Dataset Information

Improving quality, affordability, and equity of multiple sclerosis care.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The prevailing approaches to selecting multiple sclerosis (MS) disease modifying therapies (DMTs) have contributed to exponential increases in societal expenditures and out-of-pocket expenses, without compelling evidence of improved outcomes. Guidance is lacking regarding when and in whom the benefits of preventing MS-related disability likely outweighs the risks of highly effective DMTs (HET) and when it is appropriate to consider DMT costs. Our objective was to develop a standardized approach to improve the quality, affordability and equity of MS care.

Methods

MS experts partnered with health plan pharmacists to develop an ethical, risk-stratified, cost-sensitive treatment algorithm. We developed a risk-stratification schema to classify patients with relapsing forms of MS as high, intermediate or low risk of disability based on the best available evidence and, when the evidence was poor or lacking, by consensus. DMTs are grouped as highly, modestly or low/uncertain effectiveness and preferentially ranked within groups by safety based on pre-specified criteria. We reviewed FDA documents and the published literature. When efficacy and safety are equivalent, the lower cost DMT is preferred.

Results

Assignment to the high-risk group prompts treatment with preferred HETs early in the disease course. For persons in the intermediate- or low-risk groups with cost or health care access barriers, we incorporated induction therapy with an affordable B-cell depleting agent. Based on more favorable safety profiles, our preferred approach prioritizes use of rituximab and natalizumab among HETs and interferon-betas or glatiramer acetate among modestly effective agents.

Interpretation

The risk-stratified treatment approach we recommend provides clear, measurable guidance in whom and when to prescribe HETs, when to prioritize lower cost DMTs and how to accommodate persons with MS with cost or other barriers to DMT use. It can be adapted to other cost structures and updated quickly as new information emerges. We recommend that physician groups partner with health insurance plans to adapt our approach to their settings, particularly in the United States. Future studies are needed to resolve the considerable uncertainty about how much variability in prognosis specific risk factors explain.

SUBMITTER: Langer-Gould A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8045931 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Emerging data show that many low-income and middle-income country (LMIC) health systems struggle to consistently provide good-quality care. Although monitoring of inequalities in access to health services has been the focus of major international efforts, inequalities in health-care quality have not been systematically examined. METHODS:Using the most recent (2007-16) Demographic and Health Surveys and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys in 91 LMICs, we described antenatal care quality based on receipt of three essential services (blood pressure monitoring and urine and blood testing) among women who had at least one visit with a skilled antenatal-care provider. We compared quality across country income groups and quantified within-country wealth-related inequalities using the slope and relative indices of inequality. We summarised inequalities using random-effects meta-analyses and assessed the extent to which other geographical and sociodemographic factors could explain these inequalities. FINDINGS:Globally, 72·9% (95% CI 69·1-76·8) of women who used antenatal care reported blood pressure monitoring and urine and blood testing; this number ranged from 6·3% in Burundi to 100·0% in Belarus. Antenatal care quality lagged behind antenatal care coverage the most in low-income countries, where 86·6% (83·4-89·7) of women accessed care but only 53·8% (44·3-63·3) reported receiving the three services. Receipt of the three services was correlated with gross domestic product per capita and was 40 percentage points higher in upper-middle-income countries compared with low-income countries. Within countries, the wealthiest women were on average four times more likely to report good quality care than the poorest (relative index of inequality 4·01, 95% CI 3·90-4·13). Substantial inequality remained after adjustment for subnational region, urban residence, maternal age, education, and number of antenatal care visits (3·20, 3·11-3·30). INTERPRETATION:Many LMICs that have reached high levels of antenatal care coverage had much lower and inequitable levels of quality. Achieving ambitious maternal, newborn, and child health goals will require greater focus on the quality of health services and their equitable distribution. Equity in effective coverage should be used as the new metric to monitor progress towards universal health coverage. FUNDING:Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Project description:IntroductionWhile the number of women entering medical school now equals or surpasses the number of men, gender equity in medicine has not been achieved. Women continue to be under-represented in leadership roles (eg, deans, medical chairs) and senior faculty positions. In addition, women do not enter medical specialties as often as men, which can have important implications for work environment, reimbursement and the delivery of patient care. Compared with other medical specialties (eg, anaesthesiology, dermatology, etc), critical care medicine is a medical specialty with some of the lowest representation of women. While strategies to improve gender equity in critical care medicine exist in the published literature, efforts to comprehensively synthesise, prioritise and implement solutions have been limited.The objective of this programme of work is to establish priorities for the development and implementation of key strategies to improve the outcomes, well-being and experiences of women in critical care in Canada.Methods and analysisThree phases encompass this programme of work. In phase I, we will catalogue published strategies focused on improving gender inequity across medical specialties through a scoping review. In phase II, we will conduct a modified Delphi consensus process with decision-makers, physicians and researchers to identify key strategies (identified in phase I and proposed by participants in phase II) for improving gender inequity in the specialty of critical care medicine. Finally, in phase III, we will conduct a 1-day stakeholder meeting that engages participants from phase II to build capacity for the development and implementation of top ranked strategies. Data analyses from this programme of work will be both quantitative and qualitative.Ethics and disseminationThe proposed programme of work is a foundational step towards establishing targeted strategies to improve gender inequity in the medical specialty of critical care medicine. Strategies will be prioritised by stakeholders, mapped to preidentified drivers of gender equity in the specialty and be scalable to institutional needs. A final report of our results including the list of top prioritised strategies and implementation objectives will be disseminated to panel participants, critical care leadership teams and major critical care societies who are partners in this work, around the country to facilitate uptake at the local level.The University of Calgary Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board has approved this study (REB16-0890).