Estimating health care delivery system value for each US state and testing key associations

ObjectiveTo estimate health care systems'' value in treating major illnesses for each US state and identify system characteristics associated with value.Data sourcesAnnual condition‐specific death and incidence estimates for each US state from the Global Burden Disease 2019 Study and annual health care spending per person for each state from the National Health Expenditure Accounts.Study designUsing non‐linear meta‐stochastic frontier analysis, mortality incidence ratios for 136 major treatable illnesses were regressed separately on per capita health care spending and key covariates such as age, obesity, smoking, and educational attainment. State‐ and year‐specific inefficiency estimates were extracted for each health condition and combined to create a single estimate of health care delivery system value for each US state for each year, 1991–2014. The association between changes in health care value and changes in 23 key health care system characteristics and state policies was measured.Data collection/extraction methodsNot applicable.Principal findingsUS state with relatively high spending per person or relatively poor health‐outcomes were shown to have low health care delivery system value. New Jersey, Maryland, Florida, Arizona, and New York attained the highest value scores in 2014 (81 [95% uncertainty interval 72‐88], 80 [72‐87], 80 [71‐86], 77 [69‐84], and 77 [66‐85], respectively), after controlling for health care spending, age, obesity, smoking, physical activity, race, and educational attainment. Greater market concentration of hospitals and of insurers were associated with worse health care value (p‐value ranging from <0.01 to 0.02). Higher hospital geographic density and use were also associated with worse health care value (p‐value ranging from 0.03 to 0.05). Enrollment in Medicare Advantage HMOs was associated with better value, as was more generous Medicaid income eligibility (p‐value 0.04 and 0.01).ConclusionsSubstantial variation in the value of health care exists across states. Key health system characteristics such as market concentration and provider density were associated with value.     

DA8 Evaluating Health Outcomes and Pharmacoeconomic Literature

In 1997, the United States Pharmacopeia (USP) established an Ad Hoc Outcomes/Cost Effectiveness Advisory Panel to consider the development of specifications for compiling, indexing, and evaluating outcomes research/cost-effectiveness literature on a disease-specific basis. Such a resource could be used to support pharmaceutical therapy choice decision making by a variety of potential users. The USP had developed a protype health outcomes and pharmacoeconomic annotated registry of the literature on the disease state, congestive heart failure. Other organizations have established and are marketing pharmacoeconomic and health outcome literature registries, with two examples being the HEED database (OHE-IFPMA Database Ltd.) and the University of York NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (DARE).
OBJECTIVE: To share experiences and to identify the needs of decision makers for outcome/pharmacoeconomic information and to discuss whether they are being met by currently available literature sources. Decision makers include health care practitioners, managed care organizations, third party payers, industry and governments.
WORKSHOP FORMAT: The USP congestive heart failure protype literature registry will be described and compared to currently available pharmacoeconomic/outcome databases. Participants will share their assessment of the currently available abstracting service/databases and determine if there is a role for further developments.
DESIRED OUTCOME: To determine if there is a need for a collaborative approach among interested parties to make relevant health outcome/pharmacoeconomic information more accessible to the drug therapy decision makers in a format that is "user friendly."