Kimberly Westrich, MA, of the National Pharmaceutical Council, explained how she envisions value assessment tools to be used in the US health care system in coming years.
Kimberly Westrich, MA, chief strategic officer at the National Pharmaceutical Council (NPC), discussed the future of value assessment tools in the US health care system. In her role, she provides strategic guidance to NPC’s policy research and communications activities, leads several research initiatives across NPC’s portfolio, and mentors NPC researchers and fellows.
Transcript
How do you envision the future of value assessment tools in the US health care system? What trends do you expect to shape the field in coming years?
This brings to mind an interesting conversation that's been happening for a few years. I don't think it's going to be settled soon, but there's been ongoing conversations about whether or not we need a national value assessment, or health technology assessment, body here in the United States. Outside of the United States, there are many countries that have a single health technology assessment body, and that makes sense because, outside of the United States, there's often centralized health insurance provided by the government; of course, here in the United States, we've got a decentralized system.
That said, there are many people who think that it would still be useful to have a centralized health technology assessment body, and there's been recent conversations looking at CMS and some of the things that CMS is doing related to, for example, coverage with evidence development for Alzheimer's disease, or getting involved in Medicare drug price negotiation. There are people who think, "Well, CMS is already starting to do some things that seem to be consistent with value assessment, and should CMS be a value assessment body?" There's people on both sides of the issue, some people think that CMS should be leaning into that, some people say, "This is not a direction for CMS, it would be biting off more than it can chew, and if we did have a health assessment body here in the United States, it shouldn't be CMS."
We [Cencora] actually added some questions to our Managed Care Network survey this year to see if payers in the United States have an appetite for a national health assessment body, and, if so, what they might want that body to do. Surprisingly, 85% of payers were interested in having a national value assessment body. There was sort of a split between whether they wanted it to be government funded, that was about 50% of payers. Then, 40% were interested in a split between government and private funding so that you had funding coming from multiple sources; it wasn't beholden to just one part of the economy.
The interesting data was when we asked about what this value assessment body might do, 85% of the respondents were interested in having a value assessment body that looked at best practices and standards, really understanding, what does good value assessment look like? Seven out of 10 (this was a multiple response question) were interested in having a national HTA [health technology assessment] body that looked at quality value assessment reports that were conducted by others. For example, if ICER [the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review] does a value assessment report, this national assessment body could look at it and say whether or not it was of good quality. So, that was something that was very interesting to payers, as well. Then, a lower percentage, but still noteworthy, I think, closer to 6 in 10 were interested in a national assessment body that did conduct its own value assessment. So, there's most interest in what does good look like? Is this report an example of good? Then, still interest, but lesser interest, in conducting value assessments.
Still, when you step back and you look at all of that together, here, I think there is interest in getting more value assessment information by US payers, I don't think there's interest in prescriptive value assessment information, or something that says, "This is how this should be used." Here in the United States, we're always interested in having more information, more is better, but we don't want someone to tell us exactly how to use that information in a prescriptive way.
This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.
Enhancing Outpatient Hemophilia Care May Improve Health Outcomes and Costs
May 18th 2024Prospective data from patients attending a rural practice in West Virginia between 2016 and 2023 show that a quality improvement program that followed guideline recommendations and was tailored to specific patient needs reduced preventable bleeds and lowered costs.
Read More
Health Equity and Access Weekly Roundup: May 18, 2024
May 18th 2024The US Senate hosted a panel addressing physician and health care shortages and efforts to increase minority representation in the medical field. An expert discussed initiatives to prevent senior homelessness. Advocates called for the repeal of the Comstock Act. Regulatory reforms are called for to improve rural cancer patients' access to pharmacies. Research reveals the impact of denials on patient access to immunology treatments.
Read More
Frameworks for Advancing Health Equity: Urban Health Outreach
May 9th 2024In the series debut episode of "Frameworks for Advancing Health Equity," Mary Sligh, CRNP, and Chelsea Chappars, of Allegheny Health Network, explain how the Urban Health Outreach program aims to improve health equity for individuals experiencing homelessness.
Listen
ATS 2024: Bridging the Past, Present, and Future of Respiratory Care
May 16th 2024The application of artificial intelligence in medicine is anticipated as a highlight of ATS 2024, with sessions exploring its applications in research, radiological interpretation, and pediatric pulmonology.
Read More