Health affairs
-
The private health plans that administer the Medicare drug benefit use various tools to encourage the use of generic drugs in order to lower total drug spending. Higher generic drug use also appears to encourage consumers to continue taking their medications. This study examines how different drug plan benefit and formulary designs influence the selection of generic drugs to treat high cholesterol among Medicare beneficiaries. ⋯ In this drug class, where generics can be readily substituted for brand-name drugs for most people, adoption of the policies most effective in encouraging generic use could lead to considerable savings for the plans, Medicare, and enrollees. We estimate that every 10 percent increase in the use of generic, rather than brand-name, statins would reduce Medicare costs by about $1 billion annually. Plans could apply the lessons from this analysis and consider a zero copay for use of generic drugs, and Medicare might consider further incentives for plans to use benefit designs that increase such drugs' use.
-
Using observation units in hospitals to provide care to certain patients can be more efficient than admitting them to the hospital and can result in shorter lengths-of-stay and lower costs. However, such units are present in only about one-third of US hospitals. ⋯ Using a systematic literature review, national survey data, and a simulation model, we estimated that if hospitals without observation units had them in place, the average cost savings per patient would be $1,572, annual hospital savings would be $4.6 million, and national cost savings would be $3.1 billion. Future policies intended to increase the cost-efficiency of hospital care should include support for observation unit care as an alternative to short-stay inpatient admission.
-
What role can rigorous observational comparative effectiveness studies play in guiding clinical decision making? What criteria should be used in determining whether the results of such studies should be communicated to clinicians and to patients? We address these questions by considering two hypothetical observational studies in patients with migraine against the backdrop of the review criteria drawn up by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). These criteria emphasize that patient-centered comparative effectiveness research should exhibit relevance to patients, have great potential to affect practice and improve outcomes, and be conducted using rigorous analytic methods. We conclude that these hypothetical studies would be unlikely to have been funded or communicated by PCORI, and we offer suggestions for improving their relevance and analytic approaches. We also conclude that high-quality observational studies can effectively complement findings from randomized trials, and that communicating their results to patients and clinicians is warranted.
-
Patients and physicians may be reluctant to abandon widely used treatments that have been found to be ineffective. In 2002 and 2008 the New England Journal of Medicine published the results of clinical trials showing that arthroscopic debridement and lavage--surgical treatments to remove damaged tissue and debris--do not benefit patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. ⋯ These reductions may be offset by increases in the use of other procedures. The results indicate that clinical trials of widely used therapies can lead to cost-saving changes in practice patterns.
-
This article provides a perspective from the pharmaceutical industry on a hypothetical comparative effectiveness research case, highlighting tension between the reality of conducting comparative effectiveness research and the regulation of biopharmaceutical industry communication. Specifically, under current law and regulations, Aesculapion, the hypothetical maker of the fictional migraine headache drug Hemikrane, would have limited ability to communicate findings or to respond to inaccurate "what-if" scenario communications. Principles for communicating drug information could increase decision makers' access to information while making it easier for them to assess the quality and potential biases of different information sources. The article proposes two complementary approaches: formal Food and Drug Administration guidance clarifying how industry can participate meaningfully and proactively in the comparative effectiveness research discourse, possibly based on 1997 legislation governing communication of "health care economic information"; and stakeholder collaboration on development and adoption of voluntary "good communication principles."