Inmaculada (Inma) Hernandez, PharmD, PhD, is an assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Pharmacy. Her research program is built at the intersection of pharmaceutical health services and outcomes research, pharmacoepidemiology, pharmacoeconomics, and pharmaceutical policy. Specifically, she is interested in the real-world use and outcomes of oral anticoagulation therapy in stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation, on the use of large data sets, advanced data mining techniques, and comparative effectiveness research to predict and compare outcomes of medications, and on value-based health insurance and health services delivery.
Relationships Between Provider-Led Health Plans and Quality, Utilization, and Satisfaction
December 10th 2018The results of the study demonstrate the potential of provider-led health plans to deliver high-quality care and patient satisfaction. The relationships between these plans and outcomes differed by plan size, nonprofit status, and region.
Outcomes-Based Pricing for PCSK9 Inhibitors
September 24th 2017Outcomes-based pricing arrangements for pharmaceuticals are increasingly popular. In this piece, we discuss the impact of the outcomes-based pricing arrangements proposed by Amgen on the pricing of PCSK9 inhibitor therapy, and we provide recommendations for payers on the design of outcomes-based contracts.
Risk of Cardiovascular Events With Oral Contraceptives, Part 1 - Scope of the Problem
November 10th 2015Oral contraception, the most widely used contraceptive method in the US, is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular side effects. Despite increased awareness of this risk over the years, the use of oral contraceptives among women with conditions that place them at high risk for cardiovascular effects is still common.
Why the King v. Burwell Ruling Is Good News for Millions of Americans
July 1st 2015The health coverage of millions of Americans in 34 states was pending upon the Supreme Court decision on the King v Burwell case. Luckily, common sense prevailed and the Supreme Court based its ruling on the original motivation behind the creation of the exchanges rather than on the plain language used in the provision.