Search

Importance: Recent discussion has focused on questions related to the repeal and replacement of portions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). However, issues central to the future of health and health care in the United States transcend the ACA provisions receiving the greatest attention. Initiatives directed to certain strategic and infrastructure priorities are vital to achieve better health at lower cost.Objectives: To review the most salient health challenges and opportunities facing the United States, to identify practical and achievable priorities essential to health progress, and to present policy initiatives critical to the nation's health and fiscal integrity.Evidence Review: Qualitative synthesis of 19 National Academy of Medicine-commissioned white papers, with supplemental review and analysis of publicly available data and published research findings.Findings: The US health system faces major challenges. Health care costs remain high at $3.2 trillion spent annually, of which an estimated 30% is related to waste, inefficiencies, and excessive prices; health disparities are persistent and worsening; and the health and financial burdens of chronic illness and disability are straining families and communities. Concurrently, promising opportunities and knowledge to achieve change exist. Across the 19 discussion papers examined, 8 crosscutting policy directions were identified as vital to the nation's health and fiscal future, including 4 action priorities and 4 essential infrastructure needs. The action priorities-pay for value, empower people, activate communities, and connect care-recurred across the articles as direct and strategic opportunities to advance a more efficient, equitable, and patient- and community-focused health system. The essential infrastructure needs-measure what matters most, modernize skills, accelerate real-world evidence, and advance science-were the most commonly cited foundational elements to ensure progress.Conclusions and Relevance: The action priorities and essential infrastructure needs represent major opportunities to improve health outcomes and increase efficiency and value in the health system. As the new US administration and Congress chart the future of health and health care for the United States, and as health leaders across the country contemplate future directions for their programs and initiatives, their leadership and strategic investment in these priorities will be essential for achieving significant progress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical preventive service recommendations from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) are based on transparent, systematic, and rigorous methods that consider the certainty of the evidence and magnitude of net benefit. These guidelines aim to address the needs of diverse populations. Biological sex and gender identity are sources of diversity that are not often considered in studies of clinical preventive services that inform the recommendations, resulting in challenges when evaluating the evidence and communicating recommendations for persons in specific gender identification categories (man/woman/gender nonbinary/gender nonconforming/transgender). To advance its methods, the USPSTF reviewed its past recommendations that included the use of sex and gender terms, reviewed the approaches of other guideline-making bodies, and pilot tested strategies to address sex and gender diversity. Based on the findings, the USPSTF intends to use an inclusive approach to identify issues related to sex and gender at the start of the guideline development process; assess the applicability, variability, and quality of evidence as a function of sex and gender; ensure clarity in the use of language regarding sex and gender; and identify evidence gaps related to sex and gender. Evidence reviews will identify the limitations of applying findings to diverse groups from underlying studies that used unclear terminology regarding sex and gender. The USPSTF will use gender-neutral language when appropriate to communicate that recommendations are inclusive of people of any gender and will clearly state when recommendations apply to individuals with specific anatomy associated with biological sex (male/female) or to specific categories of gender identity. The USPSTF recognizes limited evidence to inform the preventive care of populations based on gender identity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Understanding the profitability of pharmaceutical companies is essential to formulating evidence-based policies to reduce drug costs while maintaining the industry's ability to innovate and provide essential medicines.Objective: To compare the profitability of large pharmaceutical companies with other large companies.Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study compared the annual profits of 35 large pharmaceutical companies with 357 companies in the S&P 500 Index from 2000 to 2018 using information from annual financial reports. A statistically significant differential profit margin favoring pharmaceutical companies was evidence of greater profitability.Exposures: Large pharmaceutical vs nonpharmaceutical companies.Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were revenue and 3 measures of annual profit: gross profit (revenue minus the cost of goods sold); earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA; pretax profit from core business activities); and net income, also referred to as earnings (difference between all revenues and expenses). Profit measures are described as cumulative for all companies from 2000 to 2018 or annual profit as a fraction of revenue (margin).Results: From 2000 to 2018, 35 large pharmaceutical companies reported cumulative revenue of $11.5 trillion, gross profit of $8.6 trillion, EBITDA of $3.7 trillion, and net income of $1.9 trillion, while 357 S&P 500 companies reported cumulative revenue of $130.5 trillion, gross profit of $42.1 trillion, EBITDA of $22.8 trillion, and net income of $9.4 trillion. In bivariable regression models, the median annual profit margins of pharmaceutical companies were significantly greater than those of S&P 500 companies (gross profit margin: 76.5% vs 37.4%; difference, 39.1% [95% CI, 32.5%-45.7%]; P < .001; EBITDA margin: 29.4% vs 19%; difference, 10.4% [95% CI, 7.1%-13.7%]; P < .001; net income margin: 13.8% vs 7.7%; difference, 6.1% [95% CI, 2.5%-9.7%]; P < .001). The differences were smaller in regression models controlling for company size and year and when considering only companies reporting research and development expense (gross profit margin: difference, 30.5% [95% CI, 20.9%-40.1%]; P < .001; EBITDA margin: difference, 9.2% [95% CI, 5.2%-13.2%]; P < .001; net income margin: difference, 3.6% [95% CI, 0.011%-7.2%]; P = .05).Conclusions and Relevance: From 2000 to 2018, the profitability of large pharmaceutical companies was significantly greater than other large, public companies, but the difference was less pronounced when considering company size, year, or research and development expense. Data on the profitability of large pharmaceutical companies may be relevant to formulating evidence-based policies to make medicines more affordable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]