Value-based Benefit Design Research Articles

Interventions to improve medication adherence in mental health: the update of a systematic review of cost-effectiveness

Objective Medication non-adherence in mental health problems has social and economic costs. The objective of the study was to review the cost-effectiveness of interventions to enhance medication adherence in patients with mental health problems. Methods The update of a previous systematic review was performed. Databases were searched in June 2019: MEDLINE, PSYCINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, CRD, WOS. Cost-effectiveness studies comparing an intervention to improve the medication adherence with other interventions/usual care in adults with mental health problems were included. Data were extracted, methodological quality of the studies was assessed and a narrative synthesis was performed. Results Nine studies were included in the review. The interventions that showed medication adherence increase were: a financial incentive when depot injection was taken by patients with psychotic disorders, a value-based benefit design policy including copayment and counselling in a company setting, and a medication treatment decision supported by a pharmacogenetic test. The other studies (coaching by pharmacists; a psychological and educational intervention at health care centres) did not find differences between groups. No study found cost differences between alternatives. Conclusions Interventions to improve medication adherence in adults with mental health problems could be cost-effective, especially those based on financial incentives, although more research is needed. KEYPOINTS There are several types of interventions designed to enhance medication adherence in patients with mental health problems. Few of them have demonstrated cost-effectiveness. Two studies found that a financial incentive per depot injection in patients with psychotic disorders improved the medication adherence. Two other studies found improvement in adherence due to two specific interventions: a value-based benefit design policy in a company setting and a pharmacogenetic test supporting the medication treatment decision. No study found differences in costs between the intervention and the comparator. More research is needed to implement cost-effective interventions.

Consumers' Perceptions And Choices Related To Three Value-Based Insurance Design Approaches.

The burden of rising health care costs is being shifted to consumers, and 30percent of health care costs are attributed to wasteful spending on low- or no-value services. Value-based insurance design (VBID) is intended to encourage the use of high-value services or discourage the use of low-value services by aligning cost with quality. During the summer and fall of 2016, this mixed-methods study used focus groups and a quantitative analysis of survey data to explore consumer decision making in Northern California. When presented with three common VBID approaches, the focus groups favored value-based benefit design the most (41percent), followed by reference pricing (28percent) and narrow networks (21percent). When presented with VBID scenarios, participants were skeptical of the value-based trade-offs and reported seeking information they wanted instead of relying on information that health plans provide. Engaging consumers to successfully reduce waste through VBID will require clarifying trade-offs to support consumers' processes for arriving at high-value decisions as well as reaching out to consumers through trusted sources and networks.

Comparing The Effects Of Reference Pricing And Centers-Of-Excellence Approaches To Value-Based Benefit Design.

Various health insurance benefit designs based on value-based purchasing have been promoted to steer patients to high-value providers, but little is known about the designs' relative effectiveness and underlying mechanisms. We compared the impact of two designs implemented by the California Public Employees' Retirement System on inpatient hospital total hip or knee replacement: a reference-based pricing design for preferred provider organizations (PPOs) and a centers-of-excellence design for health maintenance organizations (HMOs). Payment and utilization data for the procedures in the period 2008-13 were evaluated using pre-post and quasi-experimental designs at the system and health plan levels, adjusting for demographic characteristics, case-mix, and other confounders. We found that both designs prompted higher use of designated low-price high-quality facilities and reduced average replacement expenses per member at the plan and system levels. However, the designs used different routes: The reference-based pricing design reduced average replacement payments per case in PPOs by 26.7percent in the first year, compared to HMOs, but did not lower PPO members' utilization rates. In contrast, the centers-of-excellence design lowered HMO members' utilization rates by 29.2percent in the first year, compared to PPOs, but did not reduce HMO average replacement payments per case. The reference-based pricing design appears more suitable for reducing price variation, and the centers-of-excellence design for addressing variation in use.

Impact of a Value-based Formulary on Medication Utilization, Health Services Utilization, and Expenditures.

Value-based benefit design has been suggested as an effective approach to managing the high cost of pharmaceuticals in health insurance markets. Premera Blue Cross, a large regional health plan, implemented a value-based formulary (VBF) for pharmaceuticals in 2010 that explicitly used cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to inform medication copayments. The objective of the study was to determine the impact of the VBF. Interrupted time series of employer-sponsored plans from 2006 to 2013. Intervention group: 5235 beneficiaries exposed to the VBF. 11,171 beneficiaries in plans without any changes in pharmacy benefits. The VBF-assigned medications with lower value (estimated by CEA) to higher copayment tiers and assigned medications with higher value to lower copayment tiers. Primary outcome was medication expenditures from member, health plan, and member plus health plan perspectives. Secondary outcomes were medication utilization, emergency department visits, hospitalizations, office visits, and nonmedication expenditures. In the intervention group after VBF implementation, member medication expenditures increased by $2 per member per month (PMPM) [95% confidence interval (CI), $1-$3] or 9%, whereas health plan medication expenditures decreased by $10 PMPM (CI, $18-$2) or 16%, resulting in a net decrease of $8 PMPM (CI, $15-$2) or 10%, which translates to a net savings of $1.1 million. Utilization of medications moved into lower copayment tiers increased by 1.95 days' supply (CI, 1.29-2.62) or 17%. Total medication utilization, health services utilization, and nonmedication expenditures did not change. Cost-sharing informed by CEA reduced overall medication expenditures without negatively impacting medication utilization, health services utilization, or nonmedication expenditures.

PMH54 - The Association of value-based benefit design and Behavioral Health Medication usage

PMH54 - The Association of value-based benefit design and Behavioral Health Medication usage

Cost of pain medication to treat adult patients with nonmalignant chronic pain in the United States.

Nonmalignant chronic pain (NMCP) is a public health concern. Among primary care appointments, 22% focus on pain management. The American Academy of Pain Medicine guidelines for NMCP recommend combination medication therapy (including analgesics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs], opioids, antidepressants, and anticonvulsants) as a key component to effective treatment for many chronic pain diagnoses. However, there has been little evidence outlining the costs of pain medications in adult patients with NMCP in the United States, an area that necessitates further consideration as the nation moves toward value-based benefit design. To estimate the cost of pain medication attributable to treating adult patients with NMCP in the United States and to analyze the trend of outpatient pain visits. This cross-sectional study used the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) data from 2000-2007. The Division of Health Care Statistics, National Center for Health Statistics, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted the survey. The study included patients aged ≥18 years with chronic pain diagnoses (identified by the ICD-9-CM codes: primary, secondary, and tertiary). Patients prescribed at least 1 pain medication were included in the cost analysis. Pain-related prescription medications prescribed during ambulatory care visits were retrieved by using NAMCS drug codes/National Drug Code numbers. National pain prescription frequencies (weighted) were obtained from NAMCS data, using the statistical software STATA. We created pain therapy categories (drug classes) for cost analysis based on national pain guidelines. Drug classes used in this analysis were opioids/opioid-like agents, analgesics/NSAIDs, tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, antirheumatics/immunologics, muscle relaxants, topical products, and corticosteroids. We calculated average prices based on the 3 lowest average wholesale prices reported in the Red Book 2009 for maximum recommended daily dose. Total pain medication costs were calculated in 2009 and 2013 dollar values. The study analyzed NMCP-related outpatient visit trends and used time series analysis to forecast visits using U.S. population data and statistics. The total costs of prescription medications prescribed for pain were $17.8 billion annually in the United States. Cost estimates were captured based on a total of 690,205,290 (~690 million) weighted outpatient visits made for chronic pain from 2000 to 2007 in the United States. Of those patients, 99% received a medication that could be used for NMCP. Among the patients, 29% reported taking ≥5 medications. A linear trend of pain visits is visible, reporting change (from 11% to 14%) from 2000 to 2007 in the United States. All agents except opioids/opioid-like agents and analgesics/NSAIDs were further categorized as adjuvant therapy to create 3 major drug class categories. The largest 3 categories of pain therapy for the United States (annually) were analgesics/NSAIDs ($1.9 billion), opioids ($3.6 billion), and adjuvants ($12.3 billion). Despite having the highest prescription frequency nationally, analgesics/NSAIDS accounted for about 11% of the overall pain medication costs. This study found that adjuvant therapy accounted for 69% of the total pain medication costs. Among adjuvants, 33.5% of the cost was contributed by antirheumatics/immunologics. Other adjuvants included muscle relaxants (4.4%), topical products (8.6%), and corticosteroids (9.4%). This study demonstrated national prescribing costs and use within various drug categories of pain medications in a large outpatient population over an 8-year period in the United States. Policymakers, stakeholders, and health plan decision makers may consider this cost analysis, since they need to know how drug costs are being allocated. Moreover, information about costs and use of pain medications is valuable for the practitioner making individual patient care decisions, as well as for those who make population based decisions. This study reported an increasing trend of outpatient pain visits in the United States. Therefore, policymakers and health plan decision makers may expect a growing number of pain-related outpatient visits in coming years and allocate resources accordingly to meet the need.

Evaluation of increased adherence and cost savings of an employer value-based benefits program targeting generic antihyperlipidemic and antidiabetic medications.

A major employer implemented a change to its employee health benefits program to allow beneficiaries with diabetes or high cholesterol to obtain preselected generic antidiabetic or generic antihyperlipidemic medications with a zero dollar copayment. To receive this benefit, plan beneficiaries were required to participate in a contracted vendor's case management and/or wellness program. To assess changes in medication adherence and the costs for generic antidiabetic and generic antihyperlipidemic medications resulting from participation in a zero copay (ZCP) program. This was a retrospective pre-post comparison group study, evaluating adherence and cost. Participants using an antihyperlipidemic and/or antidiabetic medication during the study identification period and post-implementation period for the program were considered eligible for the study. Eligible beneficiaries who enrolled in the ZCP program during the post-implementation period were considered participants, while those who did not enroll during this period were considered nonparticipants. ZCP program participants and nonparticipants were matched via a 1-to-1 propensity scoring method using age, gender, comorbidity count, medication type (antihyperlipidemic, antidiabetic, or both), and baseline adherence as matching criteria. The proportion of days covered (PDC) metric expressed as a mean percentage was used to assess adherence to medication therapy, while payer cost was examined using prescription drug utilization expressed as per member per year (PMPY) and cost change per 30 days of medication expressed in dollars. Among participants who were users of antidiabetic medications, the mean adherence rate was sustained from pre- to post-implementation (81.8% vs. 81.9%); however, it decreased in the matched nonparticipant group (81.9% vs. 73.1%). This difference in mean adherence over time between the participants and nonparticipants was statistically significant (0.1% vs. -8.8%, P less than 0.001). Similar results were found among users of antihyperlipidemics. The mean adherence rate was sustained over time for participants (77.7% vs. 78.3%) but declined over time for nonparticipants (77.6% vs. 70.8%). The difference in mean change over time was statistically significant between participants and nonparticipants (0.6% vs. -6,8%, P less than 0.001). Average prescription costs PMPY increased for participants of the ZCP program during the post-implementation period; however, the increase was not larger than the cost increase among nonparticipants ($581 vs. $584, P = 0.95). Furthermore, among antihyperlipidemics the cost increase post-implementation was actually significantly less for participants than nonparticipants ($51 vs. $143, P less than 0.001). Plan sponsors are increasingly evaluating the use of value-based benefit design (VBBD) to change member behavior. This ZCP program used a reduction in cost sharing to incentivize members to use more generic drugs and to enroll in a care management coaching program. The study also demonstrated that a VBBD program can have a positive impact on adherence and cost outcomes among those who participate compared with nonparticipants.

Using Financial Incentives to Improve Value in Orthopaedics

A variety of reforms to traditional approaches to provider payment and benefit design are being implemented in the United States. There is increasing interest in applying these financial incentives to orthopaedics, although it is unclear whether and to what extent they have been implemented and whether they increase quality or reduce costs. We reviewed and discussed physician- and patient-oriented financial incentives being implemented in orthopaedics, key challenges, and prerequisites to payment reform and value-driven payment policy in orthopaedics. We searched the MEDLINE database using as search terms various provider payment and consumer incentive models. We retrieved a total of 169 articles; none of these studies met the inclusion criteria. For incentive models known to the authors to be in use in orthopaedics but for which no peer-reviewed literature was found, we searched Google for further information. Provider financial incentives reviewed include payments for reporting, performance, and patient safety and episode payment. Patient incentives include tiered networks, value-based benefit design, reference pricing, and value-based purchasing. Reform of financial incentives for orthopaedic surgery is challenged by (1) lack of a payment/incentive model that has demonstrated reductions in cost trends and (2) the complex interrelation of current pay schemes in today's fragmented environment. Prerequisites to reform include (1) a reliable and complete data infrastructure; (2) new business structures to support cost sharing; and (3) a retooling of patient expectations. There is insufficient literature reporting the effects of various financial incentive models under implementation in orthopaedics to know whether they increase quality or reduce costs. National concerns about cost will continue to drive experimentation, and all anticipated innovations will require improved collaboration and data collection and reporting.

The Impact of Value-Based Benefit Design on Adherence to Diabetes Medications: A Propensity Score-Weighted Difference in Difference Evaluation

Objective To evaluate the impact of value-based benefit design (VBBD) on adherence to diabetes medications. Methods Health Alliance Medical Plans piloted VBBD for diabetes medications for a subgroup of 5400 enrollees in January 2007 while keeping drug benefits unchanged for the remaining plan enrollees. A difference in difference method (DID) was used to evaluate the effect of VBBD based on pharmacy claim data. Patients with unchanged benefits in the same plan were used as the control group. Adherence was measured by the proportion of days covered. Propensity score weighting was used to balance characteristics of the case group and the control group. Results There were 71 patients in the case group and 5037 patients in the control group. The patients in the two groups had comparable characteristics after propensity score weighting. After the implementation of VBBD, the average copayment per 30 days of supply for diabetes medications decreased from $15.3 to $10.1 for the case group and increased from $14.6 to $15.1 for the control group. The probability of being adherent increased from 75.3% to 82.6% for the case group and was roughly unchanged from 79.1% to 78.5% for the control group. Propensity score-weighted DID analysis showed that patients with copayment reduction had greater odds of being adherent: odds ratio = 1.56, P = 0.03, 95% confidence interval 1.04–2.34. Conclusion A VBBD program that reduced the copayment for diabetes medications by 36.1% reduced the number of nonadherent patients by 30.0%.

A value-based benefit design (VBBD) that decreased copayment by almost 50% for diabetes drugs significantly improved medication compliance

A value-based benefit design (VBBD) that decreased copayment by almost 50% for diabetes drugs significantly improved medication compliance

Value-based benefit design: using a predictive modeling approach to improve compliance.

Increased medication compliance rates have been demonstrated to result in improved clinical outcomes and reduced overall medical expenditures. As such, managed care stakeholders should take the total value approach to benefit design and consider total medical costs beyond the cost of pharmacotherapy alone. To describe the value-based benefit design employed by Pitney Bowes (specifically, the predictive modeling approach), to improve medication compliance, and to report the results of this intervention. Despite significant skepticism surrounding value-based benefit design, there is growing evidence that these plans can be used in conjunction with careful pharmacy management. In fact, value-based design provides a different lever on pharmacy management and allows for the appropriate drug to be channeled to the appropriate person. Studies demonstrating the adverse impact of high coinsurance levels further augment the argument for value-based benefit design. Value-based benefit design was employed at Pitney Bowes, a $6.1-billion global provider of integrated mailstream solutions, with noticeable success. Patients were either placed in a disease management program or in a secondary program promoting preventive care. The company selectively cut copays to achieve that end, and this total value approach translated into significant savings. To develop a successful value-based benefit design, stakeholders cannot simply cut costs or cut copays. Action must be taken as part of a concerted program, coupled with disease management or similar interventions. "Value based" means that positive outcomes are the ultimate goal, and barriers to those positive outcomes must be addressed.