In an era when, some argue, much of medical management is being shifted toward the provider, a study shows that nearly half of physician professional societies still do not consider costs when developing guidelines.

This comes from a study, “Cost Consideration in the Clinical Guidance Documents of Physician Specialty Societies in the United States,” in the May 6 issue of JAMA Internal Medicine. It cites the Choosing Wisely initiative (which we’ve reported on /archives/2013/3/choosing-wisely-campaign-grows-wider-and-deeper) as a possible movement toward greater cost awareness among physician societies. It also reports on stiff resistance to that movement.

“Opponents of explicit cost consideration, however, believe that physicians should place individual patient needs ahead of societal needs, regardless of cost,” the study states. “Critics fear that the introduction of costs into clinical decision making at any level will ultimately lead to bedside rationing and cause a rift in the physician-patient relationship that will foster public mistrust of the medical community.”

The study’s authors looked at clinical guidelines for 30 specialty societies and found that 17 explicitly include cost in the discussion.

While nine of the societies use a system in which cost influences the strength of the recommendation, eight are “inconsistent in their approach or failed to mention the exact mechanism for considering costs.”

The authors offer the societies some advice. “In our analysis, the most common way to use cost in justifying a recommendation was to state that an intervention was recommended because it was as effective as other options but less costly.”

In an accompanying editorial, Joseph P. Drozda Jr., MD, sees hope that more attention will be paid to costs.

“It is safe to say that these societies will continue to address the appropriate use of medical interventions in their clinical guidance documents,” writes Drozda.

“It is probably also safe to say that the growing trend of formally addressing costs in guidance documents will continue as well.”

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.