增加利用管理风险的因素:概念证明。

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Jason Shafrin, Jacob Fajnor, Shurui Zhang, Donald E Nichols
{"title":"增加利用管理风险的因素:概念证明。","authors":"Jason Shafrin, Jacob Fajnor, Shurui Zhang, Donald E Nichols","doi":"10.37765/ajmc.2025.89748","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To (1) develop a metric that quantitatively measures the risk that utilization management (UM) policies pose to patients and (2) measure the relationship between this metric and payers' real-world UM use.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>We conducted a targeted literature review and an expert elicitation exercise to create the Data-Based Utilization Management Risk Designation (BURDEN) score. Real-world data analysis measured the relationship between BURDEN and actual payer policies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The BURDEN score was based on 9 UM factors impacting patient outcomes. Factors were weighted based on an expert elicitation procedure with 6 stakeholders. UM policy restrictions were drawn from Tufts Medical Center's Specialty Drug Evidence and Coverage database, and net price data came from SSR Health. Ordinary least square regressions were performed to examine the relationship between the BURDEN score and coverage policies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 98 treatments identified across 30 unique diseases, UM policies on treatments for myasthenia gravis, multiple myeloma, and lupus nephritis posed the highest risk to patients, according to the BURDEN score. When treatments had a high BURDEN score, payers were 22.0% less likely to impose any UM restriction (P = .041) and 36.2% less likely to impose step edits (P = .039).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study developed a quantitative measure (BURDEN) to estimate the relative risk to patients of payer UM policies. Payers appeared modestly sensitive to treatments that posed a high risk to patients should UM be implemented. However, coverage decisions did not appear to be fully patient-centered, as some higher BURDEN products experienced increased UM usage.</p>","PeriodicalId":50808,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Managed Care","volume":"31 6","pages":"288-294"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Factors that increase utilization management risk: a proof of concept.\",\"authors\":\"Jason Shafrin, Jacob Fajnor, Shurui Zhang, Donald E Nichols\",\"doi\":\"10.37765/ajmc.2025.89748\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To (1) develop a metric that quantitatively measures the risk that utilization management (UM) policies pose to patients and (2) measure the relationship between this metric and payers' real-world UM use.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>We conducted a targeted literature review and an expert elicitation exercise to create the Data-Based Utilization Management Risk Designation (BURDEN) score. Real-world data analysis measured the relationship between BURDEN and actual payer policies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The BURDEN score was based on 9 UM factors impacting patient outcomes. Factors were weighted based on an expert elicitation procedure with 6 stakeholders. UM policy restrictions were drawn from Tufts Medical Center's Specialty Drug Evidence and Coverage database, and net price data came from SSR Health. Ordinary least square regressions were performed to examine the relationship between the BURDEN score and coverage policies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 98 treatments identified across 30 unique diseases, UM policies on treatments for myasthenia gravis, multiple myeloma, and lupus nephritis posed the highest risk to patients, according to the BURDEN score. When treatments had a high BURDEN score, payers were 22.0% less likely to impose any UM restriction (P = .041) and 36.2% less likely to impose step edits (P = .039).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study developed a quantitative measure (BURDEN) to estimate the relative risk to patients of payer UM policies. Payers appeared modestly sensitive to treatments that posed a high risk to patients should UM be implemented. However, coverage decisions did not appear to be fully patient-centered, as some higher BURDEN products experienced increased UM usage.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50808,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Managed Care\",\"volume\":\"31 6\",\"pages\":\"288-294\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Managed Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.37765/ajmc.2025.89748\",\"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":"American Journal of Managed Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37765/ajmc.2025.89748","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

目标:(1)制定一项指标,定量衡量利用管理(UM)政策对患者构成的风险;(2)衡量该指标与支付者实际使用UM之间的关系。研究设计:我们进行了有针对性的文献综述和专家启发练习,以创建基于数据的利用管理风险指定(BURDEN)评分。真实世界的数据分析测量了BURDEN和实际付款人政策之间的关系。方法:BURDEN评分基于影响患者预后的9个UM因素。根据6个利益相关者的专家启发程序对因素进行加权。UM政策限制来自塔夫茨医学中心的特殊药物证据和覆盖数据库,净价格数据来自SSR Health。使用普通最小二乘回归来检验BURDEN评分与覆盖政策之间的关系。结果:根据BURDEN评分,在30种独特疾病的98种治疗方法中,UM对重症肌无力、多发性骨髓瘤和狼疮肾炎的治疗政策对患者的风险最高。当治疗的BURDEN评分较高时,支付者施加任何UM限制的可能性降低了22.0% (P = 0.041),实施步骤编辑的可能性降低了36.2% (P = 0.039)。结论:本研究开发了一种定量测量(负担)来估计支付人UM政策对患者的相对风险。如果实施联合用药,支付方似乎对对患者构成高风险的治疗方法较为敏感。然而,覆盖决策似乎并没有完全以患者为中心,因为一些负担较高的产品的UM使用率有所增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Factors that increase utilization management risk: a proof of concept.

Objectives: To (1) develop a metric that quantitatively measures the risk that utilization management (UM) policies pose to patients and (2) measure the relationship between this metric and payers' real-world UM use.

Study design: We conducted a targeted literature review and an expert elicitation exercise to create the Data-Based Utilization Management Risk Designation (BURDEN) score. Real-world data analysis measured the relationship between BURDEN and actual payer policies.

Methods: The BURDEN score was based on 9 UM factors impacting patient outcomes. Factors were weighted based on an expert elicitation procedure with 6 stakeholders. UM policy restrictions were drawn from Tufts Medical Center's Specialty Drug Evidence and Coverage database, and net price data came from SSR Health. Ordinary least square regressions were performed to examine the relationship between the BURDEN score and coverage policies.

Results: Among 98 treatments identified across 30 unique diseases, UM policies on treatments for myasthenia gravis, multiple myeloma, and lupus nephritis posed the highest risk to patients, according to the BURDEN score. When treatments had a high BURDEN score, payers were 22.0% less likely to impose any UM restriction (P = .041) and 36.2% less likely to impose step edits (P = .039).

Conclusions: This study developed a quantitative measure (BURDEN) to estimate the relative risk to patients of payer UM policies. Payers appeared modestly sensitive to treatments that posed a high risk to patients should UM be implemented. However, coverage decisions did not appear to be fully patient-centered, as some higher BURDEN products experienced increased UM usage.

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
American Journal of Managed Care
American Journal of Managed Care 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
177
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Managed Care is an independent, peer-reviewed publication dedicated to disseminating clinical information to managed care physicians, clinical decision makers, and other healthcare professionals. Its aim is to stimulate scientific communication in the ever-evolving field of managed care. The American Journal of Managed Care addresses a broad range of issues relevant to clinical decision making in a cost-constrained environment and examines the impact of clinical, management, and policy interventions and programs on healthcare and economic outcomes.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信