eneficiaries make rational decisions when selecting Medicare plans. These findings suggest that health care professionals should be involved in assistance programs to maximize efficiency of Medicare plan selection and to improve monitoring and consulting mechanisms to ensure the reliability of assistance information and services.BACKGROUND Community pharmacy participation in performance-based payment models has increased in recent years. Despite this, there has been neither much research done to evaluate the effect of these models on health care quality and spending nor is there extensive literature on the design of these models. OBJECTIVES To (a) describe the types of measures used in performance-based pharmacy payment models (PBPPMs); (b) describe the financial impact of PBPPMs on pharmacies; (3) explore pharmacy owners' perceptions of PBPPMs; and (4) describe any practice changes made in response to PBPPMs. METHODS This is a cross-sectional study that surveyed independent community pharmacy owners between November 2019 and January 2020. The survey included 45 items split into 5 sections that covered respondent characteristics and the 4 domain objectives. Descriptive statistics were used for quantitative responses, and free-text responses were assessed for themes. RESULTS Of the 68 individuals who responded to the survey, 42 were cPharmacy, which was not involved in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the report; or the decision to submit this article for publication. Urick reports consulting fees from Pharmacy Quality Solutions. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.DISCLOSURES Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, California Health Care Foundation, The Donaghue Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from AbbVie, Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Pandey, Fazioli, and Pearson are employed by ICER.  https://www.selleckchem.com/products/acetylcysteine.html  Ollendorf reports grants from ICER related to this study and reports other support from the CEA Registry Sponsors and consulting and advisory board fees from EMD Serono, Amgen, Analysis Group, Aspen Institute/University of Southern California, GalbraithWight, Cytokinetics, Sunovion, University of Colorado, the Center for Global Development, and Neurocrine, unrelated to this work. Bloudek reports grants from ICER related to this work and reports fees from AbbVie, Astellas, Akcea, Dermira, GlaxoSmithKline, Sunovion, Seattle Genetics, TerSera Therapeutics, and Incyte, unrelated to this work. Carlson reports grants from ICER related to this work.BACKGROUND Standard of care for bleed prevention in patients with severe congenital hemophilia A is continuous prophylaxis with factor VIII (FVIII), typically administered intravenously 2-3 times per week in the home setting. Nonfactor prophylaxis and gene therapy are emerging novel prophylaxis strategies for hemophilia A, and it is important to compare their health economics with that of FVIII prophylaxis. Current data on resource utilization and costs in the adult hemophilia A prophylaxis population are limited, and a structured approach to analyze annual costs in these patients using administrative claims data has not been previously reported. OBJECTIVE To assess health care resource utilization and costs of continuous FVIII prophylaxis in commercially insured adults with hemophilia A without inhibitors. METHODS Administrative claims records from beneficiaries covered by major selfinsured companies in the United States from January 1999 through March 2017 (OptumHealth Care Solutions) were queried, and reconded by BioMarin Pharmaceutical, which was involved in protocol development, analysis plan development, data interpretation, manuscript preparation, and publication decisions. All authors contributed to protocol development, analysis plan development, data interpretation, and manuscript development. All authors maintained control over the final content. Sammon, Solari, Kim, and Hinds are employees and shareholders of BioMarin Pharmaceutical. Cook, Sheikh, and Chawla are employees of Analysis Group, a consulting company that was contracted by BioMarin Pharmaceutical to conduct this study and develop the manuscript. Croteau has received professional fees from BioMarin Pharmaceutical, Bayer, CSL Behring, Genentech, and Pfizer. Thornberg has received professional fees from BioMarin Pharmaceutical, Genentech, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Spark Therapeutics, as well as research funding from Novo Nordisk and Sanofi.BACKGROUND The 2015 American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend first-line treatment of hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer with endocrine therapy plus or minus palbociclib, a selective cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK)4/6 inhibitor. In 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved ribociclib, a new orally available selective CDK4/6 inhibitor. While gains in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from ribociclib are important for clinical and treatment outcomes, trade-offs in adverse events (AEs) and additional costs necessitate cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to assist consideration by third-party payer systems, physicians, and patients. OBJECTIVES To (a) develop a Markov model and (b) determine the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib plus endocrine therapy versus endocrine therapy alone as treatment for premenopausal and perimenopausal patients with HR-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer. METHODS A lifetime 3-state Markov model ("stable," "progressed," and "dead" health states) was developed using a U.