Value-Based Insurance Design

1. Value-Based Insurance Design A “Clinically Sensitive” Approach to Preserve Quality of Care and Contain Cost

3. Projected Per Capita Health Expenditures: No End in Sight Health care cost increases for employers were “moderate” in recent years, due for the most part to increasing cost sharing by the insured enrollee. 12000 10000 8000 Dollars 6000 4000 2000 0 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Source: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/statistics/nhe/projections-2003/t1.asp

4. Focus on Medical Technology Is Technology the “Culprit” Behind Cost Growth? • The tradeoffs between access to medical innovation and the how to pay for it is a complex and extremely political issue

5. Dealing with the Health Care Cost Crisis Interventions to Control Costs • Denial • Prior authorization • 1-800-NO-WAY • Drive to Canada

7. Dealing with the Health Care Cost Crisis Interventions to Control Costs • Denial • Prior authorization • 1-800-NO-WAY • Drive to Canada • Disease Management

8. Benefit Design Trends:Disease Management • Manage the most costly patients • Improves outcomes • May reduce costs - probably not • Lack of reduction in copays for recommended services do not reflect investment in disease management

10. Dealing with the Health Care Cost Crisis Interventions to Control Costs • Denial • Prior authorization • 1-800-NO-WAY • Drive to Canada • Disease Management • Cost Sharing

11. Benefit Design Trends: Cost Sharing Tiered Formularies Copay set on drug price, not value • Generic drugs - lowest copay • Preferred brand - middle • Non-preferred brand - highest

12. Different Cost-Sharing Formulas for Prescription Drugs, 2000-2005 Average Co-Pay in 2005 Tier 1 $10 Tier 2 $22 Tier 3 $35 Tier 4 $74 Source: Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Education Trust

13. Impact of Increased Cost Sharing on Utilization • A growing body of evidence demonstrates that cost shifting leads to decreases in essential and non-essential care

14. Compliance with Statin Therapy Stratified by Mean Prescription Copayment $0 to <$10 $10 to <$20 >$20 Ellis JJ. J Gen Intern Med 2004;19:639-646.

15. Benefit Design Trends: Cost Sharing Consumer Driven Health Plans • Centerpiece of competitive market based reform proposals • Charge consumers high out-of-pocket fees • Will likely reduce costs • No evidence whether CDHPs reduce cost growth • Likely will lead to worse clinical outcomes • Assumption that consumer is informed

16. Getting Services to People Who Need Them Should the Patient Decide? • If the patient is not the appropriate decision maker, the system should provide guidance and incentives to promote better decisions

17. Getting Services to People Who Need Them Who Gets the Essential Care? • Everybody • Those who “fail” standard Rx • Those who demand it

19. Getting Services to People Who Need Them Who Gets the Essential Care? • Everybody • Those who “fail” standard Rx • Those who demand it • Those who can afford it

20. Getting Services to People Who Need Them Who Gets the Essential Care? • Everybody • Those who “fail” standard Rx • Those who demand it • Those who can afford it • Those who “need” it

21. Getting Services to People Who Need Them Value Based Insurance DesignHeretofore known as the “Benefit-based” Co-pay • In current system, patients’ access to services depend on ability to pay • Such a system discriminates against those with limited incomes • As a result, underutilization of effective therapies persists in several clinical areas • Distribution is not directed at medical “need”

22. Number Needed to Treat to Prevent a Cardiac Event with Statins, by Prevention Category NNT to prevent CV event Ellis JJ. J Gen Intern Med 2004;19:639-646.

23. No Difference in Statin Compliance Stratified by Prevention Category Secondary prevention cohort Primary prevention cohort Ellis JJ. J Gen Intern Med 2004;19:639-646.

24. Impact of Increased Cost Sharing on Utilization • A strategy to offset the undesirable decrease use of essential services due to cost shifting is warranted

25. Getting Services to People Who Need Them Value Based Insurance DesignHeretofore known as the “Benefit-based” Co-pay • Instead, base cost sharing on • likelihood of a service’s benefit as determined from the scientific evidence • NOT the acquisition price • Such a system would provide a financial incentive to patients most likely to benefit from the use of a specific intervention Fendrick, Chernew, Smith. Am J Managed Care. 2001;7:861

26. From “One Size Fits All” Cost Sharing to “Clinically Sensitive” Benefit Design Cost sharing set on value, not price • Highly valued services - lowest copay • Effective yet expensive - middle • Unproven or marginal benefit - highest Fendrick, Chernew. Am J Managed Care. 2006;1.

27. Value Based Insurance DesignClinical Examples • Immunizations • Diabetes Mellitus

28. Value Based Insurance Design (VBID)Examples: Predictive Modeling • Diabetes Mellitus • Medicare first-dollar coverage (co-pays waived) of ACE inhibitors resulted in nearly one million life years gained and a net savings of $7.4 billion over the cohort lifetime Rosen AB, et al. Ann Intern Med. 2005;143:89.

29. Value Based Insurance Design (VBID)Examples: Predictive Modeling • Lipid Lowering Agents • Eliminating co-pays for statin users at medium or high risk of CHD averted 110,000 hospitalizations or ER visits and saved $1 billion annually Goldman DG, et al. Am J Manag Care. 2006;12:21.

30. Implementing Value Based Insurance DesignOther Clinical Examples • Asthma • lower co-pay as disease severity increases • Cancer screening • lower co-pay if family history, tumor markers etc. • CHF, etc….

31. Experience in the Implementation & Evaluation of VBID

33. Pitney Bowes“A Radical Prescription” • Fortune 500 Company with 40,000 employees • Reduced co-pays for diabetes & asthma meds • Outcomes: • Use of & adherence to diabetes/asthma drugs rose • Overall drug costs fell – fewer rescue medications • Asthma ER visits declined 35% • Reported total savings of $1 million? $2.5 million? *Wall Street Journal, May 10, 2004 *Pitney Bowes, December, 2005

35. VBID for Diabetes MellitusThe Asheville Project • Intensive pharmacist management • Focus on coached self-management • Co-pays waived for participation • Five year outcomes included • Marked increases in medication adherence • Diabetes performance measures 2-3x higher • Overall costs 58% below expected trend • Average annual sick leave halved Cranor et al. J Am Pharm Assoc, 2003.

36. VBID for University of Michigan (UM) Employees with Diabetes Mellitus

38. University of Michigan Intervention Overview • Phased intervention of co-pay reductions for evidence-based therapies for diabetes and CVD • All UM employees & dependants with diabetes will receive 2yr intervention of co-pay reductions for: • ACE Inhibitors and ARBs • Other antihypertensives • Statins • Glycemic agents • Antidepressants

39. University of Michigan Intervention Outcome Measures • Adherence • Based on pharmacy claims (MPR) • Outcomes • Medication spending • Total health care spending • Absenteeism

40. From “One Size Fits All” Cost Sharing to “Clinically Sensitive” Benefit Design Cost sharing set on value, not price • Highly valued services - lowest copay • Effective yet expensive - middle • Unproven or marginal benefit - highest Fendrick, Chernew. Am J Managed Care. 2006;1.

41. Implementing Value Based Insurance DesignThe Devil is in the Details • Clinical benefit of a specific intervention must be easily identified on an individual patient level • Patients and clinicians must be willing participants (and not game the system) • Enhanced when used with electronic medical record and/or disease management program • Convincing key stakeholders of the “value”

42. Value Based Insurance Design Preserve Quality and Contain Cost • Will increase value of medical services per dollar spent • Allows more efficient subsidization of low income patients • Not all care is subsidized, only “valued” care • VBID may not save money in most instances • More likely to slow rate of health care cost growth

43. Value Based Insurance Design Preserve Quality and Contain Cost • Access to services should be driven by differences in benefit, risk of adverse events, and (but not exclusively) acquisition cost • Payers need to actively experiment with benefit designs to simultaneously maintain enrollee satisfaction and stem rising costs • VBID preserves use of valued services in atmosphere of increased cost shifting

44. Center for Value Based Insurance Design Preserve Quality and Contain Cost • Engages in the development, evaluation and promotion of insurance products that encourage the efficient expenditures of health care dollars and optimize the benefits of care Fendrick and Chernew. Am J Managed Care. 2006;1:18

45. Getting Services to People Who Need Them Conclusions • A system that provides a financial incentive to prioritize out-of-pocket expenditures based on the “value” of interventions, not price, is consistent with the basic goals of health care Fendrick, Chernew, Smith. Am J Managed Care. 2001;7:861

46. “If we don’t succeed, then we will fail.”Dan Quayle