Publications

INTRODUCTION: Value-based contracts (VBCs) that link drug payments to disease-related performance metrics aim to increase the value and lower the cost of medications by aligning incentives and sharing risk between payers and pharmaceutical manufacturers. This study sought to identify outcome measures that are meaningful to key stakeholders to inform VBCs for coronary artery disease (CAD) medications.

METHODS: We administered a modified Delphi survey to gather expert opinion from a diverse panel of patients (n = 9), cardiologists (n = 4), primary care physicians (n = 5), payers (n = 2), pharmacy benefits managers (n = 3), and pharmaceutical company representatives (n = 2). A list of 16 CAD-associated clinical indicators was generated from the literature and expert consultation. Delphi participants rated the importance of each outcome on a five-point Likert scale, and selected the three most meaningful outcomes. We defined consensus as ≥ 75% agreement on the importance of an outcome (Likert scores 4 or 5 or selection of an outcome as most meaningful).

RESULTS: Eleven of 13 outcomes reached consensus for importance on the Likert scale. "Preventing heart attacks" was selected as the most meaningful outcome (80%) while "preventing death" ranked second (76%).

CONCLUSIONS: Our study results verify the utility of a widely used clinical CAD outcome measure, myocardial infarction events, for the purpose of pharmaceutical value-based contracting.

BACKGROUND: Obtaining prescription medications from multiple health systems may complicate coordination of care. Older Veterans who obtain medications concurrently through Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits and Medicare Part D benefits (dual users) are at higher risk of unintended negative outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To explore characteristics predicting dual drug benefit use from both VA and Medicare Part D in a national sample of older Veterans with dementia.

METHODS: Administrative data were obtained from the VA and Medicare for a national sample of 110,828 Veterans with dementia ages 68 and older in 2010. Veterans were classified into three drug benefit user groups based on the source of all prescription medications they obtained in 2010: VA-only, Part D-only, and Dual Use. Multinomial logistic regression was used to examine predictors of drug benefit user group. The source of prescriptions was described for each of the ten most frequently used drug classes and opioids.

RESULTS: Fifty-six percent of Veterans received all of their prescription medications from VA-only, 28% from Part D-only, and 16% from both VA and Part D. Veterans who were eligible for Medicaid or who had a priority group score conferring less generous drug benefits within the VA were more likely to be Part D-only or dual users. Nearly one fourth of Veterans taking opioids concurrently received opioid prescriptions from dual sources (24.7%).

CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid eligibility and Veteran priority group status, which largely decrease copayments for drugs obtained outside versus within the VA, respectively, were the main factors predicting drug user benefit group. Policies to encourage single-system prescribing and enhance communication across health systems are crucial to preventing negative health outcomes related to care fragmentation.

This study uses wholesale medication acquisition costs and Medicare claims data to assess how prices of existing tumor necrosis factor inhibitors changed in response to the market entry of new tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have assessed prescription opioid supply preceding death in individuals dying from unintentional prescription opioid overdoses, or described the characteristics of these individuals, particularly among Veterans.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the history of prescription opioid supply preceding prescription opioid overdose death among Veterans.

METHODS: In a national cohort of Veterans who filled ≥1 opioid prescriptions from the Veterans Health Administration (VA) or Medicare Part D during 2008-2013, we identified deaths from unintentional or undetermined-intent prescription opioid overdoses in 2012-2013. We captured opioid prescriptions using both linked VA and Part D data, and VA data only.

RESULTS: Among 1181 decedents, 643 (54.4%) had prescription opioid supply on the day of death, and 735 (62.2%) within 30 days based on linked data, compared to 40.1% and 46.7%, respectively, using VA data alone. Decedents with prescription opioid supply were significantly older and less likely to have alcohol or illicit drugs as co-occurring substances involved in the overdose. Using linked data, 241 (20.4%) decedents lacked prescription opioid supply within a year of death.

CONCLUSIONS: Many VA patients who die from prescription opioid overdose receive opioid prescriptions outside VA or not at all. It is important to supplement VA with non-VA data to more accurately measure prescription opioid exposure and improve opioid medication safety.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate how changes in generic drug prices and the incidence of abrupt price increases varied with the number of manufacturers supplying each drug.

STUDY DESIGN: Analysis of 2005 to 2016 monthly wholesale acquisition costs (WACs) and University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Health Plan counts of pharmacy claims for National Drug Codes (NDCs) for generic drugs.

METHODS: Each year, NDCs were categorized according to the number of manufacturers offering each combination of active ingredient and dosage form: 1 to 3, 4 to 7, and more than 7. For every month from January 2006 to January 2017, we estimated the 12-month change in WAC (eg, 12-month change in January 2006 was calculated as the difference in WAC between January 2006 and January 2005, divided by the WAC in January 2005), before and after weighting each NDC by counts of pharmacy claims. We evaluated the proportion of NDCs that had large price increases, greater than 20%, 50%, 100%, and 500% within a year.

RESULTS: Before 2010, price changes were higher for drugs supplied by a lower number of manufacturers; however, after 2010, prices increased sharply, and drugs supplied by 4 to 7 manufacturers showed increases similar to or higher than those supplied by 1 to 3. In 2013, prices increased by an average of 29% for drugs supplied by 1 to 3 and 4 to 7 manufacturers, and 10% for more than 7. Price changes increased after weighting by counts of pharmacy claims, demonstrating that price increases disproportionately affected widely used drugs. The proportion of NDCs from drugs supplied by 1 to 3 manufacturers that doubled in price within a year was 3.6 times higher in 2012 to 2015 than in 2005 to 2009 (4.6% vs 1.3%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS: Increases in generic drug prices are concerning because they affected widely used drugs and suggest that generic drug prices may be increasingly insensitive to competition.

BACKGROUND: Value-based contracts link medication payments to performance measures with the ultimate goal of lowering costs while improving patient outcomes. Previous multiple sclerosis (MS) value-based contracts have focused on indicators easily collected from claims or electronic health record data as their value-based outcomes, even though numerous other MS clinical indicators of interest exist. Uncertainty remains regarding which MS indicators are most meaningful to all stakeholders affected by a value-based contract.

OBJECTIVE: To identify meaningful MS indicators among key stakeholders for the purpose of informing a value-based contract for MS medications.

METHODS: Using a modified Delphi method, we surveyed 26 diverse stakeholders, including 8 patients and caregivers; 9 providers (neurologists, nurses, physician assistants, and specialty pharmacists); 2 pharmaceutical company representatives; 5 payers; and 2 pharmacy benefits managers. A list of 12 MS indicators was created from subject matter expert consultation and a literature review. All stakeholders reported on the meaningfulness and value of these 12 indicators through a 5-point Likert scale and forced selection of the 3 most meaningful indicators. All nonpatient stakeholders were additionally surveyed on collection feasibility of the same 12 indicators using a 5-point Likert scale. We defined consensus as ≥ 75% agreement on the meaningfulness and feasibility of an indicator (Likert scores 4 or 5). We performed a Fisher's exact test to assess differences between nonpatient and patient stakeholder rankings of indicators.

RESULTS: Consensus was reached for at least 1 indicator for all questions after 2 rounds. "Worsening physical disability" and "functional impairment" achieved 92% agreement on a Likert-scale question assessing indicator value, and 100% of participants selected "worsening physical disability" when asked to choose the 3 most meaningful indicators. "MS flares requiring an emergency department visit" and "MS flares requiring inpatient admission" were rated as the 2 most feasibly collected indicators (both received 89% agreement).

CONCLUSIONS: Using the Delphi method, we identified that disability and functional impairment are meaningful MS indicators to diverse stakeholders. These findings support the incorporation of important patient-reported outcomes into value-based contracts for MS medications.

DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by a grant from Express Scripts Holding Company, which provided research funding to the UPMC Center for Value-Based Pharmacy Initiatives for work on this study. Swart, Neilson, Good, and Parekh are employed by the UPMC Center for Value-Based Pharmacy Initiatives. Manolis is the Chief Pharmacy Officer of UPMC Health Plan, and Shrank was the Chief Medical Officer of UPMC Insurance Services Division at the time of this study. Henderson is employed by Express Scripts Holding Company.

BACKGROUND: The Opioid Safety Initiative decreased high-dose prescriptions across the Veterans Health Administration. This study sought to examine the impact of this intervention (i.e., the Opioid Safety Initiative) on pain scores and opioid prescriptions in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty.

METHODS: This was an ecological study of group-level data among 700 to 850 patients per month over 72 consecutive months (January 2010 to December 2015). The authors examined characteristics of cohorts treated before versus after rollout of the Opioid Safety Initiative (October 2013). Each month, the authors aggregated at the group-level the differences between mean postoperative and preoperative pain scores for each patient (averaged over 6-month periods), and measured proportions of patients (per 1,000) with opioid (and nonopioid) prescriptions for more than 3 months in 6-month periods, preoperatively and postoperatively. The authors compared postintervention trends versus trends forecasted based on preintervention measures.

RESULTS: After the Opioid Safety Initiative, patients were slightly older and sicker, but had lower mortality rates (postintervention n = 28,509 vs. preintervention n = 31,547). Postoperative pain scores were slightly higher and the decrease in opioid use was statistically significant, i.e., 871 (95% CI, 474 to 1,268) fewer patients with chronic postoperative prescriptions. In time series analyses, mean postoperative minus preoperative pain scores had increased from 0.65 to 0.81, by 0.16 points (95% CI, 0.05 to 0.27). Proportions of patients with chronic postoperative and chronic preoperative opioid prescriptions had declined by 20% (n = 3,355 vs. expected n = 4,226) and by 13% (n = 5,861 vs. expected n = 6,724), respectively. Nonopioid analgesia had increased. Sensitivity analyses confirmed all findings.

CONCLUSIONS: A system-wide initiative combining guideline dissemination with audit and feedback was effective in significantly decreasing opioid prescriptions in populations undergoing total knee arthroplasty, while minimally impacting pain scores.

BACKGROUND: Treatment by high-opioid prescribing physicians in the emergency department (ED) is associated with higher rates of long-term opioid use among Medicare beneficiaries. However, it is unclear if this result is true in other high-risk populations such as Veterans.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of exposure to high-opioid prescribing physicians on long-term opioid use for opioid-naïve Veterans.

DESIGN: Observational study using Veterans Health Administration (VA) encounter and prescription data.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Veterans with an index ED visit at any VA facility in 2012 and without opioid prescriptions in the prior 6 months in the VA system ("opioid naïve").

MEASUREMENTS: We assigned patients to emergency physicians and categorized physicians into within-hospital quartiles based on their opioid prescribing rates. Our primary outcome was long-term opioid use, defined as 6 months of days supplied in the 12 months subsequent to the ED visit. We compared rates of long-term opioid use among patients treated by high versus low quartile prescribers, adjusting for patient demographic, clinical characteristics, and ED diagnoses.

RESULTS: We identified 57,738 and 86,393 opioid-naïve Veterans managed by 362 and 440 low and high quartile prescribers, respectively. Patient characteristics were similar across groups. ED opioid prescribing rates varied more than threefold between the low and high quartile prescribers within hospitals (6.4% vs. 20.8%, p < 0.001). The frequency of long-term opioid use was higher among Veterans treated by high versus low quartile prescribers, though above the threshold for statistical significance (1.39% vs. 1.26%; adjusted OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.997-1.24, p = 0.056). In subgroup analyses, there were significant associations for patients with back pain (adjusted OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.01-1.55, p = 0.04) and for those with a history of depression (adjusted OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.08-1.51, p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS: ED physician opioid prescribing varied by over 300% within facility, with a statistically non-significant increased rate of long-term use among opioid-naïve Veterans exposed to the highest intensity prescribers.