Value-Based Healthcare in Practice: IDEATE, a Collaboration to Design and Test an Outcomes-Based Agreement for a Medicine in Wales.

IF 4.4 3区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Jessica R Burton, Kate Halsby, Graciela Sáinz de la Fuente, Jonathan Pearson-Stuttard, Rebecca Sloan, Thomas Porter, Gareth John, Andrew Warburton, Jennifer Selby, Gail Povey, Ruhe Chowdhury, Catherine Bale, Mark Davies, Emma Clifton-Brown, Hamish Laing
{"title":"Value-Based Healthcare in Practice: IDEATE, a Collaboration to Design and Test an Outcomes-Based Agreement for a Medicine in Wales.","authors":"Jessica R Burton, Kate Halsby, Graciela Sáinz de la Fuente, Jonathan Pearson-Stuttard, Rebecca Sloan, Thomas Porter, Gareth John, Andrew Warburton, Jennifer Selby, Gail Povey, Ruhe Chowdhury, Catherine Bale, Mark Davies, Emma Clifton-Brown, Hamish Laing","doi":"10.1007/s40273-024-01445-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To develop a sustainable, scalable methodology for the design of outcome-based agreements (OBAs) that works on the ground and dynamically overcomes historical challenges.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Project IDEATE co-created solutions to known (and emergent) challenges via iterative workshops and real-world data analysis to develop and refine a hypothetical model for an OBA in a trusted research environment. A cross-disciplinary collaboration between National Health Service (NHS) Wales, industry and academia was developed. Data were collected from Welsh national datasets and used to construct a novel linked dataset. OBA scenarios, with different contract parameters, were analysed to assess impact on the proportion of contract payment due and the volatility of payments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>An approved, in market, locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer treatment was selected as the test case. The total number of patients in the treatment cohort (2017-2020) was n = 99, and 286 in the control cohort (2014-2016). The final outcome variables selected were: (1) 1-year survival,( 2) intolerance to treatment (deferral), and (3) the total days disrupted by care. The primary scenario included all three outcomes measured at the population level and used a linear payment model. Volatility analyses demonstrated contract parameters can dramatically alter the contract output with greatest risk from a single, binary outcome contract design.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The design of an OBA is a complex process that requires a multi-disciplinary approach. By assessing solutions to data, outcomes and contracting challenges, IDEATE provides a strong foundation for future success of OBAs in the UK. Outcome-based agreements (OBAs) are a way to pay for medicines if they help patient health in a specific way over time. These agreements can make it faster for people to get new medicines, but they also have challenges, like needing a lot of time and effort to manage them. A team from the NHS Wales, life sciences, and Swansea University created Project IDEATE to find a better way to design OBAs and solve some of these problems. Welsh datasets were used to create a new breast cancer dataset to test different OBAs and see how payments would change. A breast cancer treatment was used for the project. The project had 99 patients who got the medicine (2017-2020) and 286 patients who had breast cancer but did not get the medicine (2014-2016). Three health outcomes were measured: (1) living for one year after treatment, (2) patients needing to stop the medicine, and (3) days spent in care. The main OBA option we tested used all three health outcomes; the more the outcomes improved, the more the payments could go up until they hit the highest amount agreed. The analysis showed that the way an OBA is designed can make a big difference in how stable or risky it is, especially if one of the health outcomes has only two options. Project IDEATE showed that making an OBA can be hard, but when people from different fields work together, they can overcome many challenges and succeed.</p>","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PharmacoEconomics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-024-01445-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To develop a sustainable, scalable methodology for the design of outcome-based agreements (OBAs) that works on the ground and dynamically overcomes historical challenges.

Methods: Project IDEATE co-created solutions to known (and emergent) challenges via iterative workshops and real-world data analysis to develop and refine a hypothetical model for an OBA in a trusted research environment. A cross-disciplinary collaboration between National Health Service (NHS) Wales, industry and academia was developed. Data were collected from Welsh national datasets and used to construct a novel linked dataset. OBA scenarios, with different contract parameters, were analysed to assess impact on the proportion of contract payment due and the volatility of payments.

Results: An approved, in market, locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer treatment was selected as the test case. The total number of patients in the treatment cohort (2017-2020) was n = 99, and 286 in the control cohort (2014-2016). The final outcome variables selected were: (1) 1-year survival,( 2) intolerance to treatment (deferral), and (3) the total days disrupted by care. The primary scenario included all three outcomes measured at the population level and used a linear payment model. Volatility analyses demonstrated contract parameters can dramatically alter the contract output with greatest risk from a single, binary outcome contract design.

Conclusions: The design of an OBA is a complex process that requires a multi-disciplinary approach. By assessing solutions to data, outcomes and contracting challenges, IDEATE provides a strong foundation for future success of OBAs in the UK. Outcome-based agreements (OBAs) are a way to pay for medicines if they help patient health in a specific way over time. These agreements can make it faster for people to get new medicines, but they also have challenges, like needing a lot of time and effort to manage them. A team from the NHS Wales, life sciences, and Swansea University created Project IDEATE to find a better way to design OBAs and solve some of these problems. Welsh datasets were used to create a new breast cancer dataset to test different OBAs and see how payments would change. A breast cancer treatment was used for the project. The project had 99 patients who got the medicine (2017-2020) and 286 patients who had breast cancer but did not get the medicine (2014-2016). Three health outcomes were measured: (1) living for one year after treatment, (2) patients needing to stop the medicine, and (3) days spent in care. The main OBA option we tested used all three health outcomes; the more the outcomes improved, the more the payments could go up until they hit the highest amount agreed. The analysis showed that the way an OBA is designed can make a big difference in how stable or risky it is, especially if one of the health outcomes has only two options. Project IDEATE showed that making an OBA can be hard, but when people from different fields work together, they can overcome many challenges and succeed.

基于价值的医疗保健实践:IDEATE,威尔士合作设计和测试基于结果的医药协议。
目标:为设计基于成果的协议(OBAs)制定一种可持续、可扩展的方法:为基于成果的协议(OBAs)的设计开发一种可持续、可扩展的方法,这种方法能够在实地发挥作用,并动态地克服历史挑战:方法:IDEATE 项目通过迭代研讨会和真实世界数据分析,共同创建已知(和新出现)挑战的解决方案,以开发和完善可信研究环境中 OBA 的假设模型。威尔士国家医疗服务系统(NHS)、行业和学术界开展了跨学科合作。数据收集自威尔士国家数据集,并用于构建新型链接数据集。分析了具有不同合同参数的 OBA 方案,以评估其对到期合同付款比例和付款波动的影响:我们选择了一种已获批上市的局部晚期和转移性乳腺癌治疗方法作为测试案例。治疗队列(2017-2020 年)的患者总数为 99 人,对照队列(2014-2016 年)的患者总数为 286 人。最终选定的结果变量为(1)1 年生存期;(2)治疗不耐受(延期);(3)护理中断总天数。主要方案包括在人口水平上测量的所有三个结果,并使用线性支付模型。波动性分析表明,合同参数可显著改变合同产出,单一的二元结果合同设计风险最大:OBA 的设计是一个复杂的过程,需要采用多学科方法。通过对数据、成果和合同挑战的解决方案进行评估,IDEATE 为英国未来的开放式预算编制协议的成功奠定了坚实的基础。基于成果的协议(OBAs)是一种支付药物费用的方式,前提是这些药物在一段时间内对患者的健康有特定的帮助。这些协议可以让人们更快地获得新药,但也存在一些挑战,比如需要花费大量的时间和精力来管理这些协议。来自威尔士国家医疗服务系统、生命科学和斯旺西大学的一个团队创建了 "IDEATE 项目",旨在找到一种更好的方法来设计 OBAs 并解决其中的一些问题。威尔士数据集被用来创建一个新的乳腺癌数据集,以测试不同的 OBAs,并了解支付方式会发生怎样的变化。该项目使用了一种乳腺癌治疗方法。该项目有 99 名获得药物的患者(2017-2020 年)和 286 名患有乳腺癌但未获得药物的患者(2014-2016 年)。对三种健康结果进行了测量:(1)治疗后一年内的生活状况;(2)需要停药的患者;(3)在护理中花费的天数。我们测试的主要 OBA 方案使用了所有三种健康结果;结果改善得越多,支付的金额就越高,直至达到商定的最高金额。分析表明,OBA 的设计方式会对其稳定性或风险性产生很大影响,尤其是当其中一种健康结果只有两种选择时。IDEATE 项目表明,制定 OBA 可能很难,但如果来自不同领域的人们共同努力,就能克服许多挑战并取得成功。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
PharmacoEconomics
PharmacoEconomics 医学-药学
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
9.10%
发文量
85
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: PharmacoEconomics is the benchmark journal for peer-reviewed, authoritative and practical articles on the application of pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life assessment to optimum drug therapy and health outcomes. An invaluable source of applied pharmacoeconomic original research and educational material for the healthcare decision maker. PharmacoEconomics is dedicated to the clear communication of complex pharmacoeconomic issues related to patient care and drug utilization. PharmacoEconomics offers a range of additional features designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. Each article is accompanied by a Key Points summary, giving a time-efficient overview of the content to a wide readership. Articles may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand the scientific content and overall implications of the article.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信