美国承保和报销的考虑因素:评估哪些数字医疗产品?修改后的德尔菲研究结果。

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Jennifer S Graff
{"title":"美国承保和报销的考虑因素:评估哪些数字医疗产品?修改后的德尔菲研究结果。","authors":"Jennifer S Graff","doi":"10.18553/jmcp.2024.30.8.854","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The rapid growth of digital health tools, including digital applications, wearables, sensors, diagnostics, digital therapeutics (DTx), and prescription DTx, offers new ways to treat patients and close gaps in care. Payers need transparent, credible, and efficient processes to differentiate products for potential reimbursement from the larger universe of digital health products.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To identify areas of agreement, disagreement, and rationale for payers to determine which digital health products should be evaluated for formulary consideration and to develop generalizable criteria for health care decision-makers developing policies and approaches for digital health products.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Experts from the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy DTx Advisory Group Payer Evaluation subcommittee rated whether a pharmacy and therapeutics committee, health technology assessment group, or an innovation center within a health plan or pharmacy benefit manager should consider 14 hypothetical products for potential formulary coverage. Using a 4-step modified Delphi approach, experts rated whether it was appropriate for a payer to evaluate each product on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree). Quantitative agreement was assessed using terciles of responses, medians, and the distribution of appropriateness scores. The corresponding discussions are summarized to identify generalizable criteria for payers to consider as they develop approaches to determine which digital health products to evaluate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 14 hypothetical products, 4 achieved quantitative agreement that payers <i>should</i> evaluate the product. 5 products had quantitative disagreement, and the remaining were indeterminant. Payers were most likely to review a product if it (1) was reviewed by the US Food and Drug Administration, (2) required a prescription, (3) was intended to be paid for using premium dollars, (4) treated rather than diagnosed or monitored a clinical condition, (5) had a low clinical opportunity cost, and (6) could address population health metrics.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The rapid availability of digital health and DTx options can be daunting for health care decision-makers when determining which products to evaluate. These generalizable criteria can help payers develop a more efficient process.</p>","PeriodicalId":16170,"journal":{"name":"Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy","volume":"30 8","pages":"854-859"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11293764/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Considerations for US coverage and reimbursement: Which digital health products to evaluate? Findings from a modified Delphi study.\",\"authors\":\"Jennifer S Graff\",\"doi\":\"10.18553/jmcp.2024.30.8.854\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The rapid growth of digital health tools, including digital applications, wearables, sensors, diagnostics, digital therapeutics (DTx), and prescription DTx, offers new ways to treat patients and close gaps in care. Payers need transparent, credible, and efficient processes to differentiate products for potential reimbursement from the larger universe of digital health products.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To identify areas of agreement, disagreement, and rationale for payers to determine which digital health products should be evaluated for formulary consideration and to develop generalizable criteria for health care decision-makers developing policies and approaches for digital health products.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Experts from the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy DTx Advisory Group Payer Evaluation subcommittee rated whether a pharmacy and therapeutics committee, health technology assessment group, or an innovation center within a health plan or pharmacy benefit manager should consider 14 hypothetical products for potential formulary coverage. Using a 4-step modified Delphi approach, experts rated whether it was appropriate for a payer to evaluate each product on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree). Quantitative agreement was assessed using terciles of responses, medians, and the distribution of appropriateness scores. The corresponding discussions are summarized to identify generalizable criteria for payers to consider as they develop approaches to determine which digital health products to evaluate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 14 hypothetical products, 4 achieved quantitative agreement that payers <i>should</i> evaluate the product. 5 products had quantitative disagreement, and the remaining were indeterminant. Payers were most likely to review a product if it (1) was reviewed by the US Food and Drug Administration, (2) required a prescription, (3) was intended to be paid for using premium dollars, (4) treated rather than diagnosed or monitored a clinical condition, (5) had a low clinical opportunity cost, and (6) could address population health metrics.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The rapid availability of digital health and DTx options can be daunting for health care decision-makers when determining which products to evaluate. These generalizable criteria can help payers develop a more efficient process.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16170,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy\",\"volume\":\"30 8\",\"pages\":\"854-859\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11293764/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2024.30.8.854\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2024.30.8.854","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:数字医疗工具(包括数字应用、可穿戴设备、传感器、诊断、数字治疗(DTx)和处方 DTx)的快速发展为治疗患者和缩小医疗差距提供了新的途径。支付方需要透明、可信和高效的流程,以便从众多数字医疗产品中区分出可能获得报销的产品:确定支付方在确定哪些数字医疗产品应纳入处方集评估时存在的共识、分歧和理由,并为制定数字医疗产品政策和方法的医疗决策者制定可推广的标准:来自管理型医疗药学学会 DTx 咨询小组支付方评估小组委员会的专家们对药学和治疗学委员会、健康技术评估小组或健康计划或药房福利管理机构内的创新中心是否应考虑将 14 种假设产品纳入潜在的处方集进行了评定。专家们采用四步改良德尔菲法,以 1 分(非常不同意)到 9 分(非常同意)来评定支付方是否适合对每种产品进行评估。采用三等分的回答、中位数和适当性得分的分布来评估定量一致性。我们对相应的讨论进行了总结,以确定可推广的标准,供支付方在制定方法以确定评估哪些数字医疗产品时参考:结果:在 14 种假设产品中,有 4 种在定量方面达成了一致,即支付机构应评估该产品。5 种产品在定量方面存在分歧,其余产品则无法确定。在以下情况下,支付方最有可能对产品进行评估:(1)通过美国食品和药物管理局的审查;(2)需要处方;(3)打算使用保费支付;(4)治疗而非诊断或监测临床状况;(5)临床机会成本较低;(6)可解决人口健康指标问题:对于医疗决策者来说,数字医疗和 DTx 选择的快速出现可能会让他们在决定评估哪些产品时感到困惑。这些可推广的标准可以帮助支付者制定更有效的流程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Considerations for US coverage and reimbursement: Which digital health products to evaluate? Findings from a modified Delphi study.

Background: The rapid growth of digital health tools, including digital applications, wearables, sensors, diagnostics, digital therapeutics (DTx), and prescription DTx, offers new ways to treat patients and close gaps in care. Payers need transparent, credible, and efficient processes to differentiate products for potential reimbursement from the larger universe of digital health products.

Objective: To identify areas of agreement, disagreement, and rationale for payers to determine which digital health products should be evaluated for formulary consideration and to develop generalizable criteria for health care decision-makers developing policies and approaches for digital health products.

Methods: Experts from the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy DTx Advisory Group Payer Evaluation subcommittee rated whether a pharmacy and therapeutics committee, health technology assessment group, or an innovation center within a health plan or pharmacy benefit manager should consider 14 hypothetical products for potential formulary coverage. Using a 4-step modified Delphi approach, experts rated whether it was appropriate for a payer to evaluate each product on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree). Quantitative agreement was assessed using terciles of responses, medians, and the distribution of appropriateness scores. The corresponding discussions are summarized to identify generalizable criteria for payers to consider as they develop approaches to determine which digital health products to evaluate.

Results: Among the 14 hypothetical products, 4 achieved quantitative agreement that payers should evaluate the product. 5 products had quantitative disagreement, and the remaining were indeterminant. Payers were most likely to review a product if it (1) was reviewed by the US Food and Drug Administration, (2) required a prescription, (3) was intended to be paid for using premium dollars, (4) treated rather than diagnosed or monitored a clinical condition, (5) had a low clinical opportunity cost, and (6) could address population health metrics.

Conclusions: The rapid availability of digital health and DTx options can be daunting for health care decision-makers when determining which products to evaluate. These generalizable criteria can help payers develop a more efficient process.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy
Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy Health Professions-Pharmacy
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.80%
发文量
131
期刊介绍: JMCP welcomes research studies conducted outside of the United States that are relevant to our readership. Our audience is primarily concerned with designing policies of formulary coverage, health benefit design, and pharmaceutical programs that are based on evidence from large populations of people. Studies of pharmacist interventions conducted outside the United States that have already been extensively studied within the United States and studies of small sample sizes in non-managed care environments outside of the United States (e.g., hospitals or community pharmacies) are generally of low interest to our readership. However, studies of health outcomes and costs assessed in large populations that provide evidence for formulary coverage, health benefit design, and pharmaceutical programs are of high interest to JMCP’s readership.
×
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