The health benefits, costs, and cost-effectiveness of ultra-orphan drugs.

OBJECTIVE: To examine ultra-orphan drugs in terms of incremental health, costs, and cost-effectiveness compared to more prevalent disease drugs. METHODS: We identified FDA drug approvals from 1999-2019. For drugs approved for multiple indications, we considered each drug-indication pair separately. Utilizing FDA's orphan drug designation and US disease prevalence, we categorized drug-indication pairs as: ultra-orphan (<10,000 patients), 'other' orphan (≥10,000 and <200,000), and non-orphan (≥200,000). We searched the PubMed database for cost-effectiveness and cost-utility studies. We excluded manufacturer-funded studies. We extracted estimates of incremental health gains in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental costs associated with drug-indication pairs compared to the standard of care at the time of their approval. We compared QALY gains, added costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) using the Kruskal-Wallis (KW), Mann-Whitney U (MWU), and Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) tests. RESULTS: Median incremental QALYs, costs, and ICERs differed across non-orphan, 'other' orphan, and ultra-orphan categories (KW p<0.01). Compared to non-orphan drugs, ultra-orphan drugs had larger QALY gains (0.700 vs. 0.050, MWU p<0.01, KS p<0.01), larger costs ($172,231 vs. $3,360, MWU p<0.01, KS p<0.01), and larger ICERs ($1,216,184/QALY vs. $114,061/QALY, MWU p<0.01, KS p<0.01). Compared to 'other' orphan drugs, ultra-orphan drugs had larger QALY gains (0.700 vs. 0.310, MWU p=0.65, KS p=0.32), larger costs ($172,231 vs. $69,308, MWU p=0.03, KS p=0.03), and larger ICERs ($1,216,184/QALY vs. $223,472/QALY, MWU p<0.01, KS p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Novel ultra-orphan drugs typically offer larger incremental health gains than drugs for more prevalent diseases, but due to their substantial added costs, are typically less cost-effective.

Overcoming barriers to implementation: mapping implementation strategies in four hospital in home programs within the Veterans Health Administration.

The Hospital at Home model, called Hospital-in-Home (HIH) in the Department of Veterans Affairs, delivers coordinated, high-value care aligned with older adult and caregiver preferences. Documenting implementation barriers and corresponding strategies to overcome them can address challenges to widespread adoption. To evaluate HIH implementation barriers and identify strategies to address them, we conducted interviews with 8 HIH staff at 4 hospitals between 2010 and 2013. We utilized qualitative directed content analysis guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and mapped identified barriers to possible strategies using the CFIR-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) Matching Tool. We identified 11 barriers spanning 5 CFIR domains. Three implementation strategies - identifying and preparing champions, conducting educational meetings, and capturing and sharing local knowledge - achieved high expert endorsement for each barrier. A mix of strategies targeting resources, organizational readiness and fit, and leadership engagement should be considered to support the sustainability and spread of HIH.

Care partner evaluation of the behaviors in the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory.

Introduction: Agitation is a common symptom in patients with Alzheimer's dementia. But agitation can be a heterogeneous symptom, encompassing a diverse array of behaviors exhibited by patients. The Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) is a 29-item scale that is used to systematically assess the frequency and severity of agitation in older adults as rated by a primary caregiver. The CMAI was originally designed for use by professional care givers in institutional care settings. Alzheimer's dementia, however, is associated with a significant burden on family members, who provide the majority of care, and other informal care partners. Methods: Our qualitative study aimed to assess the accuracy and applicability of the CMAI according to the needs and perceptions of non-professional care partners. Specifically, we wanted to determine if the behaviors included in the instrument reflect: (a) the care partner's experience with agitation in Alzheimer's dementia patients, (b) how the behaviors and their frequency are related to the perception of agitation severity, and (c) what changes in agitation behaviors are meaningful to care partners. We interviewed 30 care partners for patients with Alzheimer's dementia in the United States. Results: The care partners confirmed all behaviors listed in the CMAI as relevant. The behaviors reflect a spectrum of severity, with aggressive behaviors considered more severe than non-aggressive behaviors and physical behaviors generally considered more severe than verbal behaviors. Any reduction or increase in the frequency of a behavior was meaningful to care partners. Generally, a change from physical to verbal behaviors and aggressive to non-aggressive was considered a meaningful improvement while a change from verbal to physical and non-aggressive to aggressive was considered a meaningful worsening. Discussion: The CMAI appropriately captures relevant behaviors of agitation in Alzheimer's dementia and provides insight into the relative improvement or worsening of agitation symptoms.

Medicare, Medicaid, and dual enrollment for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

OBJECTIVE: Given high rates of un- and underemployment among disabled people, adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities rely on Medicaid, Medicare, or both to pay for healthcare. Many disabled adults are Medicare eligible before the age of 65 but little is known as to why some receive Medicare services while others do not. We described the duration of Medicare enrollment for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities in 2019 and then compared demographics by enrollment type (Medicare-only, Medicaid-only, dual-enrolled). Additionally, we examined the percent in each enrollment type by state, and differences in enrollment type for those with Down syndrome. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: 2019 Medicare and Medicaid claims data for all adults (≥18 years) in the US with claim codes for intellectual disability, Down syndrome, or autism at any time between 2011 and 2019. STUDY DESIGN: Administrative claims cohort. DATA COLLECTION AND ABSTRACTION METHODS: Data were from the Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System Analytic Files and Medicare Beneficiary Summary files. PRINCIPLE FINDINGS: In 2019, Medicare insured 582,868 adults with identified intellectual disability, autism, or Down syndrome. Of 582,868 Medicare beneficiaries, 149,172 were Medicare only and 433,396 were dual-enrolled. Most Medicare enrollees were enrolled as child dependents (61.5%) Medicaid-only enrollees (N = 819,256) were less likely to be white non-Hispanic (58.5% white non-Hispanic vs. 72.9% white non-Hispanic in dual-enrolled), more likely to be Hispanic (19.6% Hispanic vs. 9.2% Hispanic in dual-enrolled) and were younger (mean 34.2 years vs. 50.5 years dual-enrolled). CONCLUSION: There is heterogeneity in public insurance enrollment which is associated with state and disability type. Action is needed to ensure all are insured in the program that works for their healthcare needs.

Inequities in medicaid home- and community-based services waiver enrollment among people with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities: A nationwide claims-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: States use Medicaid 1915(c) waiver programs to enable access to home- and community-based services for people with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities (I/DD). However, enrollment rates and potential inequities are not well documented, impeding efforts to improve care access and quality for waiver program enrollees, especially for racially minoritized beneficiaries experiencing compounded barriers to services and supports. OBJECTIVE: To characterize year-by-year 1915(c) waiver program enrollment among Medicaid-enrolled adults with I/DD from 2016 to 2019 and to analyze population-level inequities by type of I/DD and racial/ethnic group. METHODS: Our data source was 2016-2019 Medicaid Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System Analytic Files Demographic and Eligibility files for beneficiaries with Down syndrome, autism, and intellectual disability. We used generalized estimating equation linear models to estimate the associations of type of I/DD and racial/ethnic group with the probability of 1915(c) waiver program enrollment and reported (1) unadjusted estimates and (2) estimates adjusted for demographics with state and year fixed effects. RESULTS: From 2016 to 2019, across all types of I/DD and racial/ethnic groups, unadjusted 1915(c) waiver program enrollment rates ranged from 40 to 60 % nationwide. We found modest growth in 1915(c) I/DD waiver program enrollment but persistent inequities over time. Compared to beneficiaries with intellectual disabilities, beneficiaries with autism were less likely to enroll while beneficiaries with Down syndrome were more likely. While some racial/ethnic groups had higher unadjusted mean enrollment, after adjustment, racially minoritized beneficiaries were 3.66-12.0 percentage points less likely to enroll compared to white non-Hispanic beneficiaries. CONCLUSIONS: Given extensive waiting lists for 1915(c) waiver programs, Medicaid programs should evaluate existing enrollment and authorization processes and consider alternative HCBS program authorities.

Specialty drug coverage varies between health plans' medical and pharmacy benefit policies.

BACKGROUND: In an effort to control drug spending, health plans are increasingly shifting specialty drugs from their medical benefit to the pharmacy benefit. One consequence of this trend is that some health plans have both a medical and a pharmacy coverage policy for the same drug. OBJECTIVE: To examine how frequently health plans issue medical and pharmacy benefit policies for the same specialty drug and to evaluate the concordance between plans' medical and pharmacy policies when plans issue both policy types. METHODS: We identified specialty drug coverage policies from the Tufts Medical Center Specialty Drug Evidence and Coverage Database, which includes policies issued by 17 of the largest US commercial health plans. Policies were current as of August 2020. We determined plans that issued both medical and pharmacy policies. Next, we identified drugs with "medical-pharmacy policy pairs," ie, drugs for which a plan issued both a medical and a pharmacy policy. For these pairs, we compared the plan's policies while accounting for the following coverage criteria: patient subgroups (patients must meet certain clinical criteria), prescriber requirements (a specialist must prescribe the drug), and step therapy protocols (patients must first fail alternative treatments). We considered medical-pharmacy policy pairs to be discordant if coverage criteria differed, eg, the medical policy included a prescriber requirement but the pharmacy policy did not. RESULTS: Eight plans issued separate medical and pharmacy benefit coverage policies for the same specialty drug and indication. Among these 8 plans, we identified 1,619 medical-pharmacy policy pairs. Eighty-six percent of pairs were concordant (1,386/1,619), and 14% were discordant (233/1,619). Discordance was most often due to differences in plans' application of step therapy protocols (184/233), followed by prescriber requirements (52/233) and patient subgroups (25/233). Forty pairs were discordant in multiple ways. Of discordant pairs, medical policies were more restrictive 41% (96/233) of the time; pharmacy policies were more restrictive 54% (125/233) of the time; 5% of the time (12/233), the medical policy was more restrictive in some ways, but the pharmacy policy was more restrictive in others. Overall, plans imposed coverage restrictions in their medical and pharmacy policies with similar frequencies. CONCLUSIONS: Commercial health plans' medical and pharmacy coverage policies for the same specialty drugs tended to be concordant, although we found coverage criteria to be discordant 14% of the time. Medical and pharmacy policies that are inconsistent in their coverage criteria and restrictions complicate, and potentially hinder, patients' access to specialty drugs. DISCLOSURES: Drs Kauf, O'Sullivan, and Strand were employees of Alkermes, Inc., when the study was conducted and may own stock in the company. Mx Levine, Mr Panzer, and Dr Chambers have no conflicts of interest to disclose. This research study was supported by Alkermes, Inc.

Medicaid Enrollment and Service Use Among Adults With Down Syndrome.

Importance: Down syndrome is the leading genetic cause of intellectual disability and automatically qualifies individuals for Social Security Insurance. Therefore, Medicaid is the major health insurance provider for a population at high risk for dementia, obesity, and premature mortality. Despite the importance of Medicaid for adults with Down syndrome, little is known about how this population uses Medicaid. Objective: To describe enrollment in, health care use in, and cost to Medicaid for adults with Down syndrome compared with adults with intellectual disability and a random sample of adults enrolled in Medicaid. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, the data are from a claims cohort of adults aged 18 years or older enrolled in Medicaid at any point between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2019. Participants were enrollees with 1 or more inpatient claim or 2 or more other claims with an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision code or an International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision code for Down syndrome or intellectual disability as well as a random sample of those without developmental disability. Analyses were conducted from June 2022 to February 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Data were linked across 2 data reporting systems. Main outcomes were enrollee demographic characteristics, enrollment characteristics, cost, and service use. Results: This cohort study included 123 024 individuals with Down syndrome (820 273 person-years of coverage; mean [SD] age, 35 [14.7] years; median age, 33 years [IQR, 21-48 years]; 51.6% men; 14.1% Black individuals; 16.7% Hispanic individuals; and 74.6% White individuals), 1 182 246 individuals with intellectual disability (mean [SD] age, 37.1 [16.8] years; median age, 33 years [IQR, 22-50 years]; 56.5% men; 22.0% Black individuals; 11.7% Hispanic individuals; and 69.5% White individuals), and 3 176 371 individuals with no developmental disabilities (mean [SD] age, 38 [18.6] years; median age, 33 years [IQR, 21-52 years]; 43.8% men; 23.7% Black individuals; 20.7% Hispanic individuals; and 61.3% White individuals). Median enrollment in Medicaid for a person with Down syndrome was 8.0 years (IQR, 5.0-9.0 years; mean [SD], 6.6 [2.6] years). Costs were higher for the Down syndrome group (median, $26 278 per person-year [IQR, $11 145-$55 928 per person-year]) relative to the group with no developmental disabilities (median, $6173 per person-year [IQR, $868-$58 390 per person-year]). Asian, Black, Hispanic, Native American, and Pacific Islander adults with Down syndrome had fewer costs and claims per person-year compared with White adults with Down syndrome. Conclusion and Relevance: This cohort study of individuals with Down syndrome enrolled in Medicaid found consistent enrollment and high use of health care in a population with high health care needs. Results were similar comparing individuals with Down syndrome and those with intellectual disability, with both groups differing from a sample of Medicaid enrollees with no developmental disabilities. Medicaid data are a useful tool for understanding the health and well-being of individuals with Down syndrome.