Biosimilar underutilization alone does not foretell a broken biologics market.

Biosimilars offer the potential for cost savings and expanded access to biologic products; however, there are concerns regarding the rate of biosimilar uptake. We assessed the relationship between biosimilar and originator pricing, coverage, and market share by describing four case studies that fall into two categories: (1) sole preferred coverage strategy (ie, aim is to have originator product preferred; biosimilar(s) non-preferred), defined as steep average sales price (ASP) reductions for originator products (decline in net prices by at least 50% following the introduction of biosimilar competition by 2022) and (2) non-sole preferred coverage strategy (ie, aim is to have originator product preferred alongside biosimilar products), defined as moderate ASP reductions for originator products with (net prices did not decline by at least 50% of its pre-biosimilar competition value). We found that originators with sole preferred coverage strategies maintained formulary preference and market share relative to originators with non-sole preferred coverage strategies. Regardless of strategy, the market-weighted ASP for all four product families (originator and biosimilars) declined significantly in the years following the introduction of biosimilars, suggesting that biosimilar uptake alone may not be a complete measure of whether the biosimilar market is facilitating competition and lowering prices.

Private Payer and Medicare Coverage Policies for Use of Circulating Tumor DNA Tests in Cancer Diagnostics and Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is used to select initial targeted therapy, identify mechanisms of therapeutic resistance, and measure minimal residual disease (MRD) after treatment. Our objective was to review private and Medicare coverage policies for ctDNA testing. METHODS: Policy Reporter was used to identify coverage policies (as of February 2022) from private payers and Medicare Local Coverage Determinations (LCDs) for ctDNA tests. We abstracted data regarding policy existence, ctDNA test coverage, cancer types covered, and clinical indications. Descriptive analyses were performed by payer, clinical indication, and cancer type. RESULTS: A total of 71 of 1,066 total policies met study inclusion criteria, of which 57 were private policies and 14 were Medicare LCDs; 70% of private policies and 100% of Medicare LCDs covered at least one indication. Among 57 private policies, 89% specified a policy for at least 1 clinical indication, with coverage for ctDNA for initial treatment selection most common (69%). Of 40 policies addressing progression, coverage was provided 28% of the time, and of 20 policies addressing MRD, coverage was provided 65% of the time. Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was the cancer type most frequently covered for initial treatment (47%) and progression (60%). Among policies with ctDNA coverage, coverage was restricted to patients without available tissue or in whom biopsy was contraindicated in 91% of policies. MRD was commonly covered for hematologic malignancies (30%) and NSCLC (25%). Of the 14 Medicare LCD policies, 64% provided coverage for initial treatment selection and progression, and 36% for MRD. CONCLUSIONS: Some private payers and Medicare LCDs provide coverage for ctDNA testing. Private payers frequently cover testing for initial treatment, especially for NSCLC, when tissue is insufficient or biopsy is contraindicated. Coverage remains variable across payers, clinical indications, and cancer types despite inclusion in clinical guidelines, which could impact delivery of effective cancer care.

Perspectives of private payers on multicancer early-detection tests: informing research, implementation, and policy.

Emerging blood-based multicancer early-detection (MCED) tests may redefine cancer screening, reduce mortality, and address health disparities if their benefit is demonstrated. U.S. payers' coverage policies will impact MCED test adoption and access; thus, their perspectives must be understood. We examined views, coverage barriers, and evidentiary needs for MCED from 19 private payers collectively covering 150 000 000 enrollees. Most saw an MCED test's potential merit for cancers without current screening (84%), but fewer saw its merit for cancers with existing screening (37%). The largest coverage barriers were inclusion of cancers without demonstrated benefits of early diagnosis (73%), a high false-negative rate (53%), and lack of care protocols for MCED-detected but unconfirmed cancers (53%). The majority (58%) would not require mortality evidence and would accept surrogate endpoints. Most payers (64%) would accept rigorous real-world evidence in the absence of a large randomized controlled trial. The majority (74%) did not expect MCED to reduce disparities due to potential harm from overtreatment resulting from an MCED and barriers to downstream care. Payers' perspectives and evidentiary needs may inform MCED test developers, researchers producing evidence, and health systems framing MCED screening programs. Private payers should be stakeholders of a national MCED policy and equity agenda.

Association of opioid fills with centers for disease control and prevention opioid guidelines and payer coverage policies: physician, insurance and geographic factors.

Background The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued guidelines and certain healthcare payers have made pharmacy coverage changes (PCC) focusing on regulating prescription opioids. Aim We evaluated differences in the rate of first-time opioid fills at doses ≥ 50 morphine milligram equivalents (MME)/day and first-time opioid fills with benzodiazepine fill overlap following the CDC guidelines and following a PCC between provider types, geographic locations, and insurance types. Method We used OptumLabs® Data Warehouse claims data between 2014 and 2018. Subjects were opioid naïve non-cancer care patients, 18 years and older who had an identified chronic pain condition ICD diagnosis within 2 weeks prior to their first-time opioid fill. We used multiple treatment period segmented regression analysis with interaction terms to test the differences between primary care providers (PCPs) and specialist providers (SPs), urban and rural primary care service areas (PCSAs), and Medicare Advantage (MA) and commercially insured patients (CIPs) in their first-time opioid fill patterns. Results Prescribing first-time opioid fills at doses ≥ 50MME/day declined following the CDC guidelines and PCC, the decline was greater among SPs than PCPs and in rural PCSAs than urban PCSAs. Also, following the CDC guidelines, the decline was greater among MA patients however following the PCC the decline was greater among CIPs. There were no differences in rate of first-time opioid fill with benzodiazepine overlap between groups. Conclusion Responses to the CDC opioid guidelines and a PCC differed between PCPs and SPs, urban and rural PCSAs, and when prescribing to MA and CIPs. Understanding these differences is important to help inform future guidelines.

Private payer coverage policies for exome sequencing (ES) in pediatric patients: trends over time and analysis of evidence cited.

PURPOSE: Exome sequencing (ES) is being adopted for neurodevelopmental disorders in pediatric patients. However, little is known about current coverage policies or the evidence cited supporting these policies. Our study is the first in-depth review of private payer ES coverage policies for pediatric patients with neurodevelopmental disorders. METHODS: We reviewed private payer coverage policies and examined evidence cited in the policies of the 15 largest payers in 2017, and trends in coverage policies and evidence cited (2015-2017) for the five largest payers. RESULTS: There were four relevant policies (N = 5 payers) in 2015 and 13 policies (N = 15 payers) in 2017. In 2015, no payer covered ES, but by 2017, three payers from the original registry payers did. In 2017, 8 of the 15 payers covered ES. We found variations in the number and types of evidence cited. Positive coverage policies tended to include a larger number and range of citations. CONCLUSION: We conclude that more systematic assessment of evidence cited in coverage policies can provide a greater understanding of coverage policies and how evidence is used. Such assessments could facilitate the ability of researchers to provide the needed evidence, and the ability of clinicians to provide the most appropriate testing for patients.

EXAMINING EVIDENCE IN U.S. PAYER COVERAGE POLICIES FOR MULTI-GENE PANELS AND SEQUENCING TESTS.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the evidence payers cited in their coverage policies for multi-gene panels and sequencing tests (panels), and to compare these findings with the evidence payers cited in their coverage policies for other types of medical interventions. METHODS: We used the University of California at San Francisco TRANSPERS Payer Coverage Registry to identify coverage policies for panels issued by five of the largest US private payers. We reviewed each policy and categorized the evidence cited within as: clinical studies, systematic reviews, technology assessments, cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs), budget impact studies, and clinical guidelines. We compared the evidence cited in these coverage policies for panels with the evidence cited in policies for other intervention types (pharmaceuticals, medical devices, diagnostic tests and imaging, and surgical interventions) as reported in a previous study. RESULTS: Fifty-five coverage policies for panels were included. On average, payers cited clinical guidelines in 84 percent of their coverage policies (range, 73-100 percent), clinical studies in 69 percent (50-87 percent), technology assessments 47 percent (33-86 percent), systematic reviews or meta-analyses 31 percent (7-71 percent), and CEAs 5 percent (0-7 percent). No payers cited budget impact studies in their policies. Payers less often cited clinical studies, systematic reviews, technology assessments, and CEAs in their coverage policies for panels than in their policies for other intervention types. Payers cited clinical guidelines in a comparable proportion of policies for panels and other technology types. CONCLUSIONS: Payers in our sample less often cited clinical studies and other evidence types in their coverage policies for panels than they did in their coverage policies for other types of medical interventions.