Payment Reform, Medication Use, and Costs: Can We Afford to Leave Out Drugs?
Journal of General Internal Medicine, ISSN: 1525-1497, Vol: 34, Issue: 3, Page: 473-476
2019
- 5Citations
- 50Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations5
- Citation Indexes5
- CrossRef1
- Captures50
- Readers50
- 50
Article Description
Medications are one of the fastest growing sources of costs in the health system and the cornerstone of disease management. Despite extensive attention around drug pricing, medications have largely been excluded from CMS-derived, value-based payment models. In this perspective, we synthesize evidence about the impact of three prominent models—primary care-based redesign, ACOs, and bundled payment programs—on medication use, adherence, and costs. We also examine the literature describing similar models implemented by private payors and their relationship with medication use and costs. The exclusion of drug costs from payment reform model design has led to missed opportunities for payors and providers to prioritize effective medication management strategies and has limited our learning about the effects on cost and quality. New CMS-based models are starting to allow greater flexibility in pharmacy benefit design and reward improved medication therapy management. Additionally, health plans, pharmacies, and pharmacy benefit managers are beginning to partner on collaborative value-based pharmacy initiatives. Taken together, these efforts encourage a paradigm shift around drug cost management that more deeply integrates pharmacy into payment and delivery reform with the goal of improving quality and reducing the total cost of care.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85059614922&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11606-018-4794-y; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30604128; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11606-018-4794-y; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11606-018-4794-y; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-018-4794-y
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know