Pharmacy Benefits Management in the Veterans Health Administration

Pharmacy Benefits Management Strategic Healthcare Group, Department of Veterans Affairs, 1st Ave, 1 Blk N of Cermak Rd, Bldg 37, Room 139, Hines, IL 60141, USA.
The American journal of managed care (Impact Factor: 2.26). 03/2005; 11(2):104-12.
Source: PubMed


The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Pharmacy Benefits Management Strategic Healthcare Group (VA PBM) oversees the formulary for the entire VA system, which serves more than 4 million veterans and provides more than 108 million prescriptions per year. Since its establishment in 1995, the VA PBM has managed pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical-related policies, including drug safety and efficacy evaluations, pharmacologic management algorithms, and criteria for drug use. These evidence-based practices promote, optimize, and assist VA providers with the safe and appropriate use of pharmaceuticals while allowing for formulary decisions that can result in substantial cost savings. The VA PBM also has utilized various contracting techniques to standardize generic agents as well as specific drugs and drug classes (eg, antihistamines, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, alpha-blockers, and 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors [statins]). These methods have enabled the VA to save approximately dollar 1.5 billion since 1996 even as drug expenditures continued to rise from roughly dollar 1 billion in fiscal year (FY) 1996 to more than dollar 3 billion in FY 2003. Furthermore, the VA PBM has established an outcomes research section to undertake quality-improvement and safety initiatives that ultimately monitor and determine the clinical impact of formulary decisions on the VA system nationwide. The experiences of this pharmacy benefits program, including clinical and contracting processes/procedures and their impact on the VA healthcare system, are described.

1 Follower
166 Reads
  • Source
    • "In 2008, Australia's healthcare expenditure reached AUS$104 billion (8.5% of GDP) [1] and that of the United States (US) US$2.3 trillion (16% of GDP) [2]. Expenditure on drugs has recently been the fastest growing component of expenditure in Australia [1], Canada [3,4], UK [5] and US [6,7]. Whilst new treatments usually have a higher purchase price than older, possibly off-patent drugs, they may be a more efficient treatment when the full costs and consequences are taken into account. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: XELOX (capecitabine + oxaliplatin) and FOLFOX 4 (5-FU + folinic acid + oxaliplatin) have shown similar improvements in survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). A US cost-minimization study found that the two regimens had similar costs from a healthcare provider perspective but XELOX had lower costs than FOLFOX4 from a societal perspective, while a Japanese cost-effectiveness study found XELOX had superior cost-effectiveness. This study compared the costs of XELOX and FOLFOX4 in patients with MCRC recently treated in two oncology departments in Hong Kong. Cost data were collected from the medical records of 60 consecutive patients (30 received XELOX and 30 FOLFOX4) from two hospitals. Drug costs, outpatient visits, hospital days and investigations were recorded and expressed as cost per patient from the healthcare provider perspective. Estimated travel and time costs were included in a societal perspective analysis. All costs were classed as either scheduled (associated with planned chemotherapy and follow-up) or unscheduled (unplanned visits or admissions and associated tests and medicines). Costs were based on government and hospital sources and expressed in US dollars (US$). XELOX patients received an average of 7.3 chemotherapy cycles (of the 8 planned cycles) and FOLFOX4 patients received 9.2 cycles (of the 12 planned cycles). The scheduled cost per patient per cycle was $2,046 for XELOX and $2,152 for FOLFOX4, while the unscheduled cost was $240 and $421, respectively. Total treatment cost per patient was $16,609 for XELOX and $23,672 for FOLFOX4; the total cost for FOLFOX4 was 37% greater than that of XELOX. The addition of the societal costs increased the total treatment cost per patient to $17,836 for XELOX and $27,455 for FOLFOX4. Sensitivity analyses showed XELOX was still less costly than FOLFOX4 when using full drug regimen costs, incorporating data from a US model with costs and adverse event data from their clinical trial and with the removal of oxaliplatin from both treatment arms. Capecitabine would have to cost around four times its present price in Hong Kong for the total resource cost of treatment with XELOX to equal that of FOLFOX4. XELOX costs less than FOLFOX4 for this patient group with MCRC from both the healthcare provider and societal perspectives.
    BMC Cancer 07/2011; 11(1):288. DOI:10.1186/1471-2407-11-288 · 3.36 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The United States leads the world in many measures of health care innovation. However, it has been criticized to lag behind many developed nations in important health outcomes including mortality rates and higher health care costs. The surveys have shown the United States to outspend all other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries with spending on health goods and services per person of $7,290 - almost 2(1/2) times the average of all OECD countries in 2007. Rising health care costs in the United States have been estimated to increase to 19.1% of gross domestic product (GDP) or $4.4 trillion by 2018. CER is defined as the generation and synthesis of evidence that compares the benefits and harms of alternate methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition or to improve the delivery of care. The, comparative effectiveness research (CER) has been touted by supporters with high expectations to resolve most ill effects of health care in the United States providing high quality, less expensive, universal health care. The efforts of CER in the United States date back to the late 1970s and it was officially inaugurated with the enactment of the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA). It has been rejuvenated with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 with an allocation of $1.1 billion. CER has been the basis of decision for health care in many other countries. Of all the available agencies, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) of the United Kingdom is the most advanced, stable, and has provided significant evidence, though based on rigid and proscriptive economic and clinical formulas. While CER is taking a rapid surge in the United States, supporters and opponents are emerging expressing their views. Since interventional pain management is a new and evolving specialty, with ownership claimed by numerous organizations, at times it is felt as if it has many fathers and other times it becomes an orphan. Part 2 of this comprehensive review will provide facts, fallacies, and politics of CER along with discussion of potential outcomes, impact of CER on health care delivery, and implications for interventional pain management in the United States.
    Pain physician 11/2009; 13(1):E55-79. · 3.54 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Statins are cholesterol-lowering medications with immunologic properties. To assess the role of statins on incident immune-mediated conditions, a modified case-cohort study was performed using administrative databases from the Midwest Veterans Administration (VA) region. A comparison sub-cohort was formed by randomly sampling 10,000 subjects with medical and pharmacy benefits during fiscal year (FY) 2002. Cases were identified by inpatient or outpatient medical claims using International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes between FY 2003-2004. All subjects needed at least one year of medical claims and at least one pharmacy claim. The incident cases (n=28,642) included non-mutually exclusive groups of immune-mediated (n=2,327), infectious (n=8,221), and non-immunologic (n=10,730) diagnoses. Demographic and medical variables were obtained from FY 2001-2004, and pharmacologic data from FY 2002-2004. Cox proportional hazards regression modeling was used to estimate hazard ratios for the current statin use (within the last 180 days) and former statin use, compared to non-users, including time-dependant variables for demographic factors, comorbidity as measured by Elixhauser and Chronic Disease Score variables, medications, and visit rates after initiating statins. Current statin use was associated with decreased diagnoses rates of psoriasis; rheumatoid arthritis; inflammatory bowel diseases, including ulcerative colitis and Crohn disease; diffuse connective tissue diseases, including systemic lupus erythematosus; ankylosing spondylitis; bacterial pneumonia; urinary tract infection; cellulitis; sepsis; candidiasis; osteomyelitis; and tuberculosis. Former statin use was also associated with increased rates of polymyalgia rheumatica, sepsis, and osteomyelitis. Statin use was not associated with other spondylitis, multiple sclerosis, thyroiditis, sarcoidosis, temporal arteritis, influenza, shingles, histoplasmosis, or pyelonephritis. Although current statin use appeared protective for some study conditions, selection bias, misclassification, healthy user effects, adherence bias, confounding by indication, and surveillance bias were considered as possible explanations of the study findings.
Show more