RSS Feed This entry was posted on Monday, April 27th, 2009 at 12:25 pm and is filed under FYI. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
 |
- At Other Sites
- Beam Me Up
- Book Review
- Breaking News
- CBO
- Discussion
- From the Trenches
- FYI
- Ground Control to Sen. Democrats
- Health Alert
- 2008 Election
- African AIDS
- Babies
- Bad Studies
- Book Reviews
- Bush Health Plan
- Diabetics
- Drugs
- Health Care Access
- Health Care Costs
- Health Reform
- HSAs
- International
- LAZIK Surgery
- Malpractice
- Media Advisory
- Medicaid
- Medical Economics
- Medical Tourism
- Mental Health
- Minimum Wage
- Portability
- Racial Disparities
- RAND Studies
- Safety
- Scary Forecasts
- SCHIP
- Seniors/Medicare
- Socialized Medicine
- Supply Side
- Telemedicine
- Transparency
- Uninsured
- Vet Care
- Vision Thing
- Workers Comp
- Hits & Misses
- Holiday
- In Memoriam
- In the News
- Interesting Videos
- Memorial Day
- New Videos
- NHS Update
- Notable and Quotable
- Obesity Update
- On Capitol Hill
- Personal Testimony
- Petition
- Plans
- Policy Update
- Question of the Week
- Quote of the Day
- Season's Greetings
- Song of the Season
- The People Speak Out
- Updates
Categories
Contributors
- Ron Bachman
- Michael Bond
- Jim Frogue
- John Goodman
- Linda Gorman
- Robert Graboyes
- John R. Graham
- Devon Herrick
- Regina Herzlinger
- June O'Neill
- Roy Ramthun
- Greg Scandlen
Recent Posts
- Maybe Sen. Bunning is Right about Unemployment Benefits
- The Mystery of Health Care Policy
- Insurance Regulators Push Back on White House Demagoguery
- Half of All Infections are Caused by Hospitals, Household Dust, and Kids are Snacking More
- White House Endorses High Deductible Health Insurance
- A Strange Way to Look at Health Economics
- Deadliest State for Bicyclists, One Less Cookie, and Is Sugar Safe?
- Why the Antitrust Exemption Matters
- A Pill Bottle that Won’t Take “No” for an Answer
- McDonald’s Controversial “Diet Friendly” Menu, Low-Fat vs. Low-Carb Diets, and Is Obesity Bad for the Economy?
Blogroll
Apr 27, 2009
Some drug companies are negotiating discounts and rebates based how well patients do, rather than on volume:
Merck has agreed to peg what the insurer Cigna pays for the diabetes drugs Januvia and Janumet to how well Type 2 diabetes patients are able to control their blood sugar…… the two companies that jointly sell the osteoporosis drug Actonel agreed to reimburse the insurer Health Alliance for the costs of treating fractures suffered by patients taking that medicine.
4 Responses to “Pay-for-Performance That May Actually Work”
RSS
Twitter
YouTube
LinkedIn
Facebook
Flickr
Helium
April 27th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
If, as you showed in a previous post, drugs work only about half the time for major categories of chronic illnesses, this could radically change the market for drugs.
April 27th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
This is a great idea. I wish all drugs were sold this way.
April 27th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
I agree with Vicki. What’s wrong with a money back guarantee?
April 28th, 2009 at 10:21 am
Suppose you have two drugs. One generates a small improvement in almost all patients. The other generates a very large improvement in 10% of patients. No one can predict who will respond to either drug as the biological mechanisms are not well understood.
Which drug will your insurance company prefer that you try given these arrangements and the rebate structure described above? Which drug would you prefer to try? Given finite research funds, in which treatment pathway should research funds be invested?
Just a few reasons why centrally controlled health care is a disaster…