Search

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

Background: The 2009 A/H1N1 influenza pandemic generated additional data and triggered new studies that opened debate over the optimal strategy for handling a pandemic. The lessons-learned documents from the World Health Organization show the need for a cost estimation of the pandemic response during the risk-assessment phase. Several years after the crisis, what conclusions can we draw from this field of research?Objective: The main objective of this article was to provide an analysis of the studies that present cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit analyses for A/H1N1 pandemic interventions since 2009 and to identify which measures seem most cost-effective.Methods: We reviewed 18 academic articles that provide cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit analyses for A/H1N1 pandemic interventions since 2009. Our review converts the studies' results into a cost-utility measure (cost per disability-adjusted life-year or quality-adjusted life-year) and presents the contexts of severity and fatality.Results: The existing studies suggest that hospital quarantine, vaccination, and usage of the antiviral stockpile are highly cost-effective, even for mild pandemics. However, school closures, antiviral treatments, and social distancing may not qualify as efficient measures, for a virus like 2009's H1N1 and a willingness-to-pay threshold of $45,000 per disability-adjusted life-year. Such interventions may become cost-effective for severe crises.Conclusions: This study helps to shed light on the cost-utility of various interventions, and may support decision making, among other criteria, for future pandemics. Nonetheless, one should consider these results carefully, considering these may not apply to a specific crisis or country, and a dedicated cost-effectiveness assessment should be conducted at the time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rising costs without perceived proportional improvements in quality and outcomes have motivated fundamental shifts in health care delivery and payment to achieve better value. Aligned with these efforts, several value assessment frameworks have been introduced recently to help providers, patients, and payers better understand the potential value of drugs and other interventions and make informed decisions about their use. Given their early stage of development, it is imperative to evaluate these efforts on an ongoing basis to identify how best to support and improve them moving forward. This article provides a multistakeholder perspective on the key limitations and opportunities posed by the current value assessment frameworks and areas of and actions for improvement. In particular, we outline 10 fundamental guiding principles and associated strategies that should be considered in subsequent iterations of the existing frameworks or by emerging initiatives in the future. Although value assessment frameworks may not be able to meet all the needs and preferences of stakeholders, we contend that there are common elements and potential next steps that can be supported to advance value assessment in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]