William V. Padula

Applying dynamic simulation modeling methods in health care delivery research-the SIMULATE checklist: report of the ISPOR simulation modeling emerging good practices task force.

Health care delivery systems are inherently complex, consisting of multiple tiers of interdependent subsystems and processes that are adaptive to changes in the environment and behave in a nonlinear fashion. Traditional health technology assessment and modeling methods often neglect the wider health system impacts that can be critical for achieving desired health system goals and are often of limited usefulness when applied to complex health systems. Researchers and health care decision makers can either underestimate or fail to consider the interactions among the people, processes, technology, and facility designs. Health care delivery system interventions need to incorporate the dynamics and complexities of the health care system context in which the intervention is delivered. This report provides an overview of common dynamic simulation modeling methods and examples of health care system interventions in which such methods could be useful. Three dynamic simulation modeling methods are presented to evaluate system interventions for health care delivery: system dynamics, discrete event simulation, and agent-based modeling. In contrast to conventional evaluations, a dynamic systems approach incorporates the complexity of the system and anticipates the upstream and downstream consequences of changes in complex health care delivery systems. This report assists researchers and decision makers in deciding whether these simulation methods are appropriate to address specific health system problems through an eight-point checklist referred to as the SIMULATE (System, Interactions, Multilevel, Understanding, Loops, Agents, Time, Emergence) tool. It is a primer for researchers and decision makers working in health care delivery and implementation sciences who face complex challenges in delivering effective and efficient care that can be addressed with system interventions. On reviewing this report, the readers should be able to identify whether these simulation modeling methods are appropriate to answer the problem they are addressing and to recognize the differences of these methods from other modeling approaches used typically in health technology assessment applications.

Cost-effectiveness of Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Treatment Strategies for Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Chronic Phase After Generic Entry of Imatinib in the United States

Background: We analyzed the cost-effectiveness of treating incident chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP) with generic imatinib when it becomes available in United States in 2016. In the year following generic entry, imatinib’s price is expected to drop 70% to 90%. We hypothesized that initiating treatment with generic imatinib in these patients and then switching to the other tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKIs), dasatinib or nilotinib, because of intolerance or lack of effectiveness (“imatinib-first”) would be cost-effective compared with the current standard of care: “physicians’ choice” of initiating treatment with any one of the three TKIs. Methods: We constructed Markov models to compare the five-year cost-effectiveness of imatinib-first vs physician’s choice from a US commercial payer perspective, assuming 3% annual discounting (

Changing the cost of care for chronic myeloid leukemia: the availability of generic imatinib in the USA and the EU.

US 2013). The models’ clinical endpoint was five-year overall survival taken from a systematic review of clinical trial results. Per-person spending on incident CML-CP treatment overall care components was estimated using Truven’s MarketScan claims data. The main outcome of the models was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). We interpreted outcomes based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of

A framework of quality improvement interventions to implement evidence-based practices for pressure ulcer prevention.

100 000/QALY. A panel of European LeukemiaNet experts oversaw the study’s conduct. Results: Both strategies met the threshold. Imatinib-first (

Post trauma vision syndrome and visual midline shift syndrome

277 401, 3.87 QALYs) offered patients a 0.10 decrement in QALYs at a savings of

Comparative Effectiveness of Quality Improvement Interventions for Pressure Ulcer Prevention in Academic Medical Centers in the United States

88 343 over five years to payers compared with physician’s choice (

Hospital-Acquired Pressure Ulcers at Academic Medical Centers in the United States, 2008–2012: Tracking Changes Since the CMS Nonpayment Policy

365 744, 3.97 QALYs). The imatinib-first incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was approximately

Transforming Healthcare Delivery: Integrating Dynamic Simulation Modelling and Big Data in Health Economics and Outcomes Research

883 730/QALY. The results were robust to multiple sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: When imatinib loses patent protection and its price declines, its use will be the cost-effective initial treatment strategy for CML-CP.

Integrating systems engineering practice with health-care delivery

Imatinib is an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor and considered to be the most successful targeted anti-cancer agent yet developed given its substantial efficacy in treating chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) and other malignant diseases. In the USA and the European Union (EU), Novartis’ composition of matter patent on imatinib will expire in 2016. The potential impact on health system spending levels for CML after generic imatinib becomes available is the subject of significant interest among stakeholders. The extent of the potential savings largely depends on whether and to what extent prices decline and use stays the same or even increases. These are also empirical questions since the likely spending implications following generic imatinib’s availability are predicated on multiple factors: physicians’ willingness to prescribe generic imatinib, molecule characteristics, and health system priorities. This article discusses each of these issues in turn. We then review their implications for the development of country-specific cost-effectiveness models to predict the implications for cost and quality of care from generic imatinib.

Targeting Unconscionable Prescription-Drug Prices — Maryland’s Anti–Price-Gouging Law

PURPOSE: To enhance the learner’s competence with knowledge about a framework of quality improvement (QI) interventions to implement evidence-based practices for pressure ulcer (PrU) prevention. TARGET AUDIENCE: This continuing education activity is intended for physicians and nurses with an interest in skin and wound care. OBJECTIVES: After participating in this educational activity, the participant should be better able to: 1. Summarize the process of creating and initiating the best-practice framework of QI for PrU prevention. 2. Identify the domains and QI interventions for the best-practice framework of QI for PrU prevention. ABSTRACT Pressure ulcer (PrU) prevention is a priority issue in US hospitals. The National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel endorses an evidence-based practice (EBP) protocol to help prevent PrUs. Effective implementation of EBPs requires systematic change of existing care units. Quality improvement interventions offer a mechanism of change to existing structures in order to effectively implement EBPs for PrU prevention. The best-practice framework developed by Nelson et al is a useful model of quality improvement interventions that targets process improvement in 4 domains: leadership, staff, information and information technology, and performance and improvement. At 2 academic medical centers, the best-practice framework was shown to physicians, nurses, and health services researchers. Their insight was used to modify the best-practice framework as a reference tool for quality improvement interventions in PrU prevention. The revised framework includes 25 elements across 4 domains. Many of these elements support EBPs for PrU prevention, such as updates in PrU staging and risk assessment. The best-practice framework offers a reference point to initiating a bundle of quality improvement interventions in support of EBPs. Hospitals and clinicians tasked with quality improvement efforts can use this framework to problem-solve PrU prevention and other critical issues.