Currently Viewing:
Contributor
CMS Rule Creates More Flexibility for Value-Based Benefits in Medicare Advantage
May 25, 2018
High-Deductible Health Plans a Problem for Patients With Cancer
May 10, 2018
Including VBID Principles Can Avoid Negative Effects of Outcomes-Oriented Contracts
April 19, 2018
Legislative Actions Encourage Value in Medicare Advantage and High-Deductible Health Plans
February 23, 2018
Addressing Rising Cost Sharing With Precision Co-Pay Assistance
February 08, 2018
A Year of Value-Based Insurance Design: 2017 Highlights
January 15, 2018
Study Identifies Unexpected Contributor to Rising Health Costs: Low-Cost Services
December 27, 2017
CMS Expands MA VBID Model Test in 2019
December 08, 2017
CMS Proposed Rule Allows Greater Flexibility for VBID in Medicare Advantage
November 25, 2017
Identifying the Top 5 Low-Value Services That Can Be Targeted for Reduction
November 10, 2017
VBID in Action: Connecticut Health Enhancement Plan
March 26, 2017
Healthcare Stakeholders Call for Flexibility in HSA-HDHPs
March 12, 2017
2016 Year in Review: University of Michigan V-BID Center
February 02, 2017
VBID and Medicare Advantage: Achieving Bipartisan Support
November 30, 2016
Understanding Clinical Nuance
October 25, 2016
Implementing VBID in Medicare and Medicare Advantage
October 19, 2016
The Cost of Low-Value Care
October 11, 2016
Adventures in Healthcare: The Dawn of the High-Value Health Plan
October 04, 2016
Currently Reading
Reward the Good Soldier: A Dynamic Approach to Consumer Cost-Sharing for Prescription Drugs
September 26, 2016

Reward the Good Soldier: A Dynamic Approach to Consumer Cost-Sharing for Prescription Drugs

Access to, and levels of spending on, prescription drugs has become an important public policy issue. The development and implementation of patient-centered solutions that allow access to medications at an affordable cost are of critical importance.
This article was collaboratively written by A. Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the V-BID Center, and several V-BID Center staff. Funding for this was provided by the National Pharmaceutical Council.

Access to, and levels of spending on, prescription drugs has become an important public policy issue. Given the significant individual and population health gains that result from the appropriate use of prescription drugs, as well as the fiscal concerns pertaining to the escalation of health care expenditures, the development and implementation of patient-centered solutions that allow access to medications at an affordable cost are of critical importance.

One common strategy that healthcare purchasers employ to control pharmaceutical spending is to increase consumer cost-sharing. This trend—seen for nearly all drugs across all formulary tiers—has proceeded regardless of the clinical benefit provided by a specific drug, with cost-sharing increasing as rapidly for high-value drugs (eg, included in evidence-based guidelines) as for drugs deemed unnecessary or potentially harmful.1 As consumers are asked to pay a greater proportion of their medication expenses, cost-related nonadherence is an important and growing problem.

A robust body of peerreviewed evidence demonstrates that cost-related non-adherence exists for high-value medical services across the entire episode of clinical care, including clinician visits, diagnostic tests, and especially prescription medications.2,3,4 Nearly 1 in 5 insured adults report going without needed care due to cost.5 Sub-optimal use of evidence-based services results in poor patient-centered outcomes and, in some scenarios, higher expenditures for both the patient and the third-party payer.

An important aim of a multi-tier prescription drug formulary—largely driven by fiscal constraints—is to encourage patients to use effective, lower-cost medications. Such approaches to pharmaceutical management (eg, generic substitution and prior authorization) have been utilized for decades with varying effects on spending. A recommendation that patients are initially prescribed lower cost medication(s) is a reasonable population health strategy, given that a first-line medication will often be effective and, given the relative lower cost, will be considered high-value for that patient and for the payer. However, it is not uncommon that certain patients cannot be prescribed (eg, due to drug allergy or drug-drug interaction), or do not respond to, first-line, lower-cost medications. In these frequent clinical scenarios, an individual will require a substitute or an additional drug to achieve patient-centered clinical outcomes. In these situations, the first-line drug is no longer high-value and a clinically indicated, higher-cost alternative becomes a higher value choice. Therefore, the level of consumer cost-sharing for higher cost medication should be aligned with the clinical value—not solely the price—when lower-cost alternatives do not produce the desired patient-centered outcomes.

The concept of aligning patients’ out-of-pocket costs—such as copayments, co-insurance, and deductibles—with the value of healthcare services is the basic premise of Value-Based Insurance Design (VBID).6  This approach to designing benefit plans recognizes that specific health services have different levels of value. Thus, VBID programs are designed with the tenets of "clinical nuance" in mind, which recognize that 1) medical services differ in the amount of health produced, and 2) the clinical benefit derived from a specific service depends on the consumer using it, as well as when, where, and by whom the service is provided. VBID takes into account that the same pharmaceutical agent can be both high value and low value depending on patient demographics, the disease treated, or the stage of a specific clinical condition.


The ongoing transformation to "precision" preventive care, diagnostics, and therapies provides a clear impetus to include clinical nuance in setting prescription drug cost-sharing levels. To keep pace with the rapid movement toward targeted clinical interventions, the existing "static" drug cost-sharing structure should evolve to a more "dynamic" configuration. Such a transition to a more nuanced approach is supported by several factors, including: 1) an increasing number of evidence-based protocols recommending specific genetic markers, companion diagnostics, or patient-specific factors; and 2) the natural history of many chronic conditions often necessitates the use of multiple evidence-based therapies to achieve desired clinical outcomes. Clinical scenarios often require a patient to take multiple drugs simultaneously and/or cycle through multiple drugs to effectively treat a specific condition.



 
Copyright AJMC 2006-2018 Clinical Care Targeted Communications Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
x
Welcome the the new and improved AJMC.com, the premier managed market network. Tell us about yourself so that we can serve you better.
Sign Up
×

Sign In

Not a member? Sign up now!