Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29915640›Full record

ReviewAmerican health & drug benefits2018

Standardized Review and Approval Process for High-Cost Medication Use Promotes Value-Based Care in a Large Academic Medical System.

Raghu Durvasula, Janet Kelly, Anneliese Schleyer, Bradley D Anawalt, Shabir Somani, Timothy H Dellit

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in American health & drug benefits, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Patient Safety: A Deep Concern to Caregivers.Innovations in pharmacy · 2019
    Article
  11. The Value of Pediatricians on Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committees.P & T : a peer-reviewed journal for formulary management · 2019
    Article
  12. 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.

Raghu DurvasulaAssociate Professor of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle.
Janet KellyAssistant Director of Pharmacy Services, University of Washington Medical Center.
Anneliese SchleyerAssociate Professor of Medicine, Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington.
Bradley D AnawaltProfessor of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Washington.
Shabir SomaniChief Pharmacy Officer and Assistant Dean, University of Washington School of Pharmacy.
Timothy H DellitProfessor of Medicine, Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington School of Medicine.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs healthcare costs rise and reimbursements decrease, healthcare organization leadership and clinical providers must collaborate to provide high-value healthcare. Medications are a key driver of the increasing cost of healthcare, largely as a result of the proliferation of expensive specialty drugs, including biologic agents. Such medications contribute significantly to the inpatient diagnosis-related group payment system, often with minimal or unproved benefit over less-expensive therapies.

objectiveTo describe a systematic review process to reduce non-evidence-based inpatient use of high-cost medications across a large multihospital academic health system.

methodsWe created a Pharmacy & Therapeutics subcommittee consisting of clinicians, pharmacists, and an ethics representative. This committee developed a standardized process for a timely review (<48 hours) and approval of high-cost medications based on their clinical effectiveness, safety, and appropriateness. The engagement of clinical experts in the development of the consensus-based guidelines for the use of specific medications facilitated the clinicians' acceptance of the review process.

resultsOver a 2-year period, a total of 85 patient-specific requests underwent formal review. All reviews were conducted within 48 hours. This review process has reduced the non-evidence-based use of specialty medications and has resulted in a pharmacy savings of $491,000 in fiscal year 2016, with almost 80% of the savings occurring in the last 2 quarters, because our process has matured.

conclusionThe creation of a collaborative review process to ensure consistent, evidence-based utilization of high-cost medications provides value-based care, while minimizing unnecessary practice variation and reducing the cost of inpatient care.

Indexed as

cost-containmentmedication utilizationpharmacy costspractice transformationprocess improvementspecialty medicationsstandardized review processstewardshipvalue-based care

Identifiers

PMID29915640
PMCPMC5973244

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.