A standard method of measuring patient adherence to medications would go a long way toward addressing this vexing health care problem, according to a study in the Journal of the American Pharmacists Association.

The study “Targeting Cardiovascular Medication Adherence Interventions” states that “Adherence measures differed between studies both as an outcome and a means of defining a target group. This heterogeneity prevented us from pursuing a meta-analysis and prompted us to interpret all findings with caution.”

The authors do cautiously suggest that interventions focused on nonadherent patients are more effective than programs that send out warnings and encouragement to all medication users. “Broad interventions were less likely (18 percent) to show medium or large effects compared with focused (25 percent) or dynamic (32 percent) interventions,” the study states.

Focused interventions target nonadherent patients, and dynamic interventions are administered “to all medication takers, with real-time adherence information targeting nonadherers as intervention proceeded.”

Nonadherence to medication use accounts for about $290 billion in excess costs to the U.S. health care system annually, the study states.

The effectiveness of broad interventions was “likely diluted because of the small effect of the intervention on patients already inclined toward adherence. Moreover, without the benefit of identifying patients and their specific barriers to nonadherence, these interventions may have been too general to motivate individual patients to meaningfully change their behavior. In a resource-constrained health care system, broad interventions without a feedback loop may not provide the best return on investment.”

Managed Care’s Top Ten Articles of 2016

There’s a lot more going on in health care than mergers (Aetna-Humana, Anthem-Cigna) creating huge players. Hundreds of insurers operate in 50 different states. Self-insured employers, ACA public exchanges, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid managed care plans crowd an increasingly complex market.

Major health care players are determined to make health information exchanges (HIEs) work. The push toward value-based payment alone almost guarantees that HIEs will be tweaked, poked, prodded, and overhauled until they deliver on their promise. The goal: straight talk from and among tech systems.

They bring a different mindset. They’re willing to work in teams and focus on the sort of evidence-based medicine that can guide health care’s transformation into a system based on value. One question: How well will this new generation of data-driven MDs deal with patients?

The surge of new MS treatments have been for the relapsing-remitting form of the disease. There’s hope for sufferers of a different form of MS. By homing in on CD20-positive B cells, ocrelizumab is able to knock them out and other aberrant B cells circulating in the bloodstream.

A flood of tests have insurers ramping up prior authorization and utilization review. Information overload is a problem. As doctors struggle to keep up, health plans need to get ahead of the development of the technology in order to successfully manage genetic testing appropriately.

Having the data is one thing. Knowing how to use it is another. Applying its computational power to the data, a company called RowdMap puts providers into high-, medium-, and low-value buckets compared with peers in their markets, using specific benchmarks to show why outliers differ from the norm.
Competition among manufacturers, industry consolidation, and capitalization on me-too drugs are cranking up generic and branded drug prices. This increase has compelled PBMs, health plan sponsors, and retail pharmacies to find novel ways to turn a profit, often at the expense of the consumer.
The development of recombinant DNA and other technologies has added a new dimension to care. These medications have revolutionized the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and many of the other 80 or so autoimmune diseases. But they can be budget busters and have a tricky side effect profile.

Shelley Slade
Vogel, Slade & Goldstein

Hub programs have emerged as a profitable new line of business in the sales and distribution side of the pharmaceutical industry that has got more than its fair share of wheeling and dealing. But they spell trouble if they spark collusion, threaten patients, or waste federal dollars.

More companies are self-insuring—and it’s not just large employers that are striking out on their own. The percentage of employers who fully self-insure increased by 44% in 1999 to 63% in 2015. Self-insurance may give employers more control over benefit packages, and stop-loss protects them against uncapped liability.