Advertisements
Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Healthcare Reform’ Category

Digital Therapeutics: A threat or opportunity to pharmaceuticals


Reporter and Curator: Dr. Sudipta Saha, Ph.D.

 

Digital Therapeutics (DTx) have been defined by the Digital Therapeutics Alliance (DTA) as “delivering evidence based therapeutic interventions to patients, that are driven by software to prevent, manage or treat a medical disorder or disease”. They might come in the form of a smart phone or computer tablet app, or some form of a cloud-based service connected to a wearable device. DTx tend to fall into three groups. Firstly, developers and mental health researchers have built digital solutions which typically provide a form of software delivered Cognitive-Behaviour Therapies (CBT) that help patients change behaviours and develop coping strategies around their condition. Secondly there are the group of Digital Therapeutics which target lifestyle issues, such as diet, exercise and stress, that are associated with chronic conditions, and work by offering personalized support for goal setting and target achievement. Lastly, DTx can be designed to work in combination with existing medication or treatments, helping patients manage their therapies and focus on ensuring the therapy delivers the best outcomes possible.

 

Pharmaceutical companies are clearly trying to understand what DTx will mean for them. They want to analyze whether it will be a threat or opportunity to their business. For a long time, they have been providing additional support services to patients who take relatively expensive drugs for chronic conditions. A nurse-led service might provide visits and telephone support to diabetics for example who self-inject insulin therapies. But DTx will help broaden the scope of support services because they can be delivered cost-effectively, and importantly have the ability to capture real-world evidence on patient outcomes. They will no-longer be reserved for the most expensive drugs or therapies but could apply to a whole range of common treatments to boost their efficacy. Faced with the arrival of Digital Therapeutics either replacing drugs, or playing an important role alongside therapies, pharmaceutical firms have three options. They can either ignore DTx and focus on developing drug therapies as they have done; they can partner with a growing number of DTx companies to develop software and services complimenting their drugs; or they can start to build their own Digital Therapeutics to work with their products.

 

Digital Therapeutics will have knock-on effects in health industries, which may be as great as the introduction of therapeutic apps and services themselves. Together with connected health monitoring devices, DTx will offer a near constant stream of data about an individuals’ behavior, real world context around factors affecting their treatment in their everyday lives and emotional and physiological data such as blood pressure and blood sugar levels. Analysis of the resulting data will help create support services tailored to each patient. But who stores and analyses this data is an important question. Strong data governance will be paramount to maintaining trust, and the highly regulated pharmaceutical industry may not be best-placed to handle individual patient data. Meanwhile, the health sector (payers and healthcare providers) is becoming more focused on patient outcomes, and payment for value not volume. The future will say whether pharmaceutical firms enhance the effectiveness of drugs with DTx, or in some cases replace drugs with DTx.

 

Digital Therapeutics have the potential to change what the pharmaceutical industry sells: rather than a drug it will sell a package of drugs and digital services. But they will also alter who the industry sells to. Pharmaceutical firms have traditionally marketed drugs to doctors, pharmacists and other health professionals, based on the efficacy of a specific product. Soon it could be paid on the outcome of a bundle of digital therapies, medicines and services with a closer connection to both providers and patients. Apart from a notable few, most pharmaceutical firms have taken a cautious approach towards Digital Therapeutics. Now, it is to be observed that how the pharmaceutical companies use DTx to their benefit as well as for the benefit of the general population.

 

References:

 

https://eloqua.eyeforpharma.com/LP=23674?utm_campaign=EFP%2007MAR19%20EFP%20Database&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua&elqTrackId=73e21ae550de49ccabbf65fce72faea0&elq=818d76a54d894491b031fa8d1cc8d05c&elqaid=43259&elqat=1&elqCampaignId=24564

 

https://www.s3connectedhealth.com/resources/white-papers/digital-therapeutics-pharmas-threat-or-opportunity/

 

http://www.pharmatimes.com/web_exclusives/digital_therapeutics_will_transform_pharma_and_healthcare_industries_in_2019._heres_how._1273671

 

https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/pharmaceuticals-and-medical-products/our-insights/exploring-the-potential-of-digital-therapeutics

 

https://player.fm/series/digital-health-today-2404448/s9-081-scaling-digital-therapeutics-the-opportunities-and-challenges

 

Advertisements

Read Full Post »


Reporter and Curator: Dr. Sudipta Saha, Ph.D.

 

Stroke is a leading cause of death worldwide and the most common cause of long-term disability amongst adults, more particularly in patients with diabetes mellitus and arterial hypertension. Increasing evidence suggests that disordered physiological variables following acute ischaemic stroke, especially hyperglycaemia, adversely affect outcomes.

 

Post-stroke hyperglycaemia is common (up to 50% of patients) and may be rather prolonged, regardless of diabetes status. A substantial body of evidence has demonstrated that hyperglycaemia has a deleterious effect upon clinical and morphological stroke outcomes. Therefore, hyperglycaemia represents an attractive physiological target for acute stroke therapies.

 

However, whether intensive glycaemic manipulation positively influences the fate of ischaemic tissue remains unknown. One major adverse event of management of hyperglycaemia with insulin (either glucose-potassium-insulin infusions or intensive insulin therapy) is the occurrence of hypoglycaemia, which can also induce cerebral damage.

 

Doctors all over the world have debated whether intensive glucose management, which requires the use of IV insulin to bring blood sugar levels down to 80-130 mg/dL, or standard glucose control using insulin shots, which aims to get glucose below 180 mg/dL, lead to better outcomes after stroke.

 

A period of hyperglycemia is common, with elevated blood glucose in the periinfarct period consistently linked with poor outcome in patients with and without diabetes. The mechanisms that underlie this deleterious effect of dysglycemia on ischemic neuronal tissue remain to be established, although in vitro research, functional imaging, and animal work have provided clues.

 

While prompt correction of hyperglycemia can be achieved, trials of acute insulin administration in stroke and other critical care populations have been equivocal. Diabetes mellitus and hyperglycemia per se are associated with poor cerebrovascular health, both in terms of stroke risk and outcome thereafter.

 

Interventions to control blood sugar are available but evidence of cerebrovascular efficacy are lacking. In diabetes, glycemic control should be part of a global approach to vascular risk while in acute stroke, theoretical data suggest intervention to lower markedly elevated blood glucose may be of benefit, especially if thrombolysis is administered.

 

Both hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia may lead to further brain injury and clinical deterioration; that is the reason these conditions should be avoided after stroke. Yet, when correcting hyperglycaemia, great care should be taken not to switch the patient into hypoglycaemia, and subsequently aggressive insulin administration treatment should be avoided.

 

Early identification and prompt management of hyperglycaemia, especially in acute ischaemic stroke, is recommended. Although the appropriate level of blood glucose during acute stroke is still debated, a reasonable approach is to keep the patient in a mildly hyperglycaemic state, rather than risking hypoglycaemia, using continuous glucose monitoring.

 

The primary results from the Stroke Hyperglycemia Insulin Network Effort (SHINE) study, a large, multisite clinical study showed that intensive glucose management did not improve functional outcomes at 90 days after stroke compared to standard glucose therapy. In addition, intense glucose therapy increased the risk of very low blood glucose (hypoglycemia) and required a higher level of care such as increased supervision from nursing staff, compared to standard treatment.

 

References:

 

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-study-provides-answer-long-held-debate-blood-sugar-control-after-stroke

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27873213

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19342845

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20491782

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21211743

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18690907

 

Read Full Post »


Reporter and Curator: Dr. Sudipta Saha, Ph.D.

 

Clostridium difficile-associated disease, a significant problem in healthcare facilities, causes an estimated 15,000 deaths in the United States each year. Clostridium difficile, commonly referred to as C. diff, is a bacterium that infects the colon and can cause diarrhea, fever, and abdominal pain. Clostridium difficile-associated disease (CDAD) most commonly occurs in hospitalized older adults who have recently taken antibiotics. However, cases of CDAD can occur outside of healthcare settings as well.

 

Although antibiotics often cure the infection, C. diff can cause potentially life-threatening colon inflammation. People with CDAD usually are treated with a course of antibiotics, such as oral vancomycin or fidaxomicin. However, CDAD returns in approximately 20 percent of people who receive such treatment, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

 

Multiple research studies have indicated that fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is an effective method for curing patients with repeat C. diff infections. However, the long-term safety of FMT has not been established. Although more research is needed to determine precisely how FMT effectively cures recurrent CDAD, the treatment appears to rapidly restore a healthy and diverse gut microbiome in recipients. Physicians perform FMT using various routes of administration, including oral pills, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, colonoscopy, and enema.

 

A research consortium recently began enrolling patients in a clinical trial examining whether FMT by enema (putting stool from a healthy donor in the colon of a recipient) is safe and can prevent recurrent CDAD, a potentially life-threatening diarrheal illness. Investigators aim to enroll 162 volunteer participants 18 years or older who have had two or more episodes of CDAD within the previous six months.

 

Trial sites include Emory University in Atlanta, Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, and Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee. Each location is a Vaccine and Treatment Evaluation Unit (VTEU), clinical research sites joined in a network funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health. This randomized, controlled trial aims to provide critical data on the efficacy and long-term safety of using FMT by enema to cure C. diff infections.

 

Volunteers will be enrolled in the trial after completing a standard course of antibiotics for a recurrent CDAD episode, presuming their diarrhea symptoms cease on treatment. They will be randomly assigned to one of two groups. The first group (108 people) will take an anti-diarrheal medication and receive a stool transplant (FMT) delivered by retention enema. The second group (54 people) will take an anti-diarrheal medication and receive a placebo solution delivered by retention enema.

 

Participants in either group who have diarrhea with stools that test positive for C. diff shortly after the enema will be given an active stool transplant for a maximum of two FMTs. If participants in either group have another C. diff infection after receiving two FMTs, then they will be referred to other locally available treatment options. Investigators will evaluate the stool specimens for changes in gut microbial diversity and infectious pathogens and will examine the blood samples for metabolic syndrome markers.

 

To learn more about the long-term outcomes of FMT, the researchers will monitor all participants for adverse side effects for three years after completing treatment for recurrent CDAD. Investigators will also collect information on any new onset of CDAD, related chronic medical conditions or any other serious health issues they may have.

 

References:

 

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/clinical-trial-testing-fecal-microbiota-transplant-recurrent-diarrheal-disease-begins

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4749851/

 

https://bmjopengastro.bmj.com/content/3/1/e000087

 

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2635633

 

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/gastroenterology_hepatology/clinical_services/advanced_endoscopy/fecal_transplantation.html

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecal_microbiota_transplant

 

https://www.openbiome.org/about-fmt/

 

https://taymount.com/faecal-microbiota-transplantation-fmt

 

Read Full Post »


More than half of older Americans have “basic” or “below basic” health literacy. How do you make health care decisions when you don’t even understand what the doctor is saying?

From The New York Times

More than half of older Americans lack the skills to gather and understand medical information. Providers must simplify, researchers say.

Every time her parents pick up a new prescription at a Walgreens in Houston, they follow Duyen Pham-Madden’s standing instructions: Use the iPad she bought for them, log onto FaceTime, hold up the pill bottles for her examination.

Her mother, 79, and father, 77, need numerous medications, but have trouble grasping when and how to take them.

The label may say to take one pill three times a day, but “my dad might take one a day,” said Ms. Pham-Madden, 56, an insurance purchasing agent in Blue Springs, Mo. “Or take three at a time.”

So she interprets the directions for them, also reminding her mother to take the prescribed megadose of vitamin D, for osteoporosis, only weekly, not daily.

Part of their struggle, Ms. Pham-Madden believes, stems from language barriers. The family emigrated from Vietnam in 1975, and while her parents speak and read English, they lack the fluency of native speakers.

But recently, Ms. Pham-Madden said, her father posed a question that anyone grappling with Medicare drug coverage might ask: “What’s the doughnut hole?”

Researchers refer to this type of knowledge as “health literacy,” meaning a person’s ability to obtain and understand the basic information needed to make appropriate health decisions.

Can someone read a pamphlet and then determine how often to undergo a particular medical test? Look at a graph and recognize a normal weight range for her height? Ascertain whether her insurance will cover a certain procedure?

Most American adults — 53 percent — have intermediate health literacy, a national survey found in 2006; they can perform “moderately challenging” activities, like reading denser texts and handling unfamiliar arithmetic.

Just 12 percent rank as “proficient,” the highest category. About a fifth have “basic” health literacy that could cause problems, and 14 percent score “below basic.” Health literacy differs by education level, race, poverty and other factors.

And it varies dramatically by age. While the proportion of adults with intermediate literacy ranges from 53 to 58 percent in other age groups, it falls to 38 percent among those 65 and older. The percentage of older adults with basic or below basic literacy is higher than in any other age group; only 3 percent qualify as proficient.

Why is that? Compared to younger groups, the current generation of “older adults were less likely to go beyond a high school education,” said Jennifer Wolff, a health services researcher at Johns Hopkins University.

Moreover, “as adults age, they’re more likely to experience cognitive impairment,” she pointed out, as well as hearing and vision loss that can affect their comprehension.

Consider the recent experience of a retired 84-year-old teacher. All her life, “she was very detail-oriented” and competent, said her daughter, Deborah Johnson, who lives in Lansing, Mich.

But a neurologist diagnosed mild cognitive impairment last summer and prescribed a drug intended to ameliorate its symptoms. It caused a frightening reaction — personality changes, lethargy, dizziness, sky-high blood pressure.

Ms. Johnson thinks her mother might have overdosed. “She told me she thought, ‘This is going to fix me, and I’ll be O.K. So if I take more pills, I’ll be O.K. faster.’”

Yet health literacy can be particularly crucial for seniors. They’re usually coping with more complicated medical problems, including multiple chronic diseases, an array of drugs, a host of specialists. They have more instructions to decipher, more tests to schedule, more decisions to ponder.

Low health literacy makes those tasks more difficult, with troubling results. Studies indicate that people with low literacy have poorer health at higher cost. They’re less likely to take advantage of preventive tests and immunizations, and more apt to be hospitalized.

It may not help much that future cohorts of older adults will be better educated. “The demands of interacting with the health care system are increasing,” Dr. Wolff said. “Ask any adult child of a parent who’s been hospitalized. The system has gotten increasingly complex.”

That doesn’t mean patients deserve all the blame for misunderstandings and snafus. Rima Rudd, a longtime health literacy researcher at Harvard University, has persistently criticized the communications skills of health institutions and professionals.

“We give people findings and tell them about risk and expect people to make decisions based on those concepts, but we don’t explain them very well,” she said. “Are our forms readable? Are the directions after surgery written coherently? If it’s written in jargon, with confusing words and numbers, you won’t get the gist of it and you won’t get important information.”

A few years ago, Steven Rosen, 64, had spent more than two months at a Chicago hospital after several surgeries. Then a social worker came into his room and told his wife Dorothy, “You have to move him tomorrow to an L.T.A.C.”

“I don’t know what you’re talking about,” Ms. Rosen recalled saying. “What’s an L.T.A.C.?”

Question: Was she demonstrating inadequate health literacy, or should the social worker have clarified that L.T.A.C.s — long-term acute care hospitals — provide more care than nursing homes for very ill patients?

Aware of such issues, health care organizations are scrambling to try to make information more accessible and intelligible, and to help patients of all ages understand an often bewildering environment.

They’re hiring squadrons of care coordinators and navigators (sometimes too many), and redesigning and rewriting pamphlets and forms. They’re teaching medical students to communicate more clearly and to encourage patients’ questions.

They’re turning to technology, like secure websites where both patients and family members can see test results or ask questions.

“It’s not the silver bullet we hoped for,” said Amy Chesser, a health communications researcher at Wichita State University, pointing out that many patients are reluctant to turn to provider websites. But the potential remains.

For now, though, often the primary health literacy navigators for older people are their adult children, most commonly daughters and daughters-in-law.

“In the best of all worlds, she’d just be the daughter,” Dr. Chesser said. “But we need her to serve other roles — being an advocate, asking a lot of questions of the provider, asking where to go for information, talking about second opinions.”

The current cohort of people over 70 grew up in a more patriarchal medical system and asking fewer questions, Dr. Wolff pointed out. Her research shows that while most seniors manage their own health care, about a third prefer to co-manage with family or close friends, or to delegate health matters to family or doctors.

Duyen Pham-Madden plays the co-managerial role from hundreds of miles away, keeping spreadsheets of her parents’ drugs, compiling lists of questions for doctors’ appointments, texting photos to pharmacists when the pills in a refilled prescription look different from the last batch.

She’d probably score well in health literacy, but “sometimes even I get mixed up,” she said.

What’s the Medicare doughnut hole? “I had to look it up,” she said. Once she did, she wondered, “How do they expect seniors to understand this?”

SOURCE

 

 

Read Full Post »


CMS initiative in Modernizing Medicare to lead to Lower Prescription Drug Costs

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

CMS Takes Action to Lower Prescription Drug Costs by Modernizing Medicare

 

     

CMS Takes Action to Lower Prescription Drug Costs by Modernizing Medicare 
Proposed regulation for Medicare Parts C & D would strengthen negotiations with prescription drug manufacturers to lower costs and increase transparency for patients

Today, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed polices for 2020 to strengthen and modernize the Medicare Part C and D programs. The proposal would ensure that Medicare Advantage and Part D plans have more tools to negotiate lower drug prices, and the agency is also considering a policy that would require pharmacy rebates to be passed on to seniors to lower their drug costs at the pharmacy counter.

“President Trump is following through on his promise to bring tougher negotiation to Medicare and bring down drug costs for patients, without restricting patient access or choice,” said HHS Secretary Alex Azar. “By bringing the latest tools from the private sector to Medicare Part D, we can save money for taxpayers and seniors, improve access to expensive drugs many seniors need, and expand their choice of plans. The Part D proposals complement efforts to bring down costs in Medicare Advantage and in Medicare Part B through negotiation, all part of the President’s plan to put American patients first by bringing down prescription-drug prices and out-of-pocket costs.”

In the twelve years since the Part D program was launched, many of the tools outlined in today’s proposal have been developed in the commercial health insurance marketplace, and the result has been lower costs for patients. Seniors in Medicare also deserve to benefit from these approaches to reducing costs, so today CMS is proposing to modernize the Medicare Advantage and Part D programs and remove barriers that keep plans from leveraging these tools.

“In designing today’s proposal, foremost in the agency’s mind was the impact on patients, and the proposal is yet another action CMS has taken to deliver on President Trump and Secretary Azar’s commitment on drug prices,” said CMS Administrator Seema Verma. “Today’s changes will provide seniors with more plan options featuring lower costs for prescription drugs, and seniors will remain in the driver’s seat as they can choose the plan that works best for them. The result will be increasing access to the medicines that seniors depend on by lowering their out-of-pocket costs.”

Private plan options for receiving Medicare benefits are increasing in popularity, with almost 37 percent of Medicare beneficiaries expected to enroll in Medicare Advantage in 2019, and Part D enrollment increasing year-over-year as well. The programs are driven by market competition; plans compete for beneficiaries’ business, and each enrollee chooses the plan that best meets his or her needs. Consumer choice puts pressure on plans to improve quality and lower costs.  Premiums in both Medicare Advantage and Part D are projected to decline next year.

Today’s proposed changes include:

  • Providing Part D plans with greater flexibility to negotiate discounts for drugs in “protected” therapeutic classes, so beneficiaries who need these drugs will see lower costs;
  • Requiring Part D plans to increase transparency and provide enrollees and their doctors with a patient’s out-of-pocket cost obligations for prescription drugs when a prescription is written;
  • Codifying a policy similar to the one implemented for 2019 to allow “step therapy” in Medicare Advantage for Part B drugs, encouraging access to high-value products including biosimilars; and
  • Implementing a statutory requirement, recently signed by President Trump, that prohibits pharmacy gag clauses in Part D.

CMS is also considering for a future plan year, which may be as early as 2020, a policy that would ensure that enrollees pay the lowest cost for the prescription drugs they pick up at a pharmacy, after taking into account back-end payments from pharmacies to plans.

Medicare Advantage and Part D will continue to protect patient access, as both programs are embedded with robust beneficiary protections. These include CMS’s review of Part D plan formularies, an expedited appeals process, and a requirement for plans to cover two drugs in every therapeutic class.

CMS looks forward to receiving comments on these proposals and other policies under consideration.

For a blog post on the proposed rule by Secretary Azar and Administrator Verma, please visit: https://www.cms.gov/blog/proposed-changes-lower-drug-prices-medicare-advantage-and-part-d.

For a fact sheet on the proposed rule, please visit: https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/contract-year-cy-2020-medicare-advantage-and-part-d-drug-pricing-proposed-rule-cms-4180-p.

The proposed rule (CMS-4180-P) can be downloaded from the Federal Register at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2018-25945.pdf

###

Get CMS news at cms.gov/newsroom, sign up for CMS news via email and follow CMS on Twitter CMS Administrator @SeemaCMS

SOURCE

https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/cms-takes-action-lower-prescription-drug-costs-modernizing-medicare?mc_cid=ca8901d1c5&mc_eid=32328d8919

Read Full Post »


Live Conference Coverage @Medcitynews Converge 2018 Philadelphia:Liquid Biopsy and Gene Testing vs Reimbursement Hurdles

9:25- 10:15 Liquid Biopsy and Gene Testing vs. Reimbursement Hurdles

Genetic testing, whether broad-scale or single gene-testing, is being ordered by an increasing number of oncologists, but in many cases, patients are left to pay for these expensive tests themselves. How can this dynamic be shifted? What can be learned from the success stories?

Moderator: Shoshannah Roth, Assistant Director of Health Technology Assessment and Information Services , ECRI Institute @Ecri_Institute
Speakers:
Rob Dumanois, Manager – reimbursement strategy, Thermo Fisher Scientific
Eugean Jiwanmall, Senior Research Analyst for Medical Policy & Technology Evaluation , Independence Blue Cross @IBX
Michael Nall, President and Chief Executive Officer, Biocept

 

Michael: Wide range of liquid biopsy services out there.  There are screening companies however they are young and need lots of data to develop pan diagnostic test.  Most of liquid biopsy is more for predictive analysis… especially therapeutic monitoring.  Sometimes solid biopsies are impossible , limited, or not always reliable due to metastasis or tough to biopsy tissues like lung.

Eugean:  Circulating tumor cells and ctDNA is the only FDA approved liquid biopsies.  However you choose then to evaluate the liquid biopsy, PCR NGS, FISH etc, helps determines what the reimbursement options are available.

Rob:  Adoption of reimbursement for liquid biopsy is moving faster in Europe than the US.  It is possible in US that there may be changes to the payment in one to two years though.

Michael:  China is adopting liquid biopsy rapidly.  Patients are demanding this in China.

Reimbursement

Eugean:  For IBX to make better decisions we need more clinical trials to correlate with treatment outcome.  Most of the major cancer networks, like NCCN, ASCO, CAP, just have recommendations and not approved guidelines at this point.  From his perspective with lung cancer NCCN just makes a suggestion with EGFR mutations however only the companion diagnostic is approved by FDA.

Michael:  Fine needle biopsies are usually needed by the pathologist anyway before they go to liquid biopsy as need to know the underlying mutations in the original tumor, it just is how it is done in most cancer centers.

Eugean:  Whatever the established way of doing things, you have to outperform the clinical results of the old method for adoption of a newer method.

Reimbursement issues have driven a need for more research into clinical validity and utility of predictive and therapeutic markers with regard to liquid biopsies.  However although many academic centers try to partner with Biocept Biocept has a limit of funds and must concentrate only on a few trials.  The different payers use different evidence based methods to evaluate liquid biopsy markers.  ECRI also has a database for LB markers using an evidence based criteria.  IBX does sees consistency among payers as far as decision and policy.

NGS in liquid biopsy

Rob: There is a path to coverage, especially through the FDA.  If you have a FDA cleared NGS test, it will be covered.  These are long and difficult paths to reimbursement for NGS but it is feasible. Medicare line of IBX covers this testing, however on the commercial side they can’t cover this.  @IBX: for colon only kras or nras has clinical utility and only a handful of other cancer related genes for other cancers.  For a companion diagnostic built into that Dx do the other markers in the panel cost too much?

Please follow on Twitter using the following #hash tags and @pharma_BI

#MCConverge

#cancertreatment

#healthIT

#innovation

#precisionmedicine

#healthcaremodels

#personalizedmedicine

#healthcaredata

And at the following handles:

@pharma_BI

@medcitynews

Read Full Post »


Live Conference Coverage @Medcity Converge 2018 Philadelphia: Oncology Value Based Care and Patient Management

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

3:15 – 4:00 PM Breakout: What’s A Good Model for Value-Based Care in Oncology?

How do you implement a value-based care model in oncology? Medicare has created a bundled payment model in oncology and there are lessons to be learned from that and other programs. Listen to two presentations from experts in the field.

Moderator: Mahek Shah, M.D., Senior Researcher, Harvard Business School @Mahek_MD
Speakers:
Charles Saunders M.D., CEO, Integra Connect
Mari Vandenburgh, Director of Value-Based Reimbursement Operations, Highmark @Highmark

 

Mari: Building strategic partnerships with partners focused on population based health and evidence based outcomes. they provide data analytics and consultative services.  Incorporate risk based systems.  also looking at ancillary segments because they see cost savings.  True Performance is their flagship performance program and 11% lower ED (saving $18 million) rates and 16% lower readmissions ($200 million cost savings).  Also launched the Highmark Cancer care Program with Johns Hopkins.  They monitor the adherence pathways and if clinician shows good adherence they give reimbursements.

Charles:  Integra is a cloud based care platform focused on oncology and urology and allow clinicians to practice value based care. Providers must now focus on total cost including ER visits, end of life and therapies (which is half of total cost in US).  The actionable ways to reduce costs is by reducing ER visits.  What is working? Data on reimbursements models is very accurate so practices can dig into data and find effieciencies.  However most practices do not have the analytics to do this.

  • care navigation
  • care path based treatment choices
  • enhanced patient access and experience

What is not working

  • data not structured so someone has to do manual curation of records
  • flawed logic based on plurality of visits but physician doesn’t know who else they saw
  • target pricing not taking into account high prices of new therapies
  • lack of timely reporting either by patient or physician
  • insufficient reimbursements
  • technology limitations

 

4:10- 4:55 Breakout: What Patients Want and Need On Their Journey

Cancer patients are living with an existential threat every day. A panel of patients and experts in oncology care management will discuss what’s needed to make the journey for oncology patients a bit more bearable.

sponsored by CEO Council for Growth

Moderator: Amanda Woodworth, M.D., Director of Breast Health, Drexel University College of Medicine
Speakers:
Kezia Fitzgerald, Chief Innovation Officer & Co-Founder, CareAline® Products, LLC
Sara Hayes, Senior Director of Community Development, Health Union @SaraHayes_HU
Katrece Nolen, Cancer Survivor and Founder, Find Cancer Help @KatreceNolen
John Simpkins, Administrative DirectorService Line Director of the Cancer Center, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia @ChildrensPhila

 

Kezia: was a cancer patient as well as her child getting treated at two different places and tough part was coordinating everything including treatments and schedules, working schedules

Katrece: had problem scheduling with oncologists because misdiagnosis and her imaging records were on CD and surgeon could not use the CD

John:  the above are a common frustration among patients at a time when they don’t need the confusion. He feels cancer centers need to coordinate these services better

Sara:  trying to assist people with this type of coordination is very tough even with all the resources

Kazia:  she needed to do all the research on her own because big dichotomy being an adult and a pediatric patient where pediatrics get more information and patient centered care. She felt she felt burdening the physicians if she asked the same questions.  How can we get more interaction with primary care physicians and feel comfortable with their interaction?

John: there is this dichotomy especially on wait times for adults is usually longer.  We can also improve patient experience with counseling patients

Katrece: Just working with a patient navigator is not enough.  The patient needs to take charge of their disease.

Sara: Patient communities can help as sometimes patients learn from other patients.

Amanda:  in breast cancer , navigators are common but must take care they are not only people patients see after a while

John:  at CHOP they also have a financial navigator.  On the adult side there are on call financial navigators.  Recent change of the high deductible plans are a major problem.  Although new families are starting to become comfortable with the financial navigator

Katrece:  guiding your children through your experience is important.  It was also important for her to advocate for herself as she had three different sites of cancer care to coordinate and multiple teams to coordinate with each other

Amanda:  A common theme seems to be hard trying to find the resources you need.  Why is that?

Kazia:  Sometimes it is hard to talk about your disease because it can be emotionally draining comforting other people who you told about the disease and they are being empathetic.  Sometimes they want to keep their ‘journey’ to themselves

John:  A relative kept her disease secret because she didn’t want to burden others…. a common cancer patient concern

Sara: Moderation of a social group is necessary to keep it a safe space and prevent trollers (like in Facebook support groups).

Kazia:  most group members will get together and force those trollers out of the group

Katrece: alot of anxiety after treatment ends, patient feels like being dropped on the floor like they don’t get support after treatment.  If there were survivorship navigators might be helpful

Amanda: for breast cancer they do a Survivor Care Package but just a paper packet, patients do appreciate it but a human coordinator would be a great idea

 

 

 

 

Please follow on Twitter using the following #hashtags and @pharma_BI

#MCConverge

#cancertreatment

#healthIT

#innovation

#precisionmedicine

#healthcaremodels

#personalizedmedicine

#healthcaredata

And at the following handles:

@pharma_BI

@medcitynews

 

Please see related articles on Live Coverage of Previous Meetings on this Open Access Journal

LIVE – Real Time – 16th Annual Cancer Research Symposium, Koch Institute, Friday, June 16, 9AM – 5PM, Kresge Auditorium, MIT

Real Time Coverage and eProceedings of Presentations on 11/16 – 11/17, 2016, The 12th Annual Personalized Medicine Conference, HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL, Joseph B. Martin Conference Center, 77 Avenue Louis Pasteur, Boston

Tweets Impression Analytics, Re-Tweets, Tweets and Likes by @AVIVA1950 and @pharma_BI for 2018 BioIT, Boston, 5/15 – 5/17, 2018

BIO 2018! June 4-7, 2018 at Boston Convention & Exhibition Center

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/press-coverage/

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »