Gammelgaardgilbert4533

n patients with cardiovascular disease, suggesting that prescribers may be prioritizing the kidney safety profile over the effect on lipids. DISCLOSURES This work was supported by the Duke Clinical Research Institute Executive Director's Pathway for Supplemental Funding. The research team received additional support from the National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive, and Kidney Disease R01DK112258 and P01DK056492 (CW) and from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases 5T32AI100851 (MHM). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. Hung reports past employment by Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and CVS Health and a grant from Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), unrelated to this work. The other authors have nothing to disclose. This work was accepted as a poster presentation for the AMCP Nexus 2020 Virtual, October 19-23, 2020.BACKGROUND The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) is a prominent health technology assessment (HTA) entity in the United States that considers costs and applies economic analyses to derive price-based recommendations. ICER continues to adjust its value framework, yet discussion persists regarding whether ICER methodologies align with established research standards. This work evaluates ICER assessments relative to those standards, providing a benchmark with the release of ICER's most recent value framework update. OBJECTIVES To evaluate ICER economic assessments for trends, factors related to recommendations, and quality for use in U.S. decision making. https://www.selleckchem.com/products/ganetespib-sta-9090.html METHODS We evaluated all ICER final evidence reports published between 2006 and August 31, 2019, with regard to base-case result trends over time, pricing sources, comparator selection, analytic perspectives, model uncertainty, how modeling results aligned with ICER's determinations of value for money, and comparison of ICER methodological approativeness results, although 2 of 33 (6%) interventions ranked as low value and 3 of 5 (60%) interventions ranked as low-moderate value, met a $150,000 per QALY threshold, and 14 of 37 (38%) moderate-value interventions exceeded this threshold; the most common rationale was related to national budget impact. CONCLUSIONS While some progress has been made, further improvement is needed to ensure that ICER assessments address the most relevant questions for target audiences, adhere to established research standards, and are reported in a manner that can be readily interpreted and applied to policymaking. DISCLOSURES No outside funding supported this study. The authors have nothing to disclose.BACKGROUND Clinical services provided by pharmacists embedded in practices can improve patient outcomes within the primary care setting. Little is known about whether physician organizations (POs) will retain the services of clinical pharmacists after outside funding for a statewide implementation program is ended. OBJECTIVE To evaluate a statewide program, Michigan Pharmacists Transforming Care and Quality (MPTCQ), that incorporated pharmacists within 17 POs. METHODS A descriptive study was conducted using data collected from June 2016 to September 2018 from primary care clinical pharmacist encounters in POs participating in MPTCQ. Process outcomes included the number of participating POs, patient encounters, and average visits per patient. Analyses at the encounter level were stratified by 2 encounter types disease state management (DSM) or comprehensive medication review (CMR). Separately by encounter type, pharmacist effect was described by the number, type, and reasons for medication changes, as well as SIONS A statewide provider-payer partnership successfully integrated and retained primary care pharmacists within POs. Pharmacists in the MPTCQ program contributed to improvements in disease control by changing medications to improve patient clinical outcomes. DISCLOSURES Support for MPTCQ was provided by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) as part of the BCBSM Value Partnerships program. Coe was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under award number KL2TR002241. Although BCBSM and MPTCQ work collaboratively, the opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints of BCBSM or any of its employees. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.DISCLOSURES The writing of this letter was sponsored by Roche/Genentech. All authors are employees of, and hold stocks in, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech Inc.BACKGROUND Multiple barriers exist for appropriate use of the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 enzyme inhibitors (PCSK9i) in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) or familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) with inadequately controlled hypercholesterolemia despite standard therapies. Among these barriers, high payer rejection rates and inadequate prior authorization (PA) documentation by providers hinder optimal use of PCSK9i. OBJECTIVES To (a) identify and discuss provider and payer discordances on barriers to authorization and use of PCSK9i based on clinical and real-world evidence and (b) align understanding and application of clinical, cost, safety, and efficacy data of PCSK9i. METHODS Local groups of 3 payers and 3 providers met in 6 separate locations across the United States through a collaborative project of AMCP and PRIME Education. Responses to selected pre- and postmeeting survey questions measured changes in attitudes and beliefs regarding treatment barriers, lipid thGuerin, Ahmad, Singh, Moreo, Carter, Heggen, and Sapir have nothing to disclose.BACKGROUND Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is one of the most common complications of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) and results in considerable economic burden. Current studies describing cost and health care resource utilization (HCRU) in T2D patients with CKD in real-world data are few. Even more scarce is evidence that takes into account disease severity and other comorbidities. OBJECTIVES To (a) describe T2D patients with CKD identified in U.S. administrative claims data using laboratory test results for kidney function that are considered the gold standard criteria for kidney disease diagnosis and (b) estimate the annual HCRU and costs among these patients, overall and by disease severity and comorbidity subgroup. METHODS Optum CDM data between the years 2008 and 2017 were used to identify T2D patients with newly recognized CKD, using laboratory test results for estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). The study estimated annualized total, inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy costs and the number of outpatient, inpatient, and emergency room visits in the first year after CKD identification.