Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27579939›Full record

ArticleJournal of managed care & specialty pharmacy2016

Biosimilars: Opportunities to Promote Optimization Through Payer and Provider Collaboration.

Chronis H Manolis, Kiran Rajasenan, William Harwin, Scott McClelland, Maria Lopes, Carolyn Farnum

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Biosimilars: Considerations for Payers.P & T : a peer-reviewed journal for formulary management · 2019
    Article
  9. Article
  10. The role of biosimilars in value-based oncology care.Cancer management and research · 2018
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Chronis H Manolis1 UPMC Health Plan, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Kiran Rajasenan2 University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
William Harwin3 Florida Cancer Specialists & Research Institute, Fort Myers, Florida.
Scott McClelland4 Florida Blue, Jacksonville, Florida.
Maria Lopes5 CDMI/Magellan Rx Management, Newport, Rhode Island.
Carolyn Farnum5 CDMI/Magellan Rx Management, Newport, Rhode Island.
Magellan Health · USTexas College · USFlorida Cancer Specialists & Research Institute · USUniversity of Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A panel was convened that consisted of 1 medical director, 2 pharmacy directors, and 2 oncologists, who represented the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Health Plan, an integrated delivery network, and Florida Blue, a progressive regional health plan. This panel met in order to share ideas, discuss challenges, and develop practical solutions to promote optimal utilization in order to encourage collaboration between payers and providers to help ensure the success of biosimilar entrants into the marketplace. Live meetings were conducted in Orlando, Florida, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and were followed by virtual meetings to solidify ideas and concepts for this supplement. It is important for biosimilar manufacturers to identify potential payer, provider, and patient obstacles in order to develop strategic and tactical plans to preemptively address these potential obstacles. Gathering payer and provider insights will shed light on various issues such as access and reimbursement. Biosimilar manufacturers must be proactive in the education of payers, providers, and patients to ensure access to biosimilars. A strong factor emphasized among this group was that the assumption surrounding biosimilar development and use is the potential for health care cost savings. According to the panel, payers and providers must carefully consider economic implications and potential cost-effectiveness in order to increase the acceptance or understanding of biosimilars in clinical practice. The group identified 3 major challenges surrounding biosimilar adoption: (1) provider confidence in biosimilar education and clinical value, (2) provider confidence in reimbursement for new biosimilars, and (3) creating shared payer and provider cost-savings. After identification of the 3 challenges, the group posed potential solutions to help with biosimilar adoption.

Indexed as

Biosimilar PharmaceuticalsCost-Benefit AnalysisCost SavingsDrug ApprovalHealth PersonnelHumansIntersectoral CollaborationMarketingPharmaceutical ServicesBiosimilar Pharmaceuticals

Identifiers

PMID27579939
PMCPMC10408397
OpenAlexW2508040614

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.