Archive | Methodology RSS feed for this section

PHM Is The New Black Post At CCA Blog With Diabetes Examples

This is a partial copy (teaser) of a guest blog I did on the Care Continuum Alliance blog earlier this week.

**********************

With all the talk about Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) and Patient Centered Medical Homes (PCMHs), the adoption curve for the Care Continuum Alliance (CCA) model for Population Health Management (PHM) should move beyond the innovators in 2013 and begin to “Cross the Chasm.” I believe there are several preconditions that would set the stage for this to occur, for instance:

  1. Technology advances leading to the “Big Data” focus;
  2. The changing paradigm from fee-for-service to outcomes-based care;
  3. The realization of the role of the consumer led by the e-Patient movement, the idea of the Quantified Self, and the focus of large healthcare enterprises on being consumer centric; and
  4. The budget crisis that is driving employers and other payers to embrace PHM, wellness, and other initiatives that impact cost and productivity.

Of course, most companies are still in the infancy of designing systems to address this coordinated care model, which does not view the patient as a claim, but longitudinally aggregates demographical, psychosocial and claims data.  Additionally, training staff using Motivational Interviewing and integrating external staff into the virtual care team in partnership with the provider will continue to evolve as do our care delivery models.

To read more especially the diabetes examples that I shared, please click over to their blog.  Thanks.

 

Saturday Evening Post On The Placebo Effect

Do you know what the Placebo Effect is?  There’s lot of information out there.  For example, here’s what WebMD says about it.  Here’s my definition of it.

In general, it’s when someone is told they are given a medication (or procedure) that will work but instead are given a sugar pill or otherwise “deceived” into believing they’ve gotten the prescribed treatment.  It is often used in clinical trials for drugs to establish the baseline of side effects.  The amazing part is that it shows the power of the mind to influence our healing ability.  

Below is a video that I’ve used a few times before.  It’s also been a concept I’ve built on in a few other posts – New To Therapy, Price And Placebo Effect, Guest Post on the Topic.

The amazing thing that captured my attention a few months ago is that this can work not only for medication but also for surgery.  (Maybe this is the key to saving money in the US healthcare system.)  This was tested in the case of knee surgery in a trial that was published several years ago.  This article also points out another trial on patients with Parkinson’s.  The reality appears to be that this is happening in trials but also in real life according to an article in American Medical News (see quote below).

Nearly half of physicians use placebos in clinical care, and only 4% tell their patients the truth about it, according to a survey of Chicago academic physicians that was published this month in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.

This begs all types of questions about who will respond to placebos and when or if it’s ok to use them with patients.

The Saturday Evening Post just published an article on this topic.  They touch on a few of the same studies I’ve looked at, but they also point out several new things that I put below – conditioned response and ritual.  They also share a video on the placebo effect.

Conditioned responses are a third way the placebo response works. In one elegant experiment demonstrating this phenomenon, scientists showed 40 volunteers two male faces on a computer screen for 0.1 second. When the volunteers looked at one face, they got a mild burn on their forearm; when they looked at the other, they got a more painful burn. The volunteers became as conditioned as Pavlov’s dogs. In the next round when they saw the high-pain face and felt a burn, they rated it as more painful than when they saw the low-pain face and felt a burn—even though the applied heat was identical the second time around.

The perception of pain, says Ted Kaptchuk of Harvard Medical School, who helped lead the 2012 study, depends on “what the nonconscious mind anticipates despite any conscious thoughts.”

The placebo effect doesn’t even depend on deception. It can kick in even when people are told they are receiving an inactive drug. For instance, in a 2010 study led by Harvard’s Kaptchuk, scientists recruited 80 people with irritable bowel syndrome, or IBS, and gave half no treatment and half what they were told were “placebo pills made of an inert substance, like sugar pills, that have been shown in clinical studies to produce significant improvement in IBS symptoms through mind-body, self-healing processes.” It was full disclosure. Even without the deception, the placebo-takers’ IBS symptoms improved over the course of three weeks. That response suggests another avenue for the placebo response: ritual.

The author (Sharon Begley) asks the key question which is how does this placebo effect play out in the 21st century.  With all this technology that we have and the physician shortage, is there a greater opportunity here?  Can we tap into this in a positive way?  She also points out how doctors are using other techniques such as relaxation therapy to address the power of the mind.

FitBit Review Summary – Device, Apps, And Suggestions

In the spirit of the Quantified Self movement and in order to better understand how mHealth tools like FitBit can drive behavior change, I’ve been using a FitBit One for about 6 weeks now. I’ve posted some notes along the way, but I thought I’d do a wrap up post here. Here’s the old posts.

Those were focused mostly on the device itself. Now I’ve had some time to play with the mobile app. Let me provide some comments there.  And, with the data showing a jump in buyers this year, I expect this will be a hot topic at the Consumer Electronics Show this week.

  • The user interface is simple to use. (see a few screenshots below)

  • I feel like it works in terms of helping me learn about my food habits. (Which I guess shouldn’t be surprising since research shows that having a food diary works and another recent study showed that a tool worked better than a paper diary.) For example, I learned several things:
    1. I drink way too little water.
    2. I eat almost 65% of my calories by the end of lunch.
    3. Some foods that I thought were okay have too many calories.
  • In general, the tracking for my steps makes me motivated to try to walk further on days that I’m not doing good.
  • The ease of use and simple device has helped me change behavior.  For example, when I went to go to dinner tonight, I quickly looked up my total calories and saw that I had 600 calories left.  Here’s what I ate for dinner.  (It works!)

Meal

But, on the flipside, I think there are some simple improvement options:

  1. I eat a fairly similar breakfast everyday which is either cereal with 2% milk and orange juice or chocolate milk (if after a workout). [In case you don’t know, chocolate milk is great for your recovery.] Rather than have to enter each item, FitBit could analyze your behavior and recommend a “breakfast bundle”. (and yes, I know I could create it myself)
  2. Some days, I don’t enter everything I eat. When I get my end of week report, it shows me all the calories burned versus the calories taken in. That shows a huge deficit which isn’t true. I think they should do two things:
    1. Add some type of daily validation when you fall below some typical caloric intake. (Did you enter all your food yesterday, it seemed low?)
    2. Then create some average daily intake to allow you to have a semi-relevant weekly summary.
  3. The same can be true for days that you forget to carry your device or even allowing for notes on days (i.e., was sick in bed). This would provide a more accurate long-term record for analysis.
  4. The food search engine seems to offer some improvement opportunities. For example, one day I ate a Dunkin Donuts donut, but it had most types but not the one I ate. I don’t understand that since there’s only about 15 donuts. But, perhaps it’s a search engine or Natural Language Processing (NLP) issue. (I guess it could be user error, but in this case, I don’t think so.)
  5. Finally, as I think about mHealth in general, I think it would be really important to see how these devices and this data is integrated with a care management system.  I should be able to “opt-in” my case manager to get these reports and/or the data.

The other opportunity that I think exists is better promotion of some things you don’t learn without searching the FitBit site:

  • They’re connected with lots of other apps.  Which ones should I use?  Can’t it see which other ones I have on my phone and point this out?  How would they help me?
  • There’s a premium version with interesting analysis.  Why don’t they push these to me?

I also think that they would want an upsell path as they rollout new things like the new Flex wristband revealed at CES.

And, with the discussions around whether physicians will “prescribe” apps, it’s going to be important for them to be part of these discussions although this survey from Philips showed that patients continue to increasingly rely on these apps and Dr. Google.

Philips_Health_Infographic_12%2012_F3

Finally, before I close, all of this makes me think about an interesting dialogue recently on Twitter about Quantified Self.

Court Decision Allows Pharma Reps To Discuss Off-Label Uses Of Prescriptions

I must admit that I’ve heard very little about this decision from the Federal Appeals Court for the Second Circuit of Manhattan that decided that discussing off-label uses for prescription drugs was an issue of free speech. This could change the way pharmaceutical manufacturers interact with physicians. It could change the job of the pharmaceutical rep. It could change how clinical trials are done. It could change how prescriptions are used. It could also lead to a whole new set of prior authorizations by companies that actually have to actively manage off-label usage as it becomes widespread.

On the other hand, I wonder if this door hadn’t already been opened. Have you looked at some of the peer-to-peer (P2P) healthcare websites out there or the disease based communities (e.g., PatientLikeMe or CureTogether)? Patients are already talking about what medications they are using to treat their diseases and their symptoms. Don’t you think those are leading to requests to the provider and discussions with them about off-label utilization?

And, I’m sure that Dr. Google has helped many patients identify other uses of medications. This process (to the best of my knowledge) is completely un-managed. It’s a popular enough topic that Consumer Reports talked about it earlier this year and even put together the following table on drugs commonly used off-label.

Specific drug, type of drug Examples of off-label use**
Aripiprazole (Abilify), antipsychotic Dementia, Alzheimer’s disease
Tiagabine (Gabitril), antiseizure Depression
Gabapentin (Neurontin), antiseizure Nerve pain caused by diabetes, migraines, hot flashes
Topiramate (Topamax), antiseizure, in combination with phenteramine for weight loss Bipolar disorder, depression, nerve pain, alcohol dependence, eating disorders
Risperidone (Risperdal), antipsychotic Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, eating disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder
Trazodone (Desyrel), antidepressant Insomnia, anxiety, bipolar disorder
Propranolol (Inderal), high blood pressure, heart disease Stage fright
Sildenafil (Viagra), erectile dysfunction To enhance sexual performance in people not diagnosed with erectile dysfunction, to improve sexual function in women taking certain antidepressants
Quetiapine (Seroquel), antipsychotic Dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, obsessive-compulsive disorder, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder
SSRI antidepressants such as paroxetine (Paxil) and sertraline (Zoloft) Premature ejaculation, hot flashes, tinnitus (ringing in the ears)
Prazosin (Minipress), high blood pressure Post-traumatic stress disorder
Amitriptyline (Elavil), antidepressant Fibromyalgia, migraines, eating disorders, pain after shingles infection
Bevacizumab (Avastin), certain types of cancer Wet age-related macular degeneration (eye disease)
Statins such as atorvastatin (Lipitor), simvastatin (Zocor), high cholesterol in adults, children with an inherited cholesterol condition Rheumatoid arthritis, to lower cholesterol in children who lack the inherited condition
Clonidine (Catapres), high blood pressure Smoking cessation, hot flashes, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Tourette’s syndrome, restless legs syndrome

* Not meant to be a comprehensive list. Many of the drugs listed here are also available as generics.

** Does not imply that use is clinically appropriate or inappropriate, or beneficial or not.

***To find out if a drug’s off-label use is supported by evidence, click on the medication name.

 

I would imagine that pharma is going to tip-toe through this open door not simply crash through it. They’re generally risk adverse so their discussions of off-label utilization will be fact-based (to limit exposure) even if (as we all know) statistics can lie. I would suspect (as I’ve seen on other blogs) that this will ultimately go to the Supreme Court before anyone really takes advantage of it.

I guess I’d also point to the issue that physicians have responsibility here. They prescribe off-label today. Here’s what the FDA says about this:

Good medical practice and the best interests of the patient require that physicians use legally available drugs, biologics and devices according to their best knowledge and judgement. If physicians use a product for an indication not in the approved labeling, they have the responsibility to be well informed about the product, to base its use on firm scientific rationale and on sound medical evidence, and to maintain records of the product’s use and effects. Use of a marketed product in this manner when the intent is the “practice of medicine” does not require the submission of an Investigational New Drug Application (IND), Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) or review by an Institutional Review Board (IRB). However, the institution at which the product will be used may, under its own authority, require IRB review or other institutional oversight.

One way to begin to manage this would be to require the use of diagnosis codes (Dx) on all prescriptions. This would at least great a way of tracking how the medications are being used and allow for better technology oversight across the provider, payer, pharmacy, and PBM.

In the interim, Consumer Reports suggest consumers do the following:

  • When your doctor prescribes a drug, ask if it’s an approved use. If he or she doesn’t know, ask your pharmacist.
  • Check for yourself. Go to DailyMed (dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/) and search for the drug. Then click on the tab for “Indications & Usage” to see if your condition is listed.
  • If it’s an off-label use, ask your doctor if it’s supported by well-designed trials showing significant improvement for people with your condition.
  • Ask your doctor why he or she thinks the drug will work better than approved drugs for your illness.
  • Find out if your health insurer covers payment for the off-label use. Some may require evidence of effectiveness or failure with conventional treatments, especially if the drug is expensive.

Fortune Article Questions Generic Equivalency Of Drugs

A new Fortune article “Are Generics Really the Same as Branded Drugs?” (1/14/13) sets a dangerous tone for something that has become a standard across the pharmaceutical industry.  This is either:

(a) giving consumer credibility to a long-standing rumor with a case study or

(b) a dangerous perspective which will only further activate the conspiracy theory consumers and clinicians.

Let’s start with a few basics from the Generic Pharmaceutical Association:

  • There are over 4B prescriptions filled in the US per year.
  • Of those, over 80% are generic medications.
  • Generic medications saved over $190B last year.

For facts on generics, I would point you to the FDA website.  I posted some of their slides years ago on SlideShare which I put below along with their latest infographic.

The article in Fortune focuses on a case regarding an anti-depressant called Wellbutrin and its generic counterpart.  The article goes on to point out that the active ingredients in the generic (compared to the brand) can vary from 80% to 125%.  (I think a good more detailed explanation of this is available here).

But, the author goes on to point out the risks associated with the fillers (or inactive ingredients) and talks about the issue of NTI (Narrow Therapeutic Index) drugs that no one substitutes for anyways.

One big thing that I was always taught was to understand that the difference in active ingredients between brands and generics was similar to the differences in different lots of the same brand drug.  And, given the fact that traditionally, 50% of generic drugs were made by the brand manufacturers, it would seem difficult to believe that they were simply throwing caution to the wind by producing substandard product.

I would hope that Express Scripts, CVS Caremark, Walgreens, PCMA, and many other groups will come out strongly to address this article. This is the type of article that could be a significant setback to the generic industry which has proven itself under lots of scrutiny over the years to save money and have very few negative impacts with the FDA’s scrutiny.

ucm305899

Are Females More Or Less Adherent? Big Data Question

FICO adherence image

Certainly, the push around Big Data should drive more companies to look into predictive algorithms.  You already have Fair Issac (above), ScreenRx by Express Scripts, and RxAnte.

I’d always been under the impression that women were less adherent than men to prescription drugs.  I’d heard several very logical reasons:

  1. As the caregiver, they often took care of their children, spouse, and/or other people first before being adherent themselves.
  2. They took more medications on average which is highly correlated with non-adherence.

But, some researchers recently told me that their data showed women to be more adherent.  And, I then noticed that the infographic that Express Scripts put together showed something similar.  (see zoomed in picture)

Express Scripts Adherence Infographic Zoom

So which is it?  I can find lots of research online to support females being less adherent.  Here’s a few links:

BTW…If you want to see a good presentation on some adherence data from CVS Caremark from a few years ago, you can follow this link to a presentation that was given.  Here’s a more recent one from URAC.

Finally…A Use For Klout Scores?

Klout Score

Do you know your Klout score?  I know mine – 51.  Is that good or bad?  I guess it’s all relative.  Mine is only based on Twitter and LinkedIn.

The bigger question is should I care.  I’ve struggled with why to care, but it finally hit me the other day.  There are a few circumstances where I might care:

  • If my purpose was to get a job as a social media consultant.
  • If I was trying to be a community manager.
  • If I was trying to get a job in PR or as a reporter…or maybe if I tried to monetize my blog.
  • If I was trying to get some role driving awareness of a product or topic.
  • Maybe as an individual consultant.

As an average person working for a company, I’m not sure it matters.  Of course, you can argue with the “scoring” process, but the reality is that people do want some benchmark to compare themselves to for what they do online.  The interesting question is whether companies will care.  And, is there a minimum that you should have just to be able to say you understand and use social media?

Here’s a few recent articles discussing the topic of Klout.

It’s competitors are Kred and PeerIndex which I only went to because of this post.  But, I signed up for them to see what my scores where there.

Screen Shot 2012-12-26 at 2.29.09 PM PeerIndex Score

My question would be how do you adjust this for people (like me) who don’t use Facebook or should that fact alone exclude me from certain things like being a community manager for a product that needs a Facebook presence?  Perhaps.

So, if you’re hiring a mHealth or social media team, you might want to know their Klout (or Kred or PeerIndex) scores (on average for the team).  I’d say it’s like gamification.  I wouldn’t want someone just using that buzzword with me.  I’d want to know the last game they got sucked in to.  Why it kept their attention?  And, then I’d ask them things like why they think Steam is gathering gaming apps in their and whether it’s critical path for them in gamifying their app.

Will You Be Charged More For Not Participating In Wellness Programs?

Thus, the major factors that insurance companies traditionally use to charge higher premiums – such as health status, the use of health services, and gender – will no longer be allowed under the ACA. However, the ACA does permit employment-based health plans to charge employees up to 30 percent more on their premiums (and potentially up to 50 percent more) if they fail to participate in a wellness program or meet specified health goals.  [From Kaiser document]

Traditionally, health plans and employers have rewarded consumers for taking some basic action (e.g., $100 for completing an HRA)…although some companies prefer penalties versus incentives.

At that same time, there is some evolution happening here with companies moving from simply paying for an action to requiring participation in a program (e.g., disease management).  The next step that a few companies are engaging in is actually incenting or penalizing consumers based on health outcomes.  This will certainly open some doors for legal challenges where people will argue that they are genetically pre-disposed to some factor that limits their ability to lose weight or lower their cholesterol or some other measure of health.

But, in one of the first legal challenges in FL, the court recently upheld the idea of rewarding (or penalizing) consumers based on taking a specific action (like completing a biometric screening).  With that, I expect companies will be more empowered to take advantage of the fact that under health reform they can charge consumers up to 30% more for their healthcare for either not participating or not achieving a specific health outcome.

With an average monthly premium of $468 per month of single person coverage and consumers paying an average of 21% of their healthcare costs (or $97 per month), this means that a consumer could pay an additional $29 per month (or $349 per year).  [If I interpret all of this correctly…if it’s 30% of the total health premium (not just the consumer’s share), then this jumps up dramatically.]

Not surprisingly, employees aren’t real excited about this.  In a survey by the National Business Group on Health, 62% oppose charging employees more for health coverage if they do not participate in wellness programs.  And, 68% oppose requiring employees to participate in a wellness program in order to qualify for health insurance.

And, according to the survey, the most effective cost control tactic was believed to be Consumer Driven Health Plans by 43% and wellness programs by 19% while 60% of employers plan to increase the premium paid by employees (i.e., cost shifting).

But, if companies throw out a life preserver (i.e., wellness program) to a drowing individual (i.e., unhealthy individual), why isn’t it a reasonable expectation that the individual has to grab it (i.e., participate in the program)?

The Transtheoretical Model And Setting Goals

There’s a good article in Time (9/17/12) called “Goal Power” by Dr. Oz.  I found it interesting on a few fronts.

“Getting people to make meaningful changes in their lives is much more complicated than explaining to them what to eat for dinner, how often to exercise and which kinds of tests they should get from their doctors.  The psychology of health is every bit as complex as the biology, and to create seismic shifts in behavior, we have to probe the subconscious.”

1. The topic of goals and objectives and their importance relative to healthcare behavior change is a repeating theme.

  • A month ago, I was at a presentation by Dr. Victor Strecher who founded HealthMedia.  He was talking about the importance of getting people to articulate their goals or objectives for changing.  (E.g., I want to become healthy to see my daughter get married.)
  • I had a pharmacy client who was looking into this as part of an adherence program a few years ago.

2. The topic of behavior change and behavioral economics has been a very popular theme with Nudge and many other publications and programs over the past few years.

3. Obesity, which is part of the focus of his article, is widely becoming recognized as the greatest public healthcare challenge of the 21st century.  And, it is a very complex issue tied to sleep, stress, social network, and many other factors.

4. He introduces the transtheoretical model (also known as the Prochastka model or the Stages of Change), which is widely known in the academic and health areas, into the public domain which surprised me.

(Here’s the abstract from what one widely quoted paper on this.)

The transtheoretical model posits that health behavior change involves progress through six stages of change: precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, maintenance, and termination. Ten processes of change have been identified for producing progress along with decisional balance, self-efficacy, and temptations. Basic research has generated a rule of thumb for at-risk populations: 40% in precontemplation, 40% in contemplation, and 20% in preparation. Across 12 health behaviors, consistent patterns have been found between the pros and cons of changing and the stages of change. Applied research has demonstrated dramatic improvements in recruitment, retention, and progress using stage-matched interventions and proactive recruitment procedures. The most promising outcomes to data have been found with computer-based individualized and interactive interventions. The most promising enhancement to the computer-based programs are personalized counselors. One of the most striking results to date for stage-matched programs is the similarity between participants reactively recruited who reached us for help and those proactively recruited who we reached out to help. If results with stage-matched interventions continue to be replicated, health promotion programs will be able to produce unprecedented impacts on entire at-risk populations.

5. He references two of the big studies that looked at social pressure an its influence on health.  Something that peer-to-peer healthcare and social network tools can create for us by developing support communities and “buddies” to support our change.

  • 2012 study in the journal Obesity about weight loss.
  • 2008 study in the NEJM about smoking

6. He references Dr. Nicholas Chrisakis who co-authored the book Connected which is being manifest in the company called Activate Networks.

Overall, for those of us that work in the healthcare field, these are all critical topics that we constantly talk about.  It’s nice to see it brought to the “popular press”.

How And Why I Use Twitter

I often get stopped by people I know who say things like:

  • I see a lot of your tweets in LinkedIn.
  • You use Twitter. Why? I don’t really want to tell people that I’m going to eat dinner or some other miscellaneous fact.
  • Can you really get anything out of 140 characters?

So…let me share my perspective on how my use of Twitter has evolved and what I get out of it.

It took me a few tries before I found out how to use Twitter effectively.

  1. First, I tried just using it to share thoughts or opinions across a variety of topics. I didn’t find that valuable and wondered why anyone would follow me to know that.
  2. Second, I tried using it to pose questions about healthcare topics that I was interested in. That worked ok because it synched with LinkedIn, but I didn’t have enough Twitter followers for that to make a difference.
  3. Finally, I decided to just use it as a “notebook” to capture facts while I read or to bookmark articles that I found interesting. (Of course, some of this became possible as every web article now offers a “share” feature.) This works especially great when you’re at a conference and is even a good way to follow a conference that you miss.

The next thing that I had to figure out was just understanding the technology.

  1. Reading things in Twitter is ok, but a lot of people post links. Often times, it’s not that effective to be constantly going out to the links to see what they say. In comes Flipboard to save the day. (see older post here)
  2. To make things more searchable, you have to use hashtags where you put a “#” in front of a key expression or search term.
  3. Most people don’t get a lot of followers although you hear about all the celebrities with millions of followers. (see HubSpot presentation below for general Twitter statistics)

I figure it must be working for me now. I have over 1,000 followers which according to this site is true for less than 1% of people on Twitter. But, I don’t think followers is the best indication (especially since almost ½ of followers might be bots and you can buy followers). I know that it’s working for now since I can post a question and sometimes get an answer. I can connect with companies and meet people. I’ve even heard from people at conferences that they follow my feed. Probably my best experience was when I read an article early in the morning, posted a quick summary, and then had a national reporter call me to ask me for the source so he could write an AP article…all before 8 am.

Just to check, I went out to the StatusPeople application which tells you how many of your followers are bots versus simply inactive. I was pleased with the results.

Digital Dimension Of Healthcare Paper – Global, mHealth, Halvorson

I was just skimming the Digital Dimension of Healthcare whitepaper which has as one of its authors – George Halvorson from Kaiser.  There’s not a lot of new information in here if you’re well read on the space, but I like their framing of a fourth space for health delivery along with their two dimension matrix of opportunities.

The other piece that I’ll pull out here is the Six Principles that they identify:

  1. Set the direction, and commit to it
  2. Balance patient confidentiality and information sharing
  3. Empower patients
  4. Adapt payment systems
  5. Reduce barriers to regulatory approval and licensing
  6. Accelerate the healthcare evidence base

Would You Pay $100 A Month For A Diabetes Application?

An article in MobiHealthNews caught my attention this morning when it talked about 2 payers agreeing to pay $100 a month for Welldoc’s diabetes application. This is fascinating to me since (a) I’m always interested in how people price and value services and (b) I’d love to bundle something like this into our diabetes offering. 

This of course begs the key question which is what is the value of the application.  We’re all familiar with the fact that diabetes drives significant costs within our healthcare system.  Here’s a quick summary from the ADA.

The national cost of diabetes in the U.S. in 2007 exceeds $174 billion. This estimate includes $116 billion in excess medical expenditures attributed to diabetes, as well as $58 billion in reduced national productivity. People with diagnosed diabetes, on average, have medical expenditures that are approximately 2.3 times higher than the expenditures would be in the absence of diabetes. Approximately $1 in $10 health care dollars is attributed to diabetes. Indirect costs include increased factors such as absenteeism, reduced productivity, and lost productive capacity due to early mortality.

Of course, diabetics also spend a lot of money on out-of-pocket costs themselves.  $6,000 from one study mentioned here.

But, I think the key question here is what assumptions make this a good investment.  Let’s me walk through my thought process.

  • At $100 per month, you pay $1,200 per year per member.
  • BUT, members won’t actively stay engaged with the application all year long so you have to assume some percentage of engaged members.  (A key question is whether you pay only for actively engaged members or all members enrolled in the program.)  And, how long does a patient have to use the application to achieve the results?
    • If 20% are engaged, the cost per engaged member would actually be $6,000 ($1,200 divided by 20%). 
    • If 60% are engaged, the cost per engaged member would be $2,000.
  • The next question is how you estimate the value of the application.  Based on their study, they saw a 1.9 point drop in A1c which is a good one-year drop and a good outcome metric to focus on (see article).  So the question becomes…what is the value of a 1.9 point drop in A1c?  This is a question I was looking for earlier.
    • This pharmacist based study talks about a 0.8% reduction in A1c leading to $1,200 in total savings.
    • This CVS study showed a $3,756 annual savings for an adherent diabetic versus non-adherent.  (But, adherence wasn’t shown in the Welldoc study.)
    • The President from Welldoc quotes a savings of $3,500-$4,000 per point drop in A1c, but I couldn’t find the study to support that.  (I e-mailed their PR people about this.)
    • And, a few weeks ago at a mHealth conference, I heard someone say the value was $7,000 per point reduction in A1c.

As you can see from this tweet, I was looking for this study yesterday and mentioned DiabetesMine to see if Amy might know, but she didn’t.

 

So, my conclusion is that this is worth it if:

  1. The value is closer to the $3,500 point.
  2. You pay based on actual engagement or utilization…or you only give it to people who actually use it versus the overall population. 
  3. The application improves adherence.

I hope to figure this out since this was the first FDA approved device and looks very promising.

When Is It Good To Pay 300% Profit For A Medication?

Another interesting discussion at this Oncology event was about physician reimbursement for drugs.  In Oncology, one historical source of revenue (~50%) for physicians has been the medications they dispense and administer in their offices.  And, depending on who you believe, this has some degree of influence on what drugs they dispense.

The problem that was discussed is that today’s reimbursement model is ASP (Average Selling Price) plus 6% mark-up.  This assumes that everyone buys at some price near that average which by definition means that not everyone does.  One of the presenters suggested that physicians lose money on about 20-25% of the drugs they dispense and that it would need to be ASP + 12% for them to be positive on every drug.  (I don’t know the math here and am simply sharing the dialogue as I found it very intriguing.)

The examples that they kept talking about in several presentations were that for a generic drug that costs $40 then their margin is theoretically $2.40 (6%) versus for a brand drug that’s $4,000 where their margin is $240 (or 6%).  The suggestion was that if generics were reimbursed at 200-400% of ASP then it would take this economic factor out of the oncologists influence (when conscious or subconscious). 

It’s an interesting debate.  (Here’s some comments from another conference on this topic.)

On the flipside, some of this may go away with oral oncolytics being more common in the future (and therefore being more likely to be controlled by the PBM) although companies will look to enable in-office dispensing of these drugs also to help the physician from losing this income. 

The other strategy being pushed has been called “brown bagging” where the patient is directed to obtain their medications from a specific specialty pharmacy and then bring those to the oncology practice for them to use.  This eliminates the “buy-and-bill” approach but is not something that the physicians like (from what I know). 

At the end of the day, I don’t really care.  I think there are several key principles that if met would make me neutral to any solution:

  1. Are decisions made in the patient’s best interest or do financial implications impact clinical decisions?
  2. Is the safety of the patient impacted in any way?
  3. Is the patient experience impacted negatively in any way?

The Express Scripts 2011 Drug Trend Report – Full of Infographics

Those of you that have been readers for a few years know that I love to read and summarize these reports. They provide a huge set of aggregated data and summarized information that is useful in creating business cases and identifying trends.

This year is no different although the graphics within the Express Scripts Drug Trend Report continue to get better … ala infographics (as they even posted one recently on their blog).

So, what caught my eye this year…

  • There was one ex-Medco person who signed off on the intro letter…and interestingly (compared to other DTRs), no George Paz signature.
  • They have a big picture of their Research & New Solutions Lab upfront (see below). It reminds me of the NOCs (Network Operations Centers) that I had at my past 3 employers. [Maybe one day before I move out of St. Louis they’ll take me on a tour.]

  • I was definitely interested to hear what they would say about Walgreens. They tackled it early on in the document.

Our 2011 retail-network negotiations marked another milestone in our heritage of independence from pharmacies and alignment with our plan sponsors. One retail pharmacy chain, Walgreens, was unwilling to offer rates and terms consistent with those of the market, and instead opted to leave our pharmacy network at the beginning of 2012. Although we remain open to Walgreens being part of our pharmacy network in the future, the positive reaction we received from plan sponsors and members during the process of transitioning patients to other pharmacies confirmed what our prior analyses had shown: the vast majority of the U.S. has an oversupply of pharmacies, suggesting that networks can be tightened significantly while maintaining sufficient patient access.

  • 17.6% of the total Rx spend was for specialty
  • 47% of specialty medications are processed under the medical benefit
    • 78% for oncology
  • They talk a little about evaluating genetic tests and when to recommend a test. It’s definitely an evolving space, and it will be interesting to see the Medco influence here in terms of what they recommend.
  • They talk about $408B in waste from adherence, generics and mail order. All consumer behaviors. (see last year’s report focused on waste)
  • They show the breakdown of waste by state where the South is the biggest problem. It looks a lot like the Diabetes Belt although it also includes the SouthWest.

  • Not surprisingly, diabetes, cholesterol, and hypertension represent 3 big opportunities.

 

 

  • FINALLY…For years, I’ve been comparing two older studies to make the point that people think their adherent when there’s no way that perceived adherence can match reality. The most exciting thing to me was that they actually looked at perceived and actual adherence on the same patients.

For example, patients in the least-adherent group in the survey of Express Scripts members had an average actual MPR of 24.3%. The average perceived MPR reported by patients in this group, however, was 90.6%. We therefore found a staggering 66% gap between perceived MPR and actual MPR.

  • They talk about how this data is being used to predict non-adherence with some crazy high reliability. (Meaning only that it sounds too good to be true.) Regardless, they’re right in using data to identify behavior gaps (current and future) and developing personalized interventions to address barriers.

  • The overall drug trend was 2.7%
    • 17.1% specialty trend
    • 0.1% traditional drug trend
  • Here’s the breakout by class of specialty spend

  • Actual member out-of-pocket and percentage of cost actually went down $0.14.  Surprised?

  • Perhaps most interesting (and new) is a huge section on Medicare and Medicaid trends. Obviously this shows their focus here in an area that CVS Caremark has also been focusing on.

I’d also point you to Adam Fein’s breakdown of this report (in a more timely manner).

Are You Turning Data Into Knowlege?

I’ve used this framework for years, but I wanted to post it here as I think about outcomes reporting. (image source)

This is key as you move to add value around data and use the knowledge and wisdom to create informed actions.

 

A Few Basics On Health Risk Assessments

Like many of you, I’ve heard a lot about HRAs (Health Risk Assessments) for years.  A few times I’ve even taken them.  And, depending on your employer, you may even get paid to complete one.  But, what are the basics about HRAs that you should know?

  1. What is a HRA?  An HRA is a series of questions that can be administered over the Internet or by the phone or by a nurse to help collect patient reported data to help screen patients for chronic conditions or risk of developing a chronic condition based on their behaviors or other data.  Additionally, they often lead to either immediate feedback on behaviors to address or lead to the patient being engaged into a program with a wellness, disease management, or case management. 
  2. Should employees be incented to take an HRA?  Incentives are basically used to increase response rates to the HRA.  Not surprisingly, several studies show that incentives work, but education about the need to take the HRA is also important.  In some cases, employers are even linking participation to premiums.  Additionally, here’s a list of the top incentives used based on a 2010 study. 
  3. How should an HRA be used?  An HRA is a key component of an overall care management strategy.  Like claims analysis, the objective of the HRA is a screening mechanism to identify patients who should be included in wellness, disease management, or care management program. 
  4. Are HRAs valuable?  There have been studies over the years that have shown a 2:1 or 3:1 ROI for wellness programs and a ROI for case management.  HRAs are valuable in identifying more patients who should be enrolled in these programs. 
  5. Should you combine biometrics with HRAs?  Here’s a good study that shows that blending lab work with HRA data significantly increases the likelihood of identifying patients with diseases especially kidney disease. 

Of course, no HRA is valuable if:

  • You can’t get enough members to actually take the HRA.
  • You don’t have an engagement strategy to get the members to participate in the program.
  • You don’t continue to follow-up and help the member manage their condition.
  • The member doesn’t get engaged in their healthcare. 

Some Facts On Palliative Care

In the book called Healthcare in 2020 by Steve Jacob, there is a chapter on End-of-Life Care. It provides some great data all sourced there (so not repeated here). I find this whole are of discussion especially around palliative care very interesting.

First, let’s define palliative care:

Palliative care (from Latin palliare, to cloak) is an area of healthcare that focuses on relieving and preventing the suffering of patients. Unlike hospice care, palliative medicine is appropriate for patients in all disease stages, including those undergoing treatment for curable illnesses and those living with chronic diseases, as well as patients who are nearing the end of life. Palliative medicine utilizes a multidisciplinary approach to patient care, relying on input from physicians, pharmacists, nurses, chaplains, social workers, psychologists, and other allied health professionals in formulating a plan of care to relieve suffering in all areas of a patient’s life. This multidisciplinary approach allows the palliative care team to address physical, emotional, spiritual, and social concerns that arise with advanced illness. (from Wikipedia)

The challenge of course is that most people don’t want to talk about dying, and physicians are taught to try everything to cure someone. After talking with a few people working in this area, the general scenario is where clinicians and other social workers are helping to enable to a patient to talk to their family and care team about their wishes. It’s not to make the decisions, but to give patients the tools to have an informed discussion.

Here were some of the interesting things from this chapter in the book:

  • Less that ¼ of physicians were familiar with the term in a survey
  • The American Society of Clinical Oncology has established a goal of integrating palliative care into its model of comprehensive cancer care by 2020.
  • A 2009 study of cancer patients found that palliative care improved patient satisfaction and eased pain, fatigue, nausea, insomnia, anxiety, and depression. And, increased appetite.
  • According to the Worldwide Palliative Care Alliance, more than 100M people worldwide would benefit annually from either palliative care or hospice…yet only 8% have access to it.
  • The average physician’s estimate of how long a patient will live was 530% too high.
  • Fewer than 40% of oncologists speak candidly with patients about end-of-life treatments.
  • Physicians equate suggesting hospice as “giving up”.
  • A 2008 published study showed that patient satisfaction was higher, more advance directives were completed, fewer ICU admissions were necessary, and medical costs were lower for patients in palliative care.
  • Patients with lung cancer that received palliative care lived 3 months longer than those with standard care (which compares to only getting 2-3 months of life from chemotherapy). [BTW – 1 in 5 cancer patients are still receiving chemotherapy in the last two weeks of life.]
  • A hospitalized palliative-care patient costs $279-$374 less per day.
  • In a Medicare study, patients who received palliative care cost $6,900 less during a hospital stay.

This seems like great data. Imagine that you can improve a patient’s experience in the last months of life and lower costs. To me, that’s a lot of what our healthcare system needs these days.

The Well Being Index

I find this to be an interesting study (the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index). Gallup and Healthways are surveying 1,000 people per day for 350 days per year and has been doing it for several years.

I was reading one of their brochures looking at data from 1/2/10 – 12/30/10. Here’s a few observations:

  • The index score across all states varies by a narrow range of 9.3 points.
  • The top 5 states (in 2010) were:
    • Hawaii
    • Wyoming
    • North Dakota
    • Alaska
    • Colorado
  • The top 5 large cities were:
    • Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV
    • Austin-Round Rock, TX
    • San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA
    • Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA
    • San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont, CA

The overall composite score is based on six sub-indices:

  • Life Evaluation
    • Partially based on the Cantril Self-Anchoring Striving Scale
  • Emotional Health
    • A composite of how the consumer felt yesterday along nine dimensions
  • Physical Health
    • Body Mass Index
    • Disease burden
    • Sick days
    • Physical pain
    • Daily energy
    • History of disease
    • Daily health experiences
  • Healthy Behavior
    • Life style habits
  • Work Environment
    • Feelings and perceptions about work
  • Basic Access
    • 13 items measuring:
      • Access to food
      • Access to shelter
      • Access to healthcare
      • Having a safe and satisfying place to live

This gives an interesting macro view of healthcare at a localized level. The thing I’d like to learn is how this is shaping communities and health care entities to act different. Is this changing engagement strategies? Is this changing regional investments? Can the data be tied back to individuals and used to help improve outcomes?

Uping The RxAnte: An Adherence Predictive Model

Those of you that have heard me speak know that I look at this topic of predicting adherence both from an area of fascination along with the eye of a skeptic.  While I love the concept of predicting someone’s adherence and therefore determining how to best support them from an intervention approach, I also believe that the general predictors are pretty straightforward:

  1. Number of medications
  2. Plan design (i.e., cost)
  3. Gender
  4. Health literacy and engagement (see PAM score research)

And, this is a hot topic (see post on FICO adherence score).  You can see my prior posts on some different studies, on the Merck Estimator, and some notes from the NEHI event on this topic.  It generated a good dialogue on Kevin MD’s blog when I talked about paying MD for adherence.

I had a chance to talk with Josh Benner the CEO of RxAnte the other day.  It sounds very interesting, and they have an impressive team assembled.  In general, they’re focused on:

  • Predictive modeling
  • Decision rules
  • Monitoring and managing claims to track adherence
  • Evaluating effectiveness of interventions
  • And creating a learning system

There are definitely some correlations to the work we do at Silverlink Communications around adherence.  We’re helping clients determine a communication strategy that might include call center agents, direct mail, automated calls, e-mail, SMS, mobile, or web solutions.  We’re looking at segmentation and prioritization.  We’re looking at past behavior and messaging.  The goal is how to best spend resources to drive health outcomes from primary adherence to sustaining adherence.  This is a challenge, and we all need to build upon the work that each other is doing to improve in this area.  We have a huge problem globally with adherence.

How Does Pharma Measure ROI?

I found this chart from Cutting Edge Information a good summary of what metrics pharma uses in measuring ROI.  (This was in the most recent PharmaVOICE magazine.)  I would assume copay cards address most of these with a 4:1-6:1 ROI being quoted in the Visante study by PCMA

Will Patient Reported Data Augment Claims Based Models?

On the one hand, it seems fairly obvious that patient reported data (use of OTCs, exercise, food intake) is important in understanding their healthcare.  On the other hand, the historical bias has been to use historical claims to predict future costs.  At a minimum, I think that studies around tools like PAM (Patient Activation Measure) have shown that patient reported information is important in understanding their literacy and attitudes on healthcare.  This data is critical in designing effective healthcare engagement programs.  [One of the reasons that Silverlink has stressed our focus on using data for segmentation and personalization for years.] 

That’s why I found one of the latest studies by Kaiser to be really important.  They used both claims data and patient reported data to evaluate inpatient admission rates and costs.  And, as explained below, this data increased the predictive power of their model. 

The research determined that self-reported information about being in poorer health was a key determinant in predicting higher inpatient admissions and for being in the top tier for costs. Higher admission rates and costs were associated with patients who self-reported:

  • Lower score for general self-rated health
  • Yes to “do you need help with one or more activities of daily living?”
  • Yes to “do you have a bothersome health condition?”

The addition of this self-reported information to a claims history model explained an additional 2.8 percent of variance in admissions and 4 percent in cost.

RWJF Guest Post: Interprofessional Collaborative Care Will Be Key to Meeting Tomorrow’s Health Care Needs

Guest Post by Maryjoan Ladden, Ph.D., R.N., F.A.A.N., Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Senior Program Officer

Maryjoan Ladden, PhD, RN, FAAN, is a senior program officer at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.  A nurse practitioner whose work has focused on improving health care quality and safety through health professional collaboration, her work at the Foundation addresses: faculty recruitment and education to increase the capacity of nursing programs; developing collaborative partnerships to address local nursing issues; creating the next generation of academic nurse leaders; and building senior executive leaders in nursing. She also is senior editor for the Foundation’s quarterly publication, Charting Nursing’s Future.  (full bio here)

A little over a year ago, the Institute of Medicine’s landmark Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing Health report put forward a series of recommendations for transforming the nation’s health care system. Among them was a call for a system in which “interprofessional collaboration and coordination are the norm.” That’s no simple assignment in a system that often operates in silos, from schooling through practice. But a number of innovators around the nation are already making headway.

Their work is the subject of a new policy brief from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, part of its Charting Nursing’s Future (CNF) series. The brief delves into what the IOM recommendation means for health care systems, offers case studies of several collaborative care models already in place, and examines the implications of the recommendation for how we train nurses and other health care professionals.

According to the brief, Implementing the IOM Future of Nursing Report–Part II: The Potential of Interprofessional Collaborative Care to Improve Safety and Quality, the “silo” approach must soon give way if we are to meet coming health care challenges. For example, chronic conditions are increasingly common—not surprising given an aging population. But the health care system is poorly structured to provide the sort of coordinated care and preventive services needed to give these patients quality care while reducing costs.

Some health care institutions are gearing up for the challenge.

  • In Boston, where Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates developed its Complex Chronic Care (CCC) program, primary care has become interprofessional, collaborative and noticeably more efficient. Each CCC patient is assigned a nurse practitioner (NP), a registered nurse with advanced education and clinical training. The NP consults with all the patient’s subspecialists and incorporates their guidance in a single plan of care. The NP then manages and coordinates that care, connecting patients to nutritionists, social workers, and other professionals as needed. The model is dynamic, allowing patients to meet more or less frequently with the NPs and their primary care physicians, who remain responsible for the patients’ overall care.
  • In New Jersey, the Camden Coalition of Health Care Providers is “revolutionizing health care delivery for Camden’s costliest patients,” according to the brief. These individuals, sometimes called super utilizers, typically rely on hospital emergency rooms for care. Not surprisingly, such patients account for an outsized share of local hospital costs, often with diagnoses that would have been more properly handled in a primary care setting. The Coalition developed its Care Management Project to reduce these unnecessary emergency room visits by treating patients where they reside, even when that means treating them on the street. A social worker, NP and bilingual medical assistant work as a team to help patients apply for government assistance, find temporary shelter, enroll in medical day programs and coordinate their primary and specialty care.

Training the Next Generation to Collaborate

Of course, the silo effect usually begins in school. In May 2011, six national education associations representing various health care professions formed the Interprofessional Education Collaborative (IPEC) and released a set of core competencies to help professional schools in crafting curricula that will prepare future clinicians to provide more collaborative, team-based care.

Such efforts are already under way at a number of institutions.

  • Maine’s University of New England has developed a common undergraduate curriculum for its health professions programs in nursing, dental hygiene, athletic training, applied exercise and science, and health, wellness and occupational studies. The curriculum includes shared learning in basic science prerequisites and four new courses aimed specifically at teaching interprofessional competencies.
  • In Nashville, Vanderbilt University is also pursuing an interprofessional education initiative that unites students from the medical and nursing schools with graduate students pursuing degrees in pharmacy and social work at nearby institutions. Students are assigned to interprofessional working-learning teams at ambulatory care facilities in the area.
     
  • The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is piloting an interprofessional initiative, as well, focused on preparing medical residents and nursing graduate students for collaborative practice. As part of the initiative, five VHA facilities have been designated Centers of Excellence and received five-year grants from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Each VHA Center of Excellence is developing its own approach to preparing health professionals for patient-centered, team-based primary care.
     
  • In Aurora, Colorado, the University of Colorado built its new Anschutz Medical Campus with the explicit objective of creating an environment that promotes collaboration among its medical, nursing, pharmacy, dentistry and public health students. It features shared auditoriums and simulation labs, as well as student lounges and other dedicated spaces in which students from different professions can pursue common interests such as geriatrics in a collaborative fashion.

Such initiatives are clearly the wave of the future, if only because the pressures of caring for a larger, older and sicker population of patients in the years to come will drive efforts to identify efficiencies. In the words of Mary Wakefield, PhD, RN, head of the Health Resources and Services Administration, “As the health care community is looking for new strategies and new ways of organizing to optimize our efforts—teamwork is fundamental to the conversation.”

Sign up to receive future Charting Nursing’s Future policy briefs by email at www.rwjf.org/goto/cnf.

 

 

Using Social Media For Underwriting

As healthcare moves towards an individual market where prior conditions can’t be excluded, will health plans be able to use social media data in underwriting? It seems logical. If I can understand your behaviors, I can asses your risk for life insurance, and I can predict some healthcare costs.

  • Do you talk about going to the gym?
  • Do you talk about drinking and smoking?
  • Do you share pictures of food and is it healthy?
  • Are you checking in at places like McDonalds or places like the park?
  • Do you have an active social network?
  • Are you going to the dentist and getting flu shots?

As companies like salesforce.com integrate social media through things like Radian6, can this type of tagging and data use be far behind?

The other question is whether is should get used?

Cost and Outcomes Drive Better Use of Data

Overall, I would describe healthcare companies as trying to figure out how to drive the best outcomes at the lowest cost while maintaining a positive consumer experience.  This isn’t easy.  One area of opportunity that companies increasingly look at is how to use data to become smarter. 

  • Can I build a predictive model of response curves?  Who’s likely to respond?  Who’s likely to take action?
  • Can I develop a segmentation model that works?  How will I customize my communications after the segmentation?
  • Can I rank and prioritize my outreaches?  Should I do that based on risk or based on potential value? 

Ultimately, I think this is driving companies to be a lot smarter and to look at how they use both medical and pharmacy data.  For example, I’ll point to both CVS Caremark and Prime Therapeutics in press releases from earlier this year. 

“The ActiveHealth CareEngine offers evidence-based information that can be used to improve the health care of our members and enables us to take our programs to the next level by seamlessly incorporating medical data,” stated Troyen Brennan, EVP and chief medical officer of CVS Caremark. “This agreement will enhance our existing programs to identify issues related to gaps in care, potential drug-to-drug interactions and duplicative care — information that is important to bring to the attention of the member’s physician.”  (article that this is sourced from)

Smart use of medical and pharmacy data is one of the most powerful tools we have to improve outcomes and increase value for our members and clients,” said David Lassen, PharmD, Chief Clinical Officer at Prime. “Through ongoing partnership with health plan clients, Prime is uniquely positioned to view the entire spectrum of patient care, and we can leverage that information to help manage cost and to improve outcomes. We are very excited to collaborate with Corticon on the development of this clinical platform.” (press release)

The next step will be to integrate PRO (patient reported outcomes) from sources like connected devices and PHR (personal health records) that might show blood pressure, workouts, calories, or other data points that could help companies determine when to intervene and how to add value to drive an outcome.

Additionally, another key is continued work in the outcomes-based contracting world and bonus areas such as Star Ratings where the financial value is tied in the short-term to outcomes.  This creates a burning platform for smarter use of data and use of a broader set of data to understand and impact care.

State By State Rankings – Key Healthcare Metrics

United Health Foundation published their Health Rankings today which offers some great statistics and interactive graphics to see how states compare on things like high cholesterol and diabetes. I pulled a few examples here, but it’s definitely worth checking out.

What’s Your Digital Strategy?

Do you have a digital strategy?  Even if you don’t call it out that way, you certainly have digital as part of your overall member and physician strategy these days. 

Hopefully, you start with a few basics like:

  • What do I want to accomplish?
  • How do I measure success?
  • Who am I targeting?
  • What does my target group do online and what tools do they use (and for what)?
  • What is my competition doing?  (and what do companies outside my vertical that I want to emulate do)

Once you know those things, you can start looking at different areas of focus.  The key ones that jump to mind for me are:

  • Search engine optimization
  • Brand monitoring (e.g., Radian6)
  • Content creation (blogging, Twitter, Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn)
  • Moderation and involvement with social networking (e.g., PatientsLikeMe, DiabetesMine)
  • Tele-monitoring / telemedicine
  • Electronic prescribing / EMR / PHR
  • Digital couponing / incentives
  • Gamification
  • Mobile applications
  • SMS
  • QR codes
  • Augmented reality

But, I’m sure there are others…suggestions on what I’m missing?

Managed Care Digest Sample Diabetes Reports

Sanofi sponsors the Managed Care Digest Series.  I was looking at some of their data last night, and I thought I’d share two sample reports looking at diabetes retail pharmacy claims.  A few things that this quick use of the tool shows you are:

Looking at the Brand and Generic mix of diabetes drugs based on payer, I notice 3 things:

  • No significant geographic variance based on looking at a few regions
  • People who pay cash are much more likely to choose generics while those with limited difference in copays (Medicaid) are more likely to choose brands
  • Not a significant difference between Medicare and Commercial

In another view of the data, I looked at the brand and generic mix by age.  Interestingly, it shows differences by geography especially in the younger ages.  It also shows a clear correlation of age and generic utilization.

IDC On Personalized Medicine

I was reading the IDC Health Insights newsletter this morning where they had an article by Dr. Alan S. Louie on personalized medicine.  While this was a hot topic in the PBM world 12-18 months ago, I’ve heard much less about it lately.  I thought it made sense to share one paragraph from his article here.  I hope that his predictions for delivery of this evidence-based approach to care come true and can be delivered in a cost-effective way to consumers with physician buy-in and understanding about how and when to use this information.

“I believe that the FDA is likely to be significantly marginalized as a major player in the transformation to a more personalized care scenario. While still rigorous in their role as gatekeeper to ensure that drugs are safe and effective, the ability to apply growing genomics, EMR, and CDSS data and knowledge to routine medical treatment is likely to be executed outside of FDA purview. If the FDA decides to lay down the heavy hand and demand that all testing be FDA approved, then all bets are off and medical innovation will be delayed by at least 10 years or more. With payers, clinical laboratories, and others (e.g., PBMs) all buying genomics testing capabilities, it becomes increasingly possible to deliver the latest genomics insights to the point of care and amortized over large patient populations, recognizing that what are probabilities for the individual become real outcomes for portions of patient populations. Net improvements in patient outcomes become real and avoidances of treatment with little or no likelihood of success reduce both wasted efforts and unnecessary adverse drug exposure.”

%d bloggers like this: