Entries in Surveys & Reports (117)

Friday
Nov032017

Three Recent Studies and Three Different Perceptions of Value Based Payments

Three Recent Studies and Three Different Perceptions of Value Based Payments
 

by Clive Riddle, November 3, 2017

 

Three different recently released studies addressing value based payments fuel three different perceptions: (1) value based payments have solid momentum; (2) that hospitals view value based care is growing more slowly than anticipated; and (3) physicians prefer FFS systems to value based care.

 

The Health Care Payment Learning & Action Network has just released a report with survey results indicating “29% of total U.S. health care payments were tied to alternative payment models (APMs) in 2016 compared to 23% in 2015, an increase of six percentage points.” The Network states that “the survey collected data from over 80 participants, accounting for nearly 245.4 million people, or 84%, of the covered U.S. population.”  

 

While 29% of payments were value based and totaling “approximately $354.5 billion dollars nationally” in 2016, the Network determined that 43% of payments were “traditional FFS or other legacy payments not linked to quality” and 28% was “pay-for-performance or care coordination fees.”

 

Deloitte recently released results from their 2017 Survey of US Health System CEOs which includes are chapter on Population health and value-based care that provides these insights:

·         “Survey participants say the transition to value-based care is happening, but at a slower rate than initially anticipated. Still, many of the CEOs report that they are developing and expanding innovative delivery and payment models, and are focusing on MACRA and physician activation.

·         “Many CEOs also are looking into strategies to generate physician buy-in and encourage behavioral change, which will help them be better prepared for the transition to population health and value-based care.”

·         “Many of the surveyed CEOs express concern about operating under two different payment systems—FFS and value-based care—and having misaligned incentives. Moreover, moving towards population health and bearing financial risk likely will require a large patient population.”

·         “Many CEOs who previously had acquired and invested in physician practices report being more engaged and prepared for MACRA implementation than other survey respondents. “

·         “In our survey, some respondents indicate they are using tools including clinical integration, employment contracts with incentives, ACOs and risk-sharing agreements, among others to better activate physicians in care delivery transformation.”

 

Meanwhile, Bain & Company recently released their Front Line of Healthcare Report 2017, in which they surveyed 980 physicians and concluded that “more than 60% of the physicians we surveyed believe it will become more difficult to deliver high-quality care in the next two years as they struggle to cope with a complex regulatory environment, increasing administrative burdens and a more difficult reimbursement landscape. After years of experimentation, physicians now want evidence that new models for care management, reimbursement, policy and patient engagement will actually improve clinical outcomes. Without it, they see little reason to alter the status quo and move toward widespread adoption.”

 

Specific to physician receptivity toward value based care, Bain found that physicians very much prefer FFS if they had their druthers: “More than 70% of physicians prefer to use a fee-for-service model, citing concerns about the complexity and quality of care associated with value-based payment models. Fifty-three percent of physicians say that capitation reduces the quality of care, and most see little advantage from pay-for-performance models either. Further, many believe their organizations are not sufficiently prepared for the shift to value-based care.”

 
Friday
Oct062017

The Impact of Time and Money on The Physician – Patient Relationship

The Impact of Time and Money on The Physician – Patient Relationship
 

by Clive Riddle, October 6, 2017

 

The “physician-patient relationship remains strong but cost may challenge its future,” is the headline takeaway offered by The Physicians Foundation, who just released findings from their second biennial patient survey. Their 45-report discuss analyzes survey responses from a nationally representative sample of 1,747 adults, ages 27-75, who had two visits with the same doctor in the past year.

 

We are told “89 percent of consumers are fearful that the rising cost of healthcare will adversely impact them in the future. In particular, over half (56 percent) of patients say the cost of prescription drugs and pharmaceuticals directly contributes to rising healthcare costs. In fact, because of cost, 25 percent of patients surveyed said they did not fill a prescription and 19 percent have skipped doses of their medicine…..Fifty seven percent of healthcare consumers feel they are one sickness away from being in serious financial trouble. And 75 percent of consumers are concerned with their ability to pay for medical treatment if they were to get sick or injured, an increase from the first survey issued in 2016 when 62 percent were concerned.”

 

What do consumers think is driving increased costs? The Foundation says “eighty-eight percent of consumers look to pharma companies and the way they price drugs as the main reason for rising healthcare costs. Other factors that consumers feel contribute to rising healthcare costs include absence of free markets (24 percent) and fraud (23 percent).” 33% of consumers say they have debt because of medical costs, with 30% of those with debt owing $5,000 or more.

 

Time is the other major concern. The Foundation states that “only 11 percent of patients and 14 percent of physicians report that they have all the time they need together. This signals a significant challenge to providing high quality care, especially when 90 percent of patients feel the most essential element of a quality healthcare system is a solid physician-patient relationship.”

 

The Foundation goes on to report that “65 percent of patients feel that time is always or often limited with the physician, however only half of physicians feel similarly. Yet the same number of patients (53 percent) and physicians (52 percent) are of a common mindset in terms of workload – believing physicians to be at full capacity.” 

 

But despite the pressures from time and money, 95% of patients said they were satisfied with their overall primary doctor relationship, including 64% who said they were very satisfied. 5% said they think about changing their primary doctor all the time, and 15% said they thought about that often.

 
Thursday
Sep282017

Studies on Prescription Drugs and Social Media

By Clive Riddle, September 29, 2017

Given that prescription drugs are perhaps the most direct-to-consumer marketed U.S. healthcare service, and pharmacies perhaps the most retail oriented distribution of health care services, social media would seem to have the greatest influence on pharmaceuticals than other healthcare sectors. PrescribeWellness this week released results of its 2017 Pharmacy Social Media Survey, which "looked at how Americans choose their pharmacy, what pharmacy services they most value, and their interest in interacting with their neighborhood pharmacists online and through social media."

Here’s what the shared from their findings:

  • 37% look to Google when looking for a pharmacy, versus 34% relying on word of mouth
  • Another 18% look to Facebook to choose a pharmacy
  • 32% look for a pharmacy with a useful website
  • 78% would consider following their pharmacist on social media— and 48% already do
  • 42% percent wish their pharmacist were more active on social media.
  • 47% say their preferred social network for interacting with their pharmacist is Facebook
  • 15% prefer Twitter in this regard and 12% prefer Instagram (12 percent)
  • 34% are interested in their pharmacist’s website
  • 25% would be interested in a pharmacy email newsletter.
  • 54% would be more inclined to use a product that their pharmacist recommended on social media

Respondents say the top benefits of following their pharmacist on social media include:

  • Deals and promotions – 58 percent
  • New offerings or services – 39 percent
  • Healthcare news – 37 percent
  • Relevant news and tips about health and wellness – 37 percent
  • Seasonal vaccine reminders – 31 percent

62% use their pharmacy’s website, with 61% using the site for refill requests; 47% for online orders; 29% for medication reminders; 29% for a medication list; 20% for online appointments; and 19% to access messages from their pharmacists, 40% say their pharmacy has a mobile app, which they use to place refill requests (48%), receive refill reminders (38%) and place orders (38%).

Moving on from pharmacies to pharmaceutical companies, earlier this year, the Journal of Medical Internet Research published to paper: Direct-to-Consumer Promotion of Prescription Drugs on Mobile Devices: Content Analysis, which sought to “investigate how prescription drugs are being promoted to consumers using mobile technologies. We were particularly interested in the presentation of drug benefits and risks, with regard to presence, placement, and prominence.”

Of the mobile communications they examined, 41% were product claim communications, 22%) were reminder communications, and 37were help-seeking communications (includes information about the medical condition but not the drug name. 69% linked to branded drug websites indicating both benefits and risks, 25% linked to a landing page listing benefits but no visible risks, and 6% linked to a landing page listing risks but no visible benefits.

The Frontiers in Pharmacology journal last December published the article Perspectives for the Use of Social Media in e-Pharmamarketing which among other things concluded that "in November 2015, American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has encouraged the use of social media to improve communication and information exchange in health promotion and public health (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Social Media Policy, 2015). Foreign studies show that one in four interactions with doctor, patient, and healthcare providers in the United States is a digital contact. Patient education through social media is therefore an opportunity for the pharmaceutical industry to gain confidence in the company and increase the awareness of consumer when choosing a product. In this way, customer acquires knowledge about health, diseases, and treatment. In various social media channels it is possible to find information on any drug. This information is available on: websites of a manufacturer, social network brand fanpages, portals for white staff specialists. According to a study, conducted by Comscore, patients who are familiar with drug brand website often followed the recommendations for its use (20% of patients). Internet advertising also influenced the use of a drug (13.5% of patients; ROI Media, 2016). E-pharmamarketing activities in social media and in the network tend to increase. It is estimated that in the year 2016 the US pharmaceutical companies allocate for this purpose 2.48 billion dollars.”

Friday
Sep152017

Nine Things to Know About Current Opioid Misuse from a New SAMHSA Report

By Clive Riddle, September 15, 2017

 

The HHS agency  SAMHSA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration) has released a new 86-page report: Key Substance Use and Mental Health Indicators in the United States: Results from the 2016 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, which among other things provides an updated peek at opioid misuse during the past year.

 

 

 

Here’s nine things to know from the report:

1. In 2016, approximately 11.8 million people aged 12 or older misused opioids in the past year,         representing 4.4 percent of this population.

2. About 891,000 adolescents aged 12 to 17 misused opioids in the past year, representing 3.6 percent of adolescents.

3. About 2.5 million young adults aged 18 to 25 misused opioids in the past year, representing 7.3 percent of young adults.

4. 8.4 million adults aged 26 or older misused opioids in the past year, representing 4.0 percent of this age group.

5. In 2016, approximately 11.5 million people misused prescription pain relievers in the past year, making it the predominant means of opioid misuse.

6. Among people aged 12 or older in 2016 who misused prescription pain relievers in the past year, the most commonly reported reason for their last misuse of a pain reliever was to relieve physical pain (62.3 percent.)

7. 53.0 percent of people who misused pain relievers in the past year reported that they obtained the pain relievers the last time from a friend or relative.

8. Another 36.8 percent of people who misused pain relievers in the past year indicated that they obtained pain relievers the last time through prescription

9. Another 6.0%  people who misused pain relievers in the past year bought the last pain reliever they misused from a drug dealer or stranger.

Friday
Aug252017

Fighting Over Who The Healthcare Punching Bag Should Be: Health Plans vs. Pharma

By Clive Riddle, August 25, 2017

Earlier this month the Doctor-Patient Rights Project released Not What the Doctor Ordered: Barriers to Healthcare Access for Patients an eighteen page report presenting consumer survey results regarding health insurance coverage denials. The Project issued statements in conjunction with the report including from Stacey Worthy, Executive Director of Aimed Alliance and one of the Project’s founding members, who said “our research reveals a hidden healthcare crisis. The current debate about healthcare reform has focused on getting more Americans covered. Yet, the real crisis is among patients with chronic illnesses who tell us that insurance is worthless when their insurance providers withhold coverage of essential treatments prescribed by a doctor.”

The Project highlighted that the survey found:

  • Insurance plans denied treatment coverage 24% of patients with a chronic or persistent illness or condition
  • 41% of these patients denied coverage were denied once, while 59% were denied multiple times.
  • 55% of those denied treatment said they were denied a prescription medication
  • 41% of those denied treatment said they were denied a diagnostic or screening test
  • 24% of those denied treatment said they were denied a medical procedure
  • 53% of those denied coverage for a treatment of a chronic or persistent illness appealed the denial
  • 49% of those appeals were ultimately successful
  • 70% of the denied treatments for chronic or persistent illnesses were for conditions described as “serious
  • 43% were for treatment of patients described as “in poor health”
  • 29% of patients initially denied coverage reported that their condition worsened
  • 34% denied coverage had to put off or forego treatment altogether

What isn’t clear at all in the report, is what the overall denial rate was for the 1,500 consumers surveyed. One wonders why that information wasn’t shared. The report focuses on denials for those responding that they had a chronic or persistent medical illness or condition, or on types of denials for the overall population surveyed.

The report tells us that 55% of the denials were for prescriptions, with 37% of these for formulary exclusions, while 12% required prior authorization, 9% required step therapy and 5% involved therapeutic substitutions. It becomes less clear from the report what portion of these denials still resulted in an alternative covered prescription, or ultimate coverage of the requested prescription after qualifying conditions were met.

The health insurance industry counters that runaway prescription costs are what we should be focusing on. The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, AHIP and others have regularly produced reports highlighting the prescription cost problem. AHIP, for example one month ago posted Myth vs. Fact: What’s Behind Drug Prices on their website, in which AHIP goes about “fact-checking some of the pharmaceutical industry’s main arguments for why they have to charge hundreds of thousands of dollars for a course of treatment.” They cite reports and articles to support statements including: “High prices have little or nothing to do with drugs’ innovation or efficacy for patients”; “Pricing is based on what already exists, and competitors use shadow pricing to drive each other’s prices higher”; and “Instead of promoting true medical advances, a common business strategy in the pharmaceutical sector is to buy the rights to older drugs and then immediately jack up the prices.”

Morning Consult wrote about the dustup between the two sides this week, stating that health insurers are “alleging it [the Project Report] is part of a campaign by the pharmaceutical industry to distract the public from rising drug prices,” and that “Insurers say the coalition [Project] is tied to pharmaceutical companies.” The article quotes AHIP: “Big Pharma initiated another long-rumored political ad campaign in its attempts to distract from skyrocketing drug pricing, AHIP spokeswoman Cathryn Donaldson said in an email Monday, adding that instead of spending money on advertising campaigns, pharmaceutical companies should address high prescription drug prices.”

The article also quotes the other side punching back: “PhRMA spokeswoman Holly Campbell said pharma companies spend 20 percent of their revenue on research and development, fueling economic growth and bringing patients new treatments. In contrast, the insurance industry invested $0 in R&D and instead spend nearly 20 percent of premium dollars on administrative costs, she said in a Monday statement.”