Yasaman Vali

Bio: Yasaman Vali is an academic researcher from University of Amsterdam. The author has contributed to research in topics: Fatty liver & Medicine. The author has an hindex of 8, co-authored 19 publications receiving 328 citations. Previous affiliations of Yasaman Vali include Tehran University of Medical Sciences.

Pharmaceutical policies: effects of financial incentives for prescribers

Abstract: Background Pharmaceuticals, while central to medical therapy, pose a significant burden to health care budgets. Therefore regulations to control prescribing costs and improve quality of care are implemented increasingly. These include the use of financial incentives for prescribers, namely increased financial accountability using budgets and performance based payments. Objectives To determine the effects on drug use, healthcare utilisation, health outcomes and costs ( expenditures) of policies, that intend to affect prescribers by means of financial incentives. Search strategy We searched the following databases and web sites: Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Register ( August 2003), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials ( October 2003), MEDLINE ( October 2005), EMBASE ( October 2005), and other databases. Selection criteria Policies were defined as laws, rules, financial and administrative orders made by governments, non- government organisations or private insurers. One of the following outcomes had to be reported: drug use, healthcare utilisation, health outcomes, and costs. The study had to be a randomised or non- randomised controlled trial, interrupted time series analysis, repeated measures study or controlled before-after study evaluating financial incentives for prescribers introduced for a jurisdiction or healthcare system. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed study limitations. Main results Thirteen evaluations of budgetary policies and none of performance based payments met our inclusion criteria. Ten studies evaluated general practice fundholding in the UK, one the Irish Indicative Drug Target Savings Scheme ( IDTSS) and two evaluated German drug budgets for physicians in private practice. The interrupted time series analyses had some limitations. All the controlled beforeafter studies ( all from the UK) had serious limitations. Drug expenditure ( per item and per patient) and prescribed drug volume decreased with budgets in all three countries. Evidence indicated increased use of generic drugs in the UK and Ireland, but was inconclusive on the use of new and expensive drugs. We found no clear evidence of increased health care utilisation and no studies reporting effects on health. Administration costs were not reported. No studies on the effects of performance- based payments or other policies met our inclusion criteria. Authors' conclusions Based on the evidence in this review from three Western European countries, drug budgets for physicians in private practice can limit drug expenditure by limiting the volume of prescribed drugs, increasing the use of generic drugs or both. Since the majority of studies included were found to have serious limitations, these results should be interpreted with care.

Prognostic accuracy of FIB-4, NAFLD fibrosis score and APRI for NAFLD-related events: A systematic review.

Abstract: Background & Aims: Fibrosis is the strongest predictor for long-term clinical outcomes among patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). There is growing interest in employing non-invasive methods for risk stratification based on prognosis. FIB-4, NFS and APRI are models commonly used for detecting fibrosis among NAFLD patients. We aimed to synthesize existing literature on the ability of these models in prognosticating NAFLD-related events. Methods: A sensitive search was conducted in two medical databases to retrieve studies evaluating the prognostic accuracy of FIB-4, NFS and APRI among NAFLD patients. Target events were change in fibrosis, liver-related event and mortality. Two reviewers independently performed reference screening, data extraction and quality assessment (QUAPAS tool). Results: A total of 13 studies (FIB-4:12, NFS: 11, APRI: 10), published between 2013 and 2019, were retrieved. All studies were conducted in a secondary or tertiary care setting, with follow-up ranging from 1 to 20 years. All three markers showed consistently good prognostication of liver-related events (AUC from 0.69 to 0.92). For mortality, FIB-4 (AUC of 0.67-0.82) and NFS (AUC of 0.70-0.83) outperformed APRI (AUC of 0.52-0.73) in all studies. All markers had inconsistent performance for predicting change in fibrosis stage. Conclusions: FIB-4, NFS, and APRI have demonstrated ability to risk stratify patients for liver-related morbidity and mortality, with comparable performance to a liver biopsy, although more head-to-head studies are needed to validate this. More refined models to prognosticate NAFLD-events may further enhance performance and clinical utility of non-invasive markers.

Systematic review: Effects, design choices, and context of pay-for-performance in health care.

Abstract: Pay-for-performance (P4P) is one of the primary tools used to support healthcare delivery reform. Substantial heterogeneity exists in the development and implementation of P4P in health care and its effects. This paper summarizes evidence, obtained from studies published between January 1990 and July 2009, concerning P4P effects, as well as evidence on the impact of design choices and contextual mediators on these effects. Effect domains include clinical effectiveness, access and equity, coordination and continuity, patient-centeredness, and cost-effectiveness. The systematic review made use of electronic database searching, reference screening, forward citation tracking and expert consultation. The following databases were searched: Cochrane Library, EconLit, Embase, Medline, PsychINFO, and Web of Science. Studies that evaluate P4P effects in primary care or acute hospital care medicine were included. Papers concerning other target groups or settings, having no empirical evaluation design or not complying with the P4P definition were excluded. According to study design nine validated quality appraisal tools and reporting statements were applied. Data were extracted and summarized into evidence tables independently by two reviewers. One hundred twenty-eight evaluation studies provide a large body of evidence -to be interpreted with caution- concerning the effects of P4P on clinical effectiveness and equity of care. However, less evidence on the impact on coordination, continuity, patient-centeredness and cost-effectiveness was found. P4P effects can be judged to be encouraging or disappointing, depending on the primary mission of the P4P program: supporting minimal quality standards and/or boosting quality improvement. Moreover, the effects of P4P interventions varied according to design choices and characteristics of the context in which it was introduced. Future P4P programs should (1) select and define P4P targets on the basis of baseline room for improvement, (2) make use of process and (intermediary) outcome indicators as target measures, (3) involve stakeholders and communicate information about the programs thoroughly and directly, (4) implement a uniform P4P design across payers, (5) focus on both quality improvement and achievement, and (6) distribute incentives to the individual and/or team level. P4P programs result in the full spectrum of possible effects for specific targets, from absent or negligible to strongly beneficial. Based on the evidence the review has provided further indications on how effect findings are likely to relate to P4P design choices and context. The provided best practice hypotheses should be tested in future research.

An overview of reviews evaluating the effectiveness of financial incentives in changing healthcare professional behaviours and patient outcomes

Abstract: Background There is considerable interest in the effectiveness of financial incentives in the delivery of health care. Incentives may be used in an attempt to increase the use of evidence-based treatments among healthcare professionals or to stimulate health professionals to change their clinical behaviour with respect to preventive, diagnostic and treatment decisions, or both. Financial incentives are an extrinsic source of motivation and exist when an individual can expect a monetary transfer which is made conditional on acting in a particular way. Since there are numerous reviews performed within the healthcare area describing the effects of various types of financial incentives, it is important to summarise the effectiveness of these in an overview to discern which are most effective in changing health professionals' behaviour and patient outcomes. Objectives To conduct an overview of systematic reviews that evaluates the impact of financial incentives on healthcare professional behaviour and patient outcomes. Methods We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) (The Cochrane Library); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE); TRIP; MEDLINE; EMBASE; Science Citation Index; Social Science Citation Index; NHS EED; HEED; EconLit; and Program in Policy Decision-Making (PPd) (from their inception dates up to January 2010). We searched the reference lists of all included reviews and carried out a citation search of those papers which cited studies included in the review. We included both Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), interrupted time series (ITSs) and controlled before and after studies (CBAs) that evaluated the effects of financial incentives on professional practice and patient outcomes, and that reported numerical results of the included individual studies. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of each review according to the AMSTAR criteria. We included systematic reviews of studies evaluating the effectiveness of any type of financial incentive. We grouped financial incentives into five groups: payment for working for a specified time period; payment for each service, episode or visit; payment for providing care for a patient or specific population; payment for providing a pre-specified level or providing a change in activity or quality of care; and mixed or other systems. We summarised data using vote counting. Main results We identified four reviews reporting on 32 studies. Two reviews scored 7 on the AMSTAR criteria (moderate, score 5 to 7, quality) and two scored 9 (high, score 8 to 11, quality). The reported quality of the included studies was, by a variety of methods, low to moderate. Payment for working for a specified time period was generally ineffective, improving 3/11 outcomes from one study reported in one review. Payment for each service, episode or visit was generally effective, improving 7/10 outcomes from five studies reported in three reviews; payment for providing care for a patient or specific population was generally effective, improving 48/69 outcomes from 13 studies reported in two reviews; payment for providing a pre-specified level or providing a change in activity or quality of care was generally effective, improving 17/20 reported outcomes from 10 studies reported in two reviews; and mixed and other systems were of mixed effectiveness, improving 20/31 reported outcomes from seven studies reported in three reviews. When looking at the effect of financial incentives overall across categories of outcomes, they were of mixed effectiveness on consultation or visit rates (improving 10/17 outcomes from three studies in two reviews); generally effective in improving processes of care (improving 41/57 outcomes from 19 studies in three reviews); generally effective in improving referrals and admissions (improving 11/16 outcomes from 11 studies in four reviews); generally ineffective in improving compliance with guidelines outcomes (improving 5/17 outcomes from five studies in two reviews); and generally effective in improving prescribing costs outcomes (improving 28/34 outcomes from 10 studies in one review). Authors' conclusions Financial incentives may be effective in changing healthcare professional practice. The evidence has serious methodological limitations and is also very limited in its completeness and generalisability. We found no evidence from reviews that examined the effect of financial incentives on patient outcomes.

Risk sharing arrangements for pharmaceuticals: potential considerations and recommendations for European payers.

Abstract: Background There has been an increase in 'risk sharing' schemes for pharmaceuticals between healthcare institutions and pharmaceutical companies in Europe in recent years as an additional approach to provide continued comprehensive and equitable healthcare. There is though confusion surrounding the terminology as well as concerns with existing schemes.

The 'Wise List' - A Comprehensive Concept to Select, Communicate and Achieve Adherence to Recommendations of Essential Drugs in Ambulatory Care in Stockholm

Abstract: The aim was to present and evaluate the impact of a comprehensive strategy over 10 years to select, communicate and achieve adherence to essential drug recommendations (EDR) in ambulatory care in a metropolitan healthcare region. EDRs were issued and launched as a 'Wise List' by the regional Drug and Therapeutics Committee in Stockholm. This study presents the concept by: (i) documenting the process for selecting, communicating and monitoring the impact of the 'Wise List'; (ii) analysing the variation in the number of drug substances recommended between 2000 and 2010; (iii) assessing the attitudes to the 'Wise List' among prescribers and the public; (iv) evaluating the adherence to recommendations between 2003 and 2009. The 'Wise List' consistently contained 200 drug substances for treating common diseases. The drugs were selected based on their efficacy, safety, suitability and cost-effectiveness. The 'Wise List' was known among one-third of a surveyed sample of the public in 2002 after initial marketing campaigns. All surveyed prescribers knew about the concept and 81% found the recommendations trustworthy in 2005. Adherence to recommendations increased from 69% in 1999 to 77% in 2009. In primary care, adherence increased from 83% to 87% from 2003 to 2009. The coefficient of variation (CV%) decreased from 6.1% to 3.8% for 156 healthcare centres between these years. The acceptance of the 'Wise List' in terms of trust among physicians and among the public and increased adherence may be explained by clear criteria for drug recommendations, a comprehensive communication strategy, electronic access to recommendations, continuous medical education and involvement of professional networks and patients.