Policy Compendium - Health Insurance

Health Care Needs of Inmates of Correctional Institutions.

Is Expanding Medicaid and SCHIP a Viable Way to Reduce the Number of Uninsured? A Policy Monograph of ACP-ASIM

E-Health and Its Impact on Medical Practice

Assuring Appropriate Access to Laboratory Testing For Patients in Managed Health Care Plans, Reinventing Managed Care Series

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome

Achieving Affordable Health Insurance Coverage for All Within Seven Years

Access to Health Care

Sign-on letter regarding timing of coding changes in the Proposed Rule for the 2015 Medicare Physician Payment Schedule

Letter to Senate Leadership Emphasizing Opposition to Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017

Value-Based Health Care Meets Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Value-based health care (VBHC) has recently emerged as a prominent movement within health care. Value-based health care focuses on maximizing outcomes achieved per dollar spent. As such, it bears many similarities to a well-established method, cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), which provides a framework for comparing the relative value of different diagnostic or treatment interventions. Both approaches address “bang for the health care buck,” but although they overlap in many ways, VBHC and CEA differ with regard to their main applications, their perspective, and the types of costs and outcomes they consider. For example, CEA generally considers costs and benefits from the societal or health care sector perspectives, whereas VBHC is intended to adopt the patient perspective. As such, CEA is intended to inform coverage decisions at a group or population level and VBHC is intended to be implemented at the level of clinician–patient interactions. Meanwhile, value-based payment has emerged as a visible component of VBHC and is gaining a foothold in the United States in various forms, particularly bundled payments and accountable care organizations, in an effort to reward high-value care and disincentivize low-value care. Differences aside, as the worlds of VBHC and CEA begin to intersect, each discipline can learn from the other.

Cost-Effectiveness of Buprenorphine–Naloxone Versus Extended-Release Naltrexone to Prevent Opioid Relapse

Background: Not enough evidence exists to compare buprenorphine–naloxone with extended-release naltrexone for treating opioid use disorder. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine–naloxone versus extended-release naltrexone. Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a previously reported randomized clinical trial of 570 adults in 8 U.S. inpatient or residential treatment programs. Data Sources: Study instruments. Target Population: Adults with opioid use disorder. Time Horizon: 24-week intervention with an additional 12 weeks of observation. Perspective: Health care sector and societal. Interventions: Buprenorphine–naloxone and extended-release naltrexone. Outcome Measures: Incremental costs combined with incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental time abstinent from opioids. Results of Base-Case Analysis: Use of the health care sector perspective and a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY showed buprenorphine–naloxone to be preferable to extended-release naltrexone in 97% of bootstrap replications at 24 weeks and in 85% at 36 weeks. Similar results were obtained with incremental time abstinent from opioids as an outcome and with use of the societal perspective. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: The base-case results were sensitive to the cost of the 2 treatments and the success of randomized treatment initiation. Limitation: Relatively short follow-up for a chronic condition, substantial missing data, no information on patient out-of-pocket and social service costs. Conclusion: Buprenorphine–naloxone is preferred to extended-release naltrexone as first-line treatment when both options are clinically appropriate and patients require detoxification before initiating extended-release naltrexone. Primary Funding Source: National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health.

Principles for Patient and Family Partnership in Care: An American College of Physicians Position Paper

In this position paper, the American College of Physicians (ACP) examines the rationale for patient and family partnership in care and reviews outcomes associated with this concept, including greater adherence to care plans, improved satisfaction, and lower costs. The paper also explores and acknowledges challenges associated with implementing patient- and family-centered models of care. On the basis of a comprehensive literature review and a multistakeholder vetting process, the ACP's Patient Partnership in Healthcare Committee developed a set of principles that form the foundation for authentic patient and family partnership in care. The principles position patients in their rightful place at the center of care while acknowledging the importance of partnership between the care team and patient in improving health care and reducing harm. The principles state that patients and families should be treated with dignity and respect, be active partners in all aspects of their care, contribute to the development and improvement of health care systems, and be partners in the education of health care professionals. This paper also recommends ways to implement these principles in daily practice.

Cranial Electrical Stimulation: What Is It, and Should We Use It in Practice?

Cautions as Regulators Move to End Exclusive Reliance on Intention to Treat

Should This Patient Receive Hormone Therapy for Her Menopausal Symptoms?: Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 168, No 3

Hormone therapy (HT) was widely prescribed in the 1980s and 1990s and has been controversial since the initial results of the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) trial in the early 2000s suggested that it increased risk for breast cancer and coronary heart disease and did not prolong life. However, more recent data and reexamination of the WHI results suggest that HT is safe and effective for many women when used around the time of menopause. Two experts debate the 2017 Hormone Therapy Position Statement of The North American Menopause Society, which recommends HT as first-line treatment of vasomotor symptoms, and apply it to the care of Ms. R, a 52-year-old woman with severe hot flashes, sleep disturbance, and irritability.

Deliberate Indifference: Inadequate Health Care in U.S. Prisons

Opportunities and Challenges in Genomic Sequencing for Precision Cancer Care

Terminal

Should This Patient Receive Aspirin?: Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 167, No 11

Aspirin exerts antiplatelet effects through irreversible inhibition of cyclooxygenase-1, whereas its anticancer effects may be due to inhibition of cyclooxygenase-2 and other pathways. In 2009, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force endorsed aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. However, aspirin's role in cancer prevention is still emerging, and no groups currently recommend its use for this purpose. To help physicians balance the benefits and harms of aspirin in primary disease prevention, the Task Force issued a guideline titled, “Aspirin Use for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease and Colorectal Cancer” in 2016. In the evidence review conducted for the guideline, cardiovascular disease mortality and colorectal cancer mortality were significantly reduced among persons taking aspirin. However, there was no difference in nonfatal stroke, cardiovascular disease mortality, or all-cause mortality, nor in total cancer mortality, among those taking aspirin. Aspirin users were found to be at increased risk for major gastrointestinal bleeding. In this Beyond the Guidelines, the guideline is reviewed and 2 experts discuss how they would apply it to a 57-year-old man considering starting aspirin for primary prevention. Our experts review the data on which the guideline is based, discuss how they would balance the benefits and harms of aspirin therapy, and explain how they would incorporate shared decision making into clinical practice.