Managing conflict of interest (COI) is important when selecting drugs for formularies or reimbursement lists — a listing of drugs that provides wholesale acquisition cost plus a percentage and dispensing fee — to ensure that medications are selected based on evidence and with minimal bias. But a new study that looked at state Medicaid drug selection committees found wide variation in COI policy, with minimal transparency and standardization.

Because Medicaid rolls are expected to increase under health reform, Medicaid formularies need to do a better job managing COI. Researchers at the University of California — San Francisco concluded that there is a need for a model COI policy for formulary committees that can be adapted for individual states.

The researchers report that COI policies were difficult or impossible to find for many states. “Only about half of the policies were readily available on state Web sites, and at least one program stated that its policies were not in the public domain,” write Lisa Bero, PhD, and Nicole Yvonne Nguyen, PharmD, in “Medicaid Drug Selection Committees and Inadequate Management of Conflicts of Interest” in the February issue of JAMA Internal Medicine.

They found that 67 percent of policies use disclosure to manage conflicts. Although disclosing COI is found in most policies, it is inadequate as the sole management strategy. “While disclosure is necessary to identify COI, it does not mitigate the effect of the COI on decision making,” they write.

The second most common (52 percent) management strategy is to require committee members to recuse themselves from matters that pose a COI. In most cases, members who disclosed a COI had to recuse themselves from both voting and discussion.

The researchers obtained policy documents from 27 of the 48 Medicaid programs — 14 from Web sites and 13 by contacting the committees directly. These documents consisted of pharmacy & therapeutics (P&T) operating procedures, P&T bylaws, acknowledgment of review of ethical practices forms, COI statements, and disclosure forms.

The strictness of management strategies varies by state. Twelve programs used intermediate strategies to manage COI; this was some mix of self-recusal and other methods. Only 4 of 27 programs (15 percent) enforced the most restrictive strategy of banning certain relationships with drug manufacturers, and four programs used disclosure alone. The authors report that Colorado and Kansas policies explicitly stated that the existence of such relationships will not “automatically preclude an individual from participating on the committee.”

Managing conflicts of interest in Medicaid programs varies by state
Banned relationship Disclosure and other methods Disclosure alone
Idaho*
Washington*
Nevada
Texas
Kentucky
Connecticut
Wisconsin
Georgia
Pennsylvania
Oregon
Maryland
Nebraska
Minnesota
Wyoming
Indiana
Maine
Colorado
Delaware
Rhode Island
Kansas
*Management strategies in Idaho and Washington include disclosure and disclosure plus other methods.
Source: Nguyen NY, Bero L. Medicaid drug selection committees and inadequate management of conflicts of interest. 2013; JAMA Intern Med. 173(5):338–343
“Banned relationships” means that all or some industry relationships were prohibited for committee members. Intermediate strategies included self-recusal and other management strategies. “Disclosure alone” refers to policies that only require disclosure statements from committee members.

Managed Care’s Top Ten Articles of 2016

There’s a lot more going on in health care than mergers (Aetna-Humana, Anthem-Cigna) creating huge players. Hundreds of insurers operate in 50 different states. Self-insured employers, ACA public exchanges, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid managed care plans crowd an increasingly complex market.

Major health care players are determined to make health information exchanges (HIEs) work. The push toward value-based payment alone almost guarantees that HIEs will be tweaked, poked, prodded, and overhauled until they deliver on their promise. The goal: straight talk from and among tech systems.

They bring a different mindset. They’re willing to work in teams and focus on the sort of evidence-based medicine that can guide health care’s transformation into a system based on value. One question: How well will this new generation of data-driven MDs deal with patients?

The surge of new MS treatments have been for the relapsing-remitting form of the disease. There’s hope for sufferers of a different form of MS. By homing in on CD20-positive B cells, ocrelizumab is able to knock them out and other aberrant B cells circulating in the bloodstream.

A flood of tests have insurers ramping up prior authorization and utilization review. Information overload is a problem. As doctors struggle to keep up, health plans need to get ahead of the development of the technology in order to successfully manage genetic testing appropriately.

Having the data is one thing. Knowing how to use it is another. Applying its computational power to the data, a company called RowdMap puts providers into high-, medium-, and low-value buckets compared with peers in their markets, using specific benchmarks to show why outliers differ from the norm.
Competition among manufacturers, industry consolidation, and capitalization on me-too drugs are cranking up generic and branded drug prices. This increase has compelled PBMs, health plan sponsors, and retail pharmacies to find novel ways to turn a profit, often at the expense of the consumer.
The development of recombinant DNA and other technologies has added a new dimension to care. These medications have revolutionized the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and many of the other 80 or so autoimmune diseases. But they can be budget busters and have a tricky side effect profile.

Shelley Slade
Vogel, Slade & Goldstein

Hub programs have emerged as a profitable new line of business in the sales and distribution side of the pharmaceutical industry that has got more than its fair share of wheeling and dealing. But they spell trouble if they spark collusion, threaten patients, or waste federal dollars.

More companies are self-insuring—and it’s not just large employers that are striking out on their own. The percentage of employers who fully self-insure increased by 44% in 1999 to 63% in 2015. Self-insurance may give employers more control over benefit packages, and stop-loss protects them against uncapped liability.