and impact have been mainly concentrated among private payers. Interest and activity are expanding to Medicaid; however, their experiences and approaches to VBP arrangements for medical products are not well characterized. Methods This study sought to characterize the use of VBP arrangements for medical products among state Medicaid agencies through the use of a two‐staged, mixed‐methods approach. A survey and semistructured interviews were conducted to gain an understanding of state experiences with VBP arrangements for medical products. The survey and interviews were directed at senior leaders from nine states through the survey, with respondents from seven of these states additionally participating in the semistructured interviews. Findings Although experience with VBP arrangements for medical products among states varied, there were similarities across their motivations and general processes or phases employed in their design and implementation. States collectively identified a number of significant challenges to VBP arrangements, such as manufacturer engagement, outcomes measurement, and the time, expertise, and resources required to design and implement them. We outline a range of strategies to help address these gaps and make it easier for states to pursue VBP arrangements, including more direct engagement from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, state‐to‐state peer learning and collaboration, data infrastructure and sharing, and additional research to inform fit‐for‐purpose VBP arrangement approaches. Conclusions Findings from this study suggest that it may be easier for states to pursue VBP arrangements for medical products if there is greater clarity on processes employed that support design and implementation as well as effective strategies to address common challenges associated with contract negotiations. As states gain more experience, it will be important to monitor the design and implementation of common VBP arrangements to assess impact on the Medicaid program and the populations it serves.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Value-Based Healthcare in Practice: IDEATE, a Collaboration to Design and Test an Outcomes-Based Agreement for a Medicine in Wales

Jessica R. Burton,Kate Halsby,Graciela Sáinz de la Fuente,Jonathan Pearson-Stuttard,Rebecca Sloan,Thomas Porter,Gareth John,Andrew Warburton,Jennifer Selby,Gail Povey,Ruhe Chowdhury,Catherine Bale,Mark Davies,Emma Clifton-Brown,Hamish Laing

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-024-01445-0

2024-11-13

PharmacoEconomics

Abstract:To develop a sustainable, scalable methodology for the design of outcome-based agreements (OBAs) that works on the ground and dynamically overcomes historical challenges.

pharmacology & pharmacy,health care sciences & services,health policy & services,economics
Overcoming barriers to biosimilar adoption: real-world perspectives from a national payer and provider initiative

Babette S Edgar,Adam S Cheifetz,Simon M Helfgott,Gideon P Smith,Tina Bandekar,Adam Hoye-Simek,YuQian Liu,Rubina M Singh,Kristina I Fajardo,Jeffrey Carter,Laura Simone

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2021.27.8.1129

Abstract:In response to a published national payer survey indicating striking needs for multistakeholder initiatives to increase biosimilar adoption, a focus workgroup meeting joining payers and providers was conducted in December 2019 in Boston, MA. Before the focus group meeting, a survey was sent to health care providers to collect perceptions about barriers to biosimilar adoption and gather input on best potential strategies for addressing these barriers. The focus group panel consisted of 5 managed care pharmacists and 3 physician experts in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology, representing large managed care organizations and health care systems in the Boston area. A clinical moderator facilitated discussions between the payers and providers regarding challenges to biosimilar adoption and potential collaborative strategies to overcome these barriers. The focus group participants identified hurdles to biosimilar adoption in 3 major areas: (1) the lack of confidence in biosimilar interchangeability and a need for education about biosimilars, (2) the lack of financial incentives to switch to biosimilars from the reference biologic product, and (3) administrative burdens that impair the prescription of biologics. Learning from their mutual experiences, the focus group participants formulated action plans to address these barriers. The top strategies recommended by the participants included advancing biosimilar education, facilitating administrative processes related to biosimilar prescriptions, and increasing provider reimbursement while reducing cost sharing to patients receiving biosimilars. DISCLOSURES: The study reported on in this article was part of a continuing education program funded by an independent educational grant that was awarded by Sandoz Inc., a Novartis Division, to PRIME Education, LLC. The grantor had no role in the study design, execution, analysis, or reporting. The Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) received grant funding from PRIME to assist with participant recruitment and content review for the continuing education program. Bandekar, Cheifetz, Edgar, Helfgott, Hoye-Simek, Liu, and Smith received an honorarium from PRIME for serving as faculty for the continuing education program. Cheifetz has received research grants from Inform Diagnostics and consulting fees from AbbVie, Bacainn, BMS, Grifols, Janssen, Pfizer, Prometheus, Samsung, and Takeda unrelated to this work. Smith has received consulting fees from Boehringer-Ingelheim, has served as an investigator on industry-initiated trials for AbbVie and Pfizer, and has served as an investigator on investigator-initiated trials for Novartis and Regeneron. Carter, Fajardo, and Simone have nothing to disclose.
Evaluating Unmet Needs in Large-Volume Subcutaneous Drug Delivery: US Payer Perspectives on a Novel, Large-Volume On-Body Delivery System

Mehul Desai,James Kenney,Edmund Pezalla

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5731/pdajpst.2024.012980

2024-08-23

Abstract:This research sought to evaluate payer perspectives around OBDS's through semi-structured interviews with 17 US payers representing approximately 227 million covered lives. When asked about the perceived advantages of the novel on-body delivery system (OBDS), 70.6% of payers independently cited simplicity, ease-of-use, and convenience as the most beneficial features, with the potential to replace IV infusion by facilitating at-home HCP- or self-administration being the second most frequent response. Most payers (88.2%) believed that the novel OBDS could fulfill unmet needs such as cost of IV infusion, convenient administration, and improved patient compliance in large-volume SC delivery by enabling safe, easy, self-administration. Nearly all payers (88.2%) stated they would consider covering and managing pharmaceutical products packaged with the novel OBDS, with the remaining payers considering the total cost compared to other routes. A significant proportion of payers (82.4%) acknowledged that a drug delivered via the novel OBDS could warrant a price premium above the cost of the standalone SC drug vial, with half stating the premium would range from 5% to 20% and the other half citing an unspecified premium dependent on the individual drug situation.Conclusions: Given the ability to help address critical unmet needs for the patient and healthcare system, a large proportion of the payers stated that the novel OBDS would fulfill unmet needs and warrant a price premium versus the cost of the standalone SC vial and certainly over the IV counterpart. Future research to quantify the value that OBDS efficiencies could bring to healthcare delivery is warranted.
Payer perceptions and use of value assessment tools in the United States

Kimberly Westrich,Tasmina Hydery,Vyishali Dharbhamalla,Lisabeth Buelt,Candace Zheng,Victoria Loo,Jennifer Graff

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2023.29.5.582

2023-05-01

Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy

Abstract:BACKGROUND: As the United States transitions toward value-based payment, value assessment tools to measure the value of health care interventions are emerging. As the field evolves, it is important to evaluate how these tools are influencing treatment and coverage decisions. OBJECTIVE: To examine payer perceptions and use of US value assessment tools and identify how these tools inform payer decision-making. METHODS: A double-blind, web-based survey was conducted from June to July 2022 to assess health care payers' perceptions and use of value assessment tools developed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Drug Pricing Lab, Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), Innovation and Value Initiative, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network. RESULTS: 51 respondents completed the survey. 86% of payers were familiar with at least 4 of 5 value assessment tools. Both ICER and National Comprehensive Cancer Network tools are perceived as very useful for informing formulary decisions (57% and 49%, respectively). When selecting a value assessment tool, payers identified the inclusion of appropriate metrics and outcomes (92%), comparative clinical effectiveness information (88%), and reliance on rigorous, unbiased methods (86%) to be very/extremely important. Payers reported the inclusion of the patient, provider, and societal perspectives as lower importance (32%, 31%, and 20% identify these elements as very/extremely important, respectively). Payers reported using ICER evidence reports to both expand and restrict coverage decisions. To advance more useful and relevant value assessment tools, payers identified the need for greater stakeholder awareness of existing tools, and some recommended that value assessors increase the volume of assessments conducted. CONCLUSIONS: US health care payers perceive select value assessment tools to be useful for informing health care decisions. As policy momentum behind value assessment builds, additional examination of value assessment tools is needed to inform appropriate application of value assessment in US health care decision-making. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Xcenda/AmerisourceBergen. Ms Buelt, Ms Loo, Ms Westrich, and Drs Hydery and Zheng report employment with Xcenda/AmerisourceBergen. Drs Dharbhamalla and Graff report employment with AMCP.

pharmacology & pharmacy,health care sciences & services
Stakeholder Insights into Czech Performance-Based Managed Entry Agreements: Potential for Transformative Change in Pharmaceutical Access?

Petra Hospodková,Pavel Karásek,Aleš Tichopád

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12010119

2024-01-05

Health Care

Abstract:Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs) play a pivotal role in addressing the challenges arising from escalating prices of innovative medical technologies, especially in areas like oncology, immunology, and rare diseases. Among MEAs, Performance-Based MEAs (PB MEAs) and Outcome-Based MEAs (OB MEAs) stand out as innovative strategies. This study examines the adoption of PB MEAs in the Czech Republic post a 2022 legislative change. Interviews with key stakeholders, including the Ministry of Health, pharmaceutical companies, insurers, and patient groups, were conducted to explore perceptions and challenges. Stakeholders expressed concerns about legislation completeness, data quality, transparency, and methodology. Interestingly, pharmaceutical companies were less concerned about transparency and methodology, likely due to their multinational experience. Despite legislative progress, challenges persist, especially in data infrastructure, risk-sharing perceptions, and stakeholder readiness. Addressing these issues requires collaboration between pharmaceutical companies and payers. Patient involvement, though mandated, remains limited, potentially due to a lack of awareness. This study emphasizes the need for a comprehensive transformation beyond legislation for a successful PB MEA implementation. Trust, technical infrastructure, and data availability are crucial, necessitating a holistic approach. It contributes to the global discourse on PB MEAs, stressing the adjustment of financial frameworks, embracing value-based healthcare principles, and ensuring high-quality health data metrics. A more holistic, value-based MEA approach could reshape pharmaceutical reimbursement in the future.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
The long shadow of public policy; Barriers to a value-based approach in healthcare procurement

Joanne Meehan,Laura Menzies,Roula Michaelides

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2017.05.003

IF: 7.202

2017-10-01

Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management

Abstract:Procurement in the UKs National Health Service (NHS) is facing its most significant financial challenge. Despite the sheer scale and complexities of the public healthcare sector, the Government's solutions are all too often packaged as "collaborate more", "standardise products" and "leverage spend". Unfortunately, these over simplistic solutions take a myopic view of market drivers, conflate spend with potential savings and fail to deliver value. Many contracts have already been commercially optimised yet the funding crisis continues to deepen. New value-based procurement approaches are needed to drive longer-term innovation and cost reduction and to move debates from efficiencies to embrace effectiveness in integrated supply chains. In this research, we adopt the resource-based view (RBV) as a lens to explore the extent to which NHS resources support the strategic adoption of value-based approaches. An empirical case study on a regional cluster of six NHS Trusts in England, confirms the dominance of narrow price-based approaches that create barriers to moving towards longer-term, valuebased procurement. The antecedent roots of price-based approaches are unpicked through a hermeneutic analysis of recent Government commissioned reports to show how these have set the tone, culture and priorities for healthcare procurement in the UK. The analysis provides explanatory power to the case study by illustrating how Government reports have led to, and legitimised the dominance of price-based approaches and caused relational and resource-based barriers to adopting value-based procurement, despite stakeholder enthusiasm. The findings provide unique insights into why public procurement has struggled to reach beyond its traditional cost orientated scope. We contribute to an extended consideration of the RBV in public organisations through identifying the role of the policy environment in determining and legitimatising an organisation's strategic direction.

management
Routes to Remember: Comparing Verbal Instructions and Sketch Maps

Vanessa Joy A. Anacta,Jia Wang,A. Schwering

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03611-3_18

Abstract:
A Structured Benefit-Risk Assessment Operating Model for Investigational Medicinal Products in the Pharmaceutical Industry

Sullivan, Tim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-023-00508-2

2023-04-02

Abstract:Robust and transparent formal benefit-risk (BR) analyses for medicinal products represent a means to better understand the appropriate use of medicinal products, and to maximize their value to prescribers and patients. Despite regulatory and social imperatives to conduct structured BR (sBR) assessments, and the availability of a plethora of methodological tools, there exists large variability in the uptake and execution of sBR assessments among pharmaceutical companies. As such, in this paper we present an sBR assessment framework developed and implemented within a large global pharmaceutical company that aims to guide the systematic assessment of BR across the continuum of drug development activities, from first-time-in-human studies through to regulatory submission. We define and emphasize the concepts of Key Clinical Benefits and Key Safety Risks as the foundation for BR analysis. Furthermore, we define and foundationally employ the concepts of sBR and a Core Company BR position as the key elements for our BR framework. We outline 3 simple stages for how to perform the fundamentals of an sBR analysis, along with an emphasis on the weighting of Key Clinical Benefits and Key Safety Risks, and a focus on any surrounding uncertainties. Additionally, we clarify existing definitions to differentiate descriptive, semi-quantitative, and fully quantitative BR methodologies. By presenting our framework, we wish to stimulate productive conversation between industry peers and health authorities regarding best practice in the BR field. This paper may also help facilitate the pragmatic implementation of sBR methodologies for organizations without an established framework for such assessments.

pharmacology & pharmacy,medical informatics
Outer-context determinants in the sustainment phase of a reimbursement-driven implementation of evidence-based practices in children’s mental health services

Joyce H. L. Lui,Lauren Brookman-Frazee,Teresa Lind,Kenny Le,Scott Roesch,Gregory A. Aarons,Debbie Innes-Gomberg,Keri Pesanti,Anna S. Lau

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-021-01149-5

2021-08-19

Implementation Science

Abstract:Abstract Background Although there is increasing investment to implement evidence-based practices (EBPs) in public systems across the USA, continued or sustained use of EBPs after initial implementation remains a challenge. The low integration of EBPs in routine practice severely limits their public health impact, highlighting the need to understand factors that affect the return on costly investments in EBP implementation. This study aims to (1) characterize trajectories of EBP delivery volume through a reimbursement-driven implementation and (2) examine impacts of system-level policy regulatory activity and state-level mental health services funding on the implementation reimbursement strategy. Methods This study involved secondary data analyses. Psychotherapy administrative claims and regulatory site visit data from the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health and California state mental health expenditures were extracted from 2010 to 2017. Multilevel regression examined EBP claims volume over time with state expenditures and regulatory compliance as predictors. Results EBP claims volume trajectories demonstrated a rapid initial increase, followed by a period of decrease, and a small increase in the final year. State mental health expenditures increased across time reflecting increased funding availability. State mental health expenditures and system regulatory compliance were inversely related to EBP claims volume. Conclusions The impact of reimbursement-driven EBP implementation strategy is sensitive to multiple outer-context determinants. At the system level, commitment to fidelity of implementation regulations resulted in reduced use of the reimbursement strategy. Alternative reimbursement streams not tied to EBPs coupled with an expanded array of reimbursable services also impacted the use of the reimbursement strategy to implement EBPs.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
A Path to Risk: Critical Elements of a Structured Approach

Mark E. Schario,Peter J. Pronovost,Patrick Runnels,Tia Corder-Palko,Brent Carson,Michael Szubski

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/pop.2023.0197

2024-02-08

Population Health Management

Abstract:Value-based care arrangements have been the cornerstone of accountable care for decades. Risk arrangements with government and commercial insurance plans are ubiquitous, with most contracts focusing on upside risk only, meaning payers reward providers for good performance without punishing them for poor performance on quality and cost. However, payers are increasingly moving into downside risk arrangements, bringing to mind global capitation in the 1990s wherein several health systems failed. In this article, the authors focus on their framework for succeeding in value-based arrangements at University Hospitals Accountable Care Organization, including essential structural elements that provider organizations need to successfully assume downside risk in value-based arrangements. These elements include quality performance and reporting, risk adjustment, utilization management, care management and clinical services, network integrity, technology, and contracting and financial reconciliation. Each of these elements has an important place in the strategic roadmap to value, even if downside risk is not taken. This roadmap was developed through an applied approach and intends to fill the gap in published practical models of how provider organizations can maneuver value-based arrangements.

health care sciences & services

[Common inflammatory diseases of the urinary tract. I..].

Outcomes-Based Pricing and Reimbursement Arrangements for Pharmaceutical Products in the Us and Eu-5: Payer and Manufacturer Experience and Outlook

[A case of treatment on traumatic pseudoaneurysm of internal carotid artery occurred epistaxis].

Performance-based risk-sharing arrangements for devices and diagnostics in the United States: a systematic review

Outcome-Based Reimbursement: The Solution to High Drug Spending?

It Takes 2 to Tango. Setting Out the Conditions in Which Performance-Based Risk-Sharing Arrangements Work for Both Parties

Outcomes-based Risk-sharing Schemes: is There a Potential Role in the Asia-Pacific Markets?

AMCP Partnership Forum: Advancing Value-Based Contracting

Opportunities and challenges surrounding financial models for high-investment medications: A survey of access decision-makers and employers

[Delayed results of orbital trauma in children].

Experiences and Interest in Value‐Based Payment Arrangements for Medical Products Among Medicaid Agencies: An Exploratory Analysis

Value-Based Healthcare in Practice: IDEATE, a Collaboration to Design and Test an Outcomes-Based Agreement for a Medicine in Wales

Overcoming barriers to biosimilar adoption: real-world perspectives from a national payer and provider initiative

Evaluating Unmet Needs in Large-Volume Subcutaneous Drug Delivery: US Payer Perspectives on a Novel, Large-Volume On-Body Delivery System

Payer perceptions and use of value assessment tools in the United States

Stakeholder Insights into Czech Performance-Based Managed Entry Agreements: Potential for Transformative Change in Pharmaceutical Access?

The long shadow of public policy; Barriers to a value-based approach in healthcare procurement

Routes to Remember: Comparing Verbal Instructions and Sketch Maps

A Structured Benefit-Risk Assessment Operating Model for Investigational Medicinal Products in the Pharmaceutical Industry

Outer-context determinants in the sustainment phase of a reimbursement-driven implementation of evidence-based practices in children’s mental health services

A Path to Risk: Critical Elements of a Structured Approach