ReviewAmerican health & drug benefits2018
Standardized Review and Approval Process for High-Cost Medication Use Promotes Value-Based Care in a Large Academic Medical System.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Challenges and opportunities for improvement in the practical management of adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia.Blood advances · 2025Review
- Factors affecting decisions of an HMO Drug Exemptions Committee on individual patient requests for coverage of non-formulary drugs.Israel journal of health policy research · 2024Article
- Reduce intraoperative albumin utilisation in cardiac surgical patients: a quality improvement initiative.BMJ open quality · 2024Article
- Case Report: Atypical HUS Presenting With Acute Rhabdomyolysis Highlights the Need for Individualized Eculizumab Dosing.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Article
- Inpatient Perioperative Formulary Restriction of Intravenous Acetaminophen at Vizient Partner Hospitals: A National Survey of Pharmacists.Hospital pharmacy · 2021Article
- Why Are Patients Switching from Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate/Emtricitabine (Truvada) to Tenofovir Alafenamide/Emtricitabine (Descovy) for Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis?AIDS patient care and STDs · 2021Article
- The Impact of an Antibiotic Stewardship Program on the Consumption of Specific Antimicrobials and Their Cost Burden: A Hospital-wide Intervention.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2020Article
- Precision Dosing Priority Criteria: Drug, Disease, and Patient Population Variables.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2020Review
- Outcomes of Inpatient Administration of Restricted Antineoplastic Medications at a Large Academic Medical Institution.P & T : a peer-reviewed journal for formulary management · 2019Article
- Patient Safety: A Deep Concern to Caregivers.Innovations in pharmacy · 2019Article
- The Value of Pediatricians on Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committees.P & T : a peer-reviewed journal for formulary management · 2019Article
- Standardized Review and Approval Process for High-Cost Medication Use Promotes Value-Based Care in a Large Academic Medical System.American health & drug benefits · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
29915640PMC5973244What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.