RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Because of improved clinical outcomes, recent American Diabetes Association guidelines recommend the use of newer antidiabetic agents-glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i)-by those with cardiovascular disease. It is unclear, however, how switching to these newer agents affects health care utilization and costs. OBJECTIVE: To compare health care utilization and costs between users of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) who switch to GLP-1RA or SGLT2i and nonswitchers. METHODS: We used claims data from a large pharmacy benefit manager. Patients included were commercially insured adults with type 2 diabetes and a prescription claim for DPP-4i in 2016 or 2017. Using propensity score methods, we matched patients who switched to SGLT2i or GLP-1RA with those who remained on DPP-4i. Among matched samples, we conducted multivariable negative binomial regression to examine differences in the incidence of inpatient and emergency room (ER) visits and generalized linear regression to examine differences in health care costs. RESULTS: Among 47,953 patients who used DPP-4i in 2016 and 2017, 507 switched to SGLT2i and 808 switched to GLP-1RA. Propensity score matching of 1:6 resulted in 3,042 nonswitchers/507 switchers for the SGLT2i cohort and 4,848 nonswitchers/808 switchers for the GLP-1RA cohort. Switchers to SGLT2i experienced a 39% reduction (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.38-0.96), and GLP-1RA switchers experienced a 29% reduction (IRR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.52-0.97) in inpatient hospitalizations. ER visit rates did not differ significantly between switchers and nonswitchers. Switchers to SGLT2i did not have statistically significant differences in medical or pharmacy costs compared with DPP-4i users, while switchers to GLP-1RA had significantly higher total pharmacy costs (adjusted difference of $2,453.10, 95% CI = $1,837.20-$3,069.00). CONCLUSIONS: Switching from DPP-4i to GLP-1RA or SGLT2i was associated with fewer hospitalizations; however, higher pharmacy costs may outweigh savings from reduced hospitalizations, especially for GLP-1RAs. As newer diabetes guidelines steer specific populations to these drug classes, it is important to optimize drug pricing to realize their true value. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. Neilson, Good, Swart, and Huang are employees of UPMC Center for Value-Based Pharmacy Initiatives and High-Value Care. Parekh reports employment at UPMC until July 2019. Munshi and Henderson are employed by Express Scripts. Newman has no disclosures to report.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêutico , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Estudos de Coortes , Análise Custo-Benefício , Inibidores da Dipeptidil Peptidase IV/economia , Inibidores da Dipeptidil Peptidase IV/uso terapêutico , Feminino , Receptor do Peptídeo Semelhante ao Glucagon 1/agonistas , Humanos , Hipoglicemiantes/economia , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Aceitação pelo Paciente de Cuidados de Saúde , Inibidores do Transportador 2 de Sódio-Glicose/economia , Inibidores do Transportador 2 de Sódio-Glicose/uso terapêutico , Estados Unidos , Adulto JovemRESUMO
In an effort to demonstrate measurable value of pharmaceuticals in the United States, many payers and drug manufacturers have entered into value-based purchasing contracts that link payment for prescription medications to patient outcomes, creating shared risk between the 2 entities. These agreements have emerged as part of a larger movement within the health care landscape to transition away from volume-based payment models and towards value-based designs that promote high-quality and affordable care. Key to the success of pharmaceutical value-based contracting is agreement on meaningful and measurable outcomes that reflect drug performance. Traditional value-based contracts are developed by pharmaceutical companies and payers and may not reflect values of other important stakeholders, such as patients, providers, and employers (when applicable). One approach to more effectively align the interests of all key stakeholders and to maximize the effect and transparency of value-based pharmaceutical contracts is to use the validated Delphi surveying technique, which can gather information and build stakeholder consensus on key elements before contract development. In this Viewpoints article, we describe our experience conducting Delphi studies in 5 disease contexts to inform pharmaceutical value-based contract development, including insights learned and practical considerations for real-world application. In addition, we outline advantages to using this validated consensus-building tool to solicit vital and underrepresented stakeholder input, foster transparency in the contract development process, and promote shared learning for future value-based initiatives. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this project. All authors are or were employed by UPMC Health Plan at the time of this study and have no other disclosures to declare.
Assuntos
Custos de Medicamentos , Assistência Farmacêutica/economia , Seguro de Saúde Baseado em Valor/economia , Aquisição Baseada em Valor/economia , Consenso , Análise Custo-Benefício , Técnica Delphi , Humanos , Participação dos Interessados , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
Quality improvement (QI) plays a vital role in practice management, patient care, and reimbursement. The authors implemented a 3-year longitudinal curriculum that combined QI didactics, intervention development, and implementation at university-based, community-based, and Veterans Administration-based practices. Highlights included Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle format, team-based collaboration to brainstorm interventions, interdisciplinary QI council to select and plan interventions, system-wide intervention implementation across entire clinic populations with outcome monitoring, and intervention modifications based on challenges. A pre-post survey assessed residents' confidence in QI skills and interdisciplinary team participation, while quarterly quality data assessed patient outcomes. All 150 internal medicine residents participated. Confidence in QI and interdisciplinary team participation improved significantly (P < .001). Patient outcomes improved for 6 of 9 targeted projects and were sustained at 1 year. This curriculum is a systems-based innovation designed to improve patient care and encourage interdisciplinary teamwork and can be adopted by residencies seeking to improve engagement in QI.