BACKGROUND: This study aimed to examine the reporting quality of existing economic evaluations for negotiated glucose-lowering drugs (GLDs) included in China National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2013 (CHEERS 2013).
METHODS: We performed a systematic literature research through 7 databases to identify published economic evaluations for GLDs included in the China NRDL up to March 2021. Reporting quality of identified studies was assessed by two independent reviewers based on the CHEERS checklist. The Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test were performed to examine the association between reporting quality and characteristics of the identified studies.
RESULTS: We have identified 24 studies, which evaluated six GLDs types. The average score rate of the included studies was 77.41% (SD:13.23%, Range 47.62%-91.67%). Among all the required reporting items, characterizing heterogeneity (score rate = 4.17%) was the least satisfied item. Among six parts of CHEERS, results part scored least at 0.55 (score rate = 54.79%) because of the incompleteness of characterizing uncertainty. Results from the Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test showed that model choice, journal type, type of economic evaluations, and study perspective were associated with the reporting quality of the studies.
CONCLUSIONS: There remains room to improve the reporting quality of economic evaluations for GLDs in NRDL. Checklists such as CHEERS should be widely used to improve the reporting quality of economic researches in China.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the body of literature examining episode-based bundled payment models effect on health care spending, utilization, and quality of care for surgical conditions.
UNASSIGNED: Episode-based bundled payments were developed as a strategy to lower healthcare spending and improve coordination across phases of healthcare. Surgical conditions may be well-suited targets for bundled payments because they often have defined periods of care and widely variable healthcare spending. In bundled payment models, hospitals receive financial incentives to reduce spending on care provided to patients during a predefined clinical episode. Despite the recent proliferation of bundles for surgical conditions, a collective understanding of their effect is not yet clear.
METHODS: A scoping review was conducted, and four databases were queried from inception through September 27, 2021, with search strings for bundled payments and surgery. All studies were screened independently by two authors for inclusion.
RESULTS: Our search strategy yielded a total of 879 unique articles of which 222 underwent a full-text review and 28 met final inclusion criteria. Of these studies, most (23 of 28) evaluated the impact of voluntary bundled payments in orthopedic surgery and found that bundled payments are associated with reduced spending on total care episodes, attributed primarily to decreases in post-acute care spending. Despite reduced spending, clinical outcomes (e.g., readmissions, complications, and mortality) were not worsened by participation. Evidence supporting the effects of bundled payments on cost and clinical outcomes in other non-orthopedic surgical conditions remains limited.
CONCLUSIONS: Present evaluations of bundled payments primarily focus on orthopedic conditions and demonstrate cost savings without compromising clinical outcomes. Evidence for the effect of bundles on other surgical conditions and implications for quality and access to care remain limited.

Addressing primary care\'s low confidence in detecting and managing chronic liver disease is becoming increasingly important owing to the escalating prevalence of its common lifestyle-related metabolic risk factors - obesity, physical inactivity, smoking and alcohol consumption. Whilst liver blood testing is frequently carried out in the management of long-term conditions, its interpretation is not typically focused on specific liver disease risk. Educational steps for primary care should outline how liver fibrosis is the flag of pathological concern, encourage use of pragmatic algorithms such as fibrosis-4 index to differentiate between those requiring referral for further fibrosis risk assessment and those who can be managed in the community, and emphasise that isolated minor liver function test abnormalities are unreliable for estimating the risk of fibrosis progression. Measures to increase primary care\'s interest and engagement should make use of existing frameworks for the management of long-term conditions, so that liver disease is considered alongside other metabolic disorders, including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease etc. Selling points when considering the required investment in developing local fibrosis assessment pathways include reduced repeat testing of minor abnormalities and improved secondary care referrals, plus improvements in the patient\'s journey through long-term multimorbidity care. A focus on improving chronic liver disease is likely to have wide-ranging benefits across co-existing metabolic disorders, particularly when pathways are aligned with community lifestyle support services. The important message for primary care is to increase the value of existing monitoring rather than to generate more work.

暂无摘要。

The goal of bundled payments-lump monetary sums designed to cover the full set of services needed to provide care for a condition or medical event-is to provide a reimbursement structure that incentivizes improved value for patients. There is concern that such a payment mechanism may lead to patient screening and denying or providing orthopaedic care to patients based on the number and severity of comorbid conditions present associated with complications after surgery. Currently, however, there is no clear consensus about whether such an association exists.
In this systematic review, we asked: (1) Is the implementation of a bundled payment model associated with a change in the sociodemographic characteristics of patients undergoing an orthopaedic procedure? (2) Is the implementation of a bundled payment model associated with a change in the comorbidities and/or case-complexity characteristics of patients undergoing an orthopaedic procedure? (3) Is the implementation of a bundled payment model associated with a change in the recent use of healthcare resources characteristics of patients undergoing an orthopaedic procedure?
This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO before data collection (CRD42020189416). Our systematic review included scientific manuscripts published in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Econlit, Policyfile, and Google Scholar through March 2020. Of the 30 studies undergoing full-text review, 20 were excluded because they did not evaluate the outcome of interest (patient selection) (n = 8); were editorial, commentary, or review articles (n = 5); did not evaluate the appropriate intervention (introduction of a bundled payment program) (n = 4); or assessed the wrong patient population (not orthopaedic surgery patients) (n = 3). This led to 10 studies included in this systematic review. For each study, patient factors analyzed in the included studies were grouped into the following three categories: sociodemographics, comorbidities and/or case complexity, or recent use of healthcare resources characteristics. Next, each patient factor falling into one of these three categories was examined to evaluate for changes from before to after implementation of a bundled payment initiative. In most cases, studies utilized a difference-in-difference (DID) statistical technique to assess for changes. Determination of whether the bundled payment initiative required mandatory participation or not was also noted. Scientific quality using the Adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale had a median (range) score of 8 (7 to 8; highest possible score: 9), and the quality of the total body of evidence for each patient characteristic group was found to be low using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) tool. We could not assess the likelihood of publication using funnel plots because of the variation of patient factors analyzed in each study and the heterogeneity of data precluded a meta-analysis.
Of the nine included studies that reported on the sociodemographic characteristics of patients selected for care, seven showed no change with the implementation of bundled payments, and two demonstrated a difference. Most notably, the studies identified a decrease in the percentage of patients undergoing an orthopaedic operative intervention who were dual-eligible (range DID estimate -0.4% [95% CI -0.75% to -0.1%]; p < 0.05 to DID estimate -1.0% [95% CI -1.7% to -0.2%]; p = 0.01), which means they qualified for both Medicare and Medicaid insurance coverage. Of the 10 included studies that reported on comorbidities and case-complexity characteristics, six reported no change in such characteristics with the implementation of bundled payments, and four studies noted differences. Most notably, one study showed a decrease in the number of treated patients with disabilities (DID estimate -0.6% [95% CI -0.97% to -0.18%]; p < 0.05) compared with before bundled payment implementation, while another demonstrated a lower number of Elixhauser comorbidities for those treated as part of a bundled payment program (before: score of 0-1 in 63.6%, 2-3 in 27.9%, > 3 in 8.5% versus after: score of 0-1 in 50.1%, 2-3 in 38.7%, > 3 in 11.2%; p = 0.033). Of the three included studies that reported on the recent use of healthcare resources of patients, one study found no difference in the use of healthcare resources with the implementation of bundled payments, and two studies did find differences. Both studies found a decrease in patients undergoing operative management who recently received care at a skilled nursing facility (range DID estimate -0.50% [95% CI -1.0% to 0.0%]; p = 0.04 to DID estimate: -0.53% [95% CI -0.96% to -0.10%]; p = 0.01), while one of the studies also found a decrease in patients undergoing operative management who recently received care at an acute care hospital (DID estimate -0.8% [95% CI -1.6% to -0.1%]; p = 0.03) or as part of home healthcare (DID estimate -1.3% [95% CI -2.0% to -0.6%]; p < 0.001).
In six of 10 studies in which differences in patient characteristics were detected among those undergoing operative orthopaedic intervention once a bundled payment program was initiated, the effect was found to be minimal (approximately 1% or less). However, our findings still suggest some level of adverse patient selection, potentially worsening health inequities when considered on a large scale. It is also possible that our findings reflect better care, whereby the financial incentives lead to fewer patients with a high risk of complications undergoing surgical intervention and vice versa for patients with a low risk of complications postoperatively. However, this is a fine line, and it may also be that patients with a high risk of complications postoperatively are not being offered surgery enough, while patients at low risk of complications postoperatively are being offered surgery too frequently. Evaluation of the longer-term effect of these preliminary bundled payment programs on patient selection is warranted to determine whether adverse patient selection changes over time as health systems and orthopaedic surgeons become accustomed to such reimbursement models.

BACKGROUND: Free maternal healthcare financing schemes play an essential role in the quality of services rendered to clients during antenatal care in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). However, healthcare managers\' and providers\' perceptions of the healthcare financing scheme may influence the quality of care. This scoping review mapped evidence on managers\' and providers\' perspectives of free maternal healthcare and the quality of care in SSA.
METHODS: We used Askey and O\'Malley\'s framework as a guide to conduct this review. To address the research question, we searched PubMed, CINAHL through EBSCOhost, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, and Google Scholar with no date limitation to May 2019 using keywords, Boolean terms, and Medical Subject Heading terms to retrieve relevant articles. Both abstract and full articles screening were conducted independently by two reviewers using the inclusion and exclusion criteria as a guide. All significant data were extracted, organized into themes, and a summary of the findings reported narratively.
RESULTS: In all, 15 out of 390 articles met the inclusion criteria. These 15 studies were conducted in nine countries. That is, Ghana (4), Kenya (3), and Nigeria (2), Burkina Faso (1), Burundi (1), Niger (1), Sierra Leone (1), Tanzania (1), and Uganda (1). Of the 15 included studies, 14 reported poor quality of maternal healthcare from managers\' and providers\' perspectives. Factors contributing to the perception of poor maternal healthcare included: late reimbursement of funds, heavy workload of providers, lack of essential drugs and stock-out of medical supplies, lack of policy definition, out-of-pocket payment, and inequitable distribution of staff.
CONCLUSIONS: This study established evidence of existing literature on the quality of care based on healthcare providers\' and managers\' perspectives though very limited. This study indicates healthcare providers and managers perceive the quality of maternal healthcare under the free financing policy as poor. Nonetheless, the free maternal care policy is very much needed towards achieving universal health, and all efforts to sustain and improve the quality of care under it must be encouraged. Therefore, more research is needed to better understand the impact of their perceived poor quality of care on maternal health outcomes.

A common denial trend that occurs with \"outpatient medical benefit drugs\" (ie, medications covered by a medical benefit plan and administered in an outpatient visit) is payers not requiring or permitting prior authorization (PA) proactively, yet denying the drug after administration for medical necessity. In this situation, a preemptive strategy of complying with payer-mandated requirements is critical for revenue protection. To address this need, our institution incorporated a medical necessity review into its existing closed-loop, pharmacy-managed precertification and denials management program.
Referrals for targeted payers and high-cost medical benefit drugs not eligible for PA and deemed high risk for denial were incorporated into the review. Payer medical policies were evaluated and clinical documentation assessed to confirm alignment. This descriptive report outlines the medical necessity workflow as a component of the larger precertification process, details the decision-making process when performing the review, and delineates the roles and responsibilities for involved team members. A total of 526 drug orders were evaluated from September 2018 to August 2019, with 146 interventions completed. Of the 761 individual claims affected by proactive medical necessity review, 99.2% resulted in payment and less than 1% resulted in revenue loss, safeguarding more than $5.3 million in annual institutional drug reimbursement. At the time of analysis, there were only 3 cases of revenue loss.
Our institution\'s pharmacy-managed medical necessity review program for high-cost outpatient drugs safeguards reimbursement for therapies not eligible for payer PA. It is a revenue cycle best practice that can be replicated at other institutions.

In health insurance, a reimbursement mechanism refers to a method of third-party repayment to offset the use of medical services and equipment. This systematic review aimed to identify challenges and adverse outcomes generated by the implementation of reimbursement mechanisms based on the diagnosis-related group (DRG) classification system. All articles published between 1983 and 2017 and indexed in various databases were reviewed. Of the 1,475 articles identified, 36 were relevant and were included in the analysis. Overall, the most frequent challenges were increased costs (especially for severe diseases and specialised services), a lack of adequate supervision and technical infrastructure and the complexity of the method. Adverse outcomes included reduced length of patient stay, early patient discharge, decreased admissions, increased re-admissions and reduced services. Moreover, DRG-based reimbursement mechanisms often resulted in the referral of patients to other institutions, thus transferring costs to other sectors.

This study examines European decision makers\' consideration and use of quantitative preference data.
The study reviewed quantitative preference data usage in 31 European countries to support marketing authorization, reimbursement, or pricing decisions. Use was defined as: agency guidance on preference data use, sponsor submission of preference data, or decision-maker collection of preference data. The data could be collected from any stakeholder using any method that generated quantitative estimates of preferences. Data were collected through: (1) documentary evidence identified through a literature and regulatory websites review, and via key opinion leader outreach; and (2) a survey of staff working for agencies that support or make healthcare technology decisions.
Preference data utilization was identified in 22 countries and at a European level. The most prevalent use (19 countries) was citizen preferences, collected using time-trade off or standard gamble methods to inform health state utility estimation. Preference data was also used to: (1) value other impact on patients, (2) incorporate non-health factors into reimbursement decisions, and (3) estimate opportunity cost. Pilot projects were identified (6 countries and at a European level), with a focus on multi-criteria decision analysis methods and choice-based methods to elicit patient preferences.
While quantitative preference data support reimbursement and pricing decisions in most European countries, there was no utilization evidence in European-level marketing authorization decisions. While there are commonalities, a diversity of usage was identified between jurisdictions. Pilots suggest the potential for greater use of preference data, and for alignment between decision makers.

Objective: This study aims to provide an up-to-date analysis of the current state of patient access to new drugs in South Korea, focusing on the effect of new review pathways for reimbursement. Methods: We analyzed patients\' access to new drugs, listing rate and lead time until listing from marketing authorization. New pathways were defined as \'price negotiation waiver,\' \'risk-sharing agreements,\' and \'pharmacoeconomic evaluation exemption.\' Results: The listing rate for drugs increased after the introduction of the new pathways (93.7% vs. 77.9%, p < 0.001). Before the new pathways, the median lead time for listing was 21.0 months (95% CI: 16.9-25.0), while afterward it was shortened to 10.9 months (95% CI: 10.2-11.7) (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Although it has strengthened national health insurance coverage by positively impacting the rate and lead time, the lead time for the oncology and orphan drugs is substantially longer as compared to other drugs. Expanding the eligibility criteria to include non-life-threatening but rare or intractable diseases, and resolving the system\'s operational issues are still necessary.