Identifying Outcome Measures for Coronary Artery Disease Value-Based Contracting Using the Delphi Method

• Published in: Cardiology and Therapy Vol. 8; no. 1; pp. 135 - 143
• Main Authors: Neilson, Lynn M., Swart, Elizabeth C. S., Good, Chester B., Shrank, William H., Henderson, Rochelle, Manolis, Chronis, Parekh, Natasha
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Cheshire Springer Healthcare 01.06.2019; Springer; Springer Nature B.V; Adis, Springer Healthcare
• Subjects: Antiplatelets; Brief Report; Business performance management; Cardiology; Cardiovascular disease; Care and treatment; Clopidogrel; Contracts; Coronary artery disease (CAD); Coronary heart disease; Coronary vessels; Delphi method; Delphi technique; Diseases; Drug costs; Drugstores; Evaluation; Internal Medicine; Likert scale; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Outcome measures; Patient outcomes; Pennsylvania; Pharmaceutical industry; Pharmaceuticals; Rankings; Surveys; Ticagrelor; Pennsylvania; United States; Coronary artery disease (CAD); Antiplatelets; Outcome measures; Value-based contracting (VBC); Delphi method; Drug costs; Pharmaceuticals
• ISSN: 2193-8261; 2193-6544
• DOI: 10.1007/s40119-019-0132-7

Introduction Value-based contracts (VBCs) that link drug payments to disease-related performance metrics aim to increase the value and lower the cost of medications by aligning incentives and sharing risk between payers and pharmaceutical manufacturers. This study sought to identify outcome measures that are meaningful to key stakeholders to inform VBCs for coronary artery disease (CAD) medications. Methods We administered a modified Delphi survey to gather expert opinion from a diverse panel of patients ( n  = 9), cardiologists ( n  = 4), primary care physicians ( n  = 5), payers ( n  = 2), pharmacy benefits managers ( n  = 3), and pharmaceutical company representatives ( n  = 2). A list of 16 CAD-associated clinical indicators was generated from the literature and expert consultation. Delphi participants rated the importance of each outcome on a five-point Likert scale, and selected the three most meaningful outcomes. We defined consensus as ≥ 75% agreement on the importance of an outcome (Likert scores 4 or 5 or selection of an outcome as most meaningful). Results Eleven of 13 outcomes reached consensus for importance on the Likert scale. “Preventing heart attacks” was selected as the most meaningful outcome (80%) while “preventing death” ranked second (76%). Conclusions Our study results verify the utility of a widely used clinical CAD outcome measure, myocardial infarction events, for the purpose of pharmaceutical value-based contracting.