Patients' access to 2018 FDA-approved drugs 1 year post approval.

OBJECTIVES: To examine US commercial health plans' adoption of 2018 FDA-approved drugs. STUDY DESIGN: Database analysis. METHODS: We identified novel drugs that the FDA approved in 2018 and categorized them as follows: cancer treatment, orphan drug, included in an expedited review program, and biosimilar. Using a data set of 17 large health plans' drug coverage policies and formularies, we examined coverage 1 year following FDA approval. RESULTS: The FDA approved 66 drugs in 2018 (5 were not yet marketed 1 year following approval). For 60 of 61 drugs, some plans issued coverage policies whereas other plans included the drug in their formularies. Plans imposed restrictions (eg, step therapy) in 37% (275/742) of coverage policies. Plans covered biosimilars, orphan drugs, and cancer treatments more generously than drugs not in those categories (P < .05). Plans imposed restrictions in their policies with different frequencies (range, 7%-52%). Plans imposed utilization management (UM) in 82% (3837/4697) of formulary entries. Of those entries, plans required prior authorizations in 98%, included drugs on the highest patient co-payment tier in 70%, and imposed step therapy in 3%. Plans most often placed orphan drugs and cancer treatments on the highest cost-sharing formulary tiers (68% and 64% of the time, respectively). Plans imposed UM in their formularies with different frequencies (range, 62%-100% of entries). CONCLUSIONS: Health plans imposed fewer coverage restrictions on cancer treatments, orphan drugs, and biosimilars than on drugs not in those categories. Some plans covered 2018 FDA-approved drugs more generously than others, which has implications for patients' access to innovative therapies.

Patients' access to rare neuromuscular disease therapies varies across US private insurers.

BACKGROUND: The extent to which different US private insurers require their enrollees to meet the same coverage criteria before gaining access to treatment is unclear. Our objective was to scrutinize the patient access criteria imposed by US private insurers for a set of rare neuromuscular disease (NMD) disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). METHODS: We examined coverage policies issued by 17 large US private insurers for the following NMD treatments: nusinersen and onasemnogene abeparvovec for spinal muscular atrophy, edaravone for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and eteplirsen for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. We reviewed the plans' coverage policies and identified the patient access criteria, including clinical prerequisites, step therapy protocols, and prescriber requirements. We compared the plans' patient access criteria with the therapies' US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-labeled indications. RESULTS: The included insurers issued 65 coverage policies for the included therapies. Plans imposed coverage restrictions beyond the FDA-approved indications in 60 coverage policies; plans did not cover eteplirsen in five policies. No therapy was covered the same way by all insurers. Plans applied clinical criteria beyond the FDA label indication in 56 policies and step therapy protocols in three policies. Plans required that a neurologist prescribe the therapy in 37 policies, 22 of which required the neurologist to have expertise in the particular disease. Plans often required patients to suffer from symptoms of particular severity; e.g. for eteplirsen, plans differed in their 6-min walk test requirements; for edaravone, some plans required that patients had normal respiratory function, while others required only that patients did not require ventilation; for nusinersen and onasemnogene abeparvovec, plans differed in the number of SMN2 gene copies they required patients to have (SMN2 copy number is correlated with disease severity). CONCLUSIONS: The evaluated large US private insurers tended to impose coverage restrictions beyond the FDA label indication for the included set of rare NMD DMTs. Plans rarely applied the same patient access criteria in their coverage policies for the same products. Inconsistent coverage criteria mean that patients with different insurers have variable access to the same therapies across insurers.

Is an Orphan Drug's Cost-Effectiveness Associated with US Health Plan Coverage Restrictiveness?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Orphan drugs' high prices raise questions about whether their costs are worth their benefits. We examined the association between an orphan drug's cost-effectiveness and health plan coverage restrictiveness. METHODS: We analyzed a dataset of US commercial health plan coverage decisions (information current as of 2019) for orphan drugs (n = 3298). We used multi-level random-effect logistic regression to examine the association between orphan drug cost-effectiveness and coverage restrictiveness. We identified cost-effectiveness estimates from the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, and from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's value assessments. We included only cost-effectiveness studies not funded by product manufacturers. We included the following independent variables: cancer indication, availability of alternatives, pediatric population, number of years since US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, disease prevalence, annual cost, additional non-orphan indication, safety, and inclusion in a FDA expedited review program. RESULTS: Plans restricted drug coverage in 29.7% (n = 981) of decisions. Plans were more likely to restrict drugs with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $50,000-$175,000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] (odds ratio = 1.855, p < 0.05), $175,000-$500,000 per QALY (odds ratio = 1.859, p < 0.05), and >$500,000 per QALY/dominated (odds ratio = 2.032, p < 0.01), compared to drugs with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios <$50,000 per QALY. Plans more often restricted drugs with non-cancer indications, having available alternatives, with more recent approval, in an FDA expedited review program, and for which the FDA additionally issued approval for a non-orphan disease. Plans more often restricted drugs with higher annual costs, and drugs indicated for higher prevalence diseases. All findings p < 0.05. CONCLUSIONS: Among other factors, an orphan drug's cost-effectiveness was associated with health plan drug coverage restrictiveness.

Variation in access to hemophilia A treatments in the United States.

BACKGROUND: US commercial health plans have been found to vary in how they cover specialty drugs indicated for a range of diseases. In this study, we examined patients' access to hemophilia A (HemA) treatments across a set of large commercial health plans. OBJECTIVE: To examine variation in health plans' coverage policies for HemA treatments. METHODS: We reviewed HemA treatment coverage policies (current as of August 2019) issued by 17 commercial health plans primarily using the Tufts Medical Center Specialty Drug Evidence and Coverage Database. We categorized policies as: covered without conditions (coverage consistent with the FDA label); covered with conditions (conditions on coverage beyond the FDA label); broader coverage (coverage for a broader patient population than the FDA label); and mixed (conditions on coverage beyond the FDA label in one way, but coverage was broader than the FDA label in another). RESULTS: We identified 296 coverage policies for 26 HemA treatments, including 15 short half-life factor VIII (FVIII) products, five extended half-life FVIII products, three bypassing agents, two desmopressin products, and emicizumab. We classified 36% of policies as coverage without conditions, 50% as covered with conditions, 7% as broader coverage, and 7% as mixed. Plans applied conditions on coverage with different frequencies: two did not apply conditions in any policies; ten applied conditions in ≥50%; four applied conditions in <40%. One plan did not publish coverage policies for any HemA products. Conditions on coverage most often related to bleeding frequency (36%), although specific requirements varied. Plans applied step therapy protocols in 17% of policies. CONCLUSIONS: How health plans covered HemA treatments varied. Plans added conditions on coverage beyond the FDA label roughly half the time. Conditions most often related to bleeding frequency. Variable coverage affects patients' access to treatment, and potentially has clinical implications on disease management and disease progression.

Variation in health plan coverage of ESAs for anemia due to chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Because health plans each issue their own policies, drug coverage can vary. This variation can result in patients having unequal access to treatment. In this study, we evaluate commercial health plans' coverage policies for erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) for patients with anemia resulting from chronic kidney disease (CKD). OBJECTIVES: To assess how a set of US commercial health plans cover ESAs for patients with anemia due to CKD. Our second objective was to examine the evidence that the plans reviewed when formulating their coverage policies. METHODS: We used the Tufts Medical Center Specialty Drug and Evidence and Coverage Database to identify coverage policies issued by 17 of the largest US commercial health plans for ESAs. The following drugs were indicated for anemia due to CKD: darbepoetin alfa, methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta, epoetin alfa (available as two brands), and epoetin alfa-epbx. Coverage policies were current as of May 2019. We determined whether the health plans applied any restrictions, such as step therapy protocols or patient subgroup restrictions, in their coverage policies. We categorized the evidence that plans cited to support their policies into seven categories: randomized controlled trials (RCTs), real-world evidence (RWE) studies (studies based on data collected in a real-world setting), other clinical studies (eg, single arm trials), systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses, clinical or treatment guidelines, health technology assessments, and economic evaluations. RESULTS: We categorized 72.5% of coverage policies (58/80 policies) as equivalent to the FDA label and 27.5% (22/80 policies) as more restrictive. In restricted policies, plans most often applied step therapy protocols (18/22 policies), followed by prescriber requirements (4/22 policies), and patient subgroup restrictions (3/22 policies). Five health plans applied restrictions in at least half of their coverage policies; seven plans did not apply restrictions in any policy. Plans that cited evidence reviewed an average of 10 citations across their ESA coverage policies, ranging from one to 29 studies. Plans varied with respect to the types of cited studies: at least 50% of evidence cited by five health plans was RCTs, while half or more of the evidence cited by four health plans was clinical or treatment guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Health plans varied in how they covered ESAs for patients with anemia due to CKD and in the evidence cited in their coverage policies. Inconsistencies in plans' coverage policies may have implications for patients' access to ESAs. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development and Commercialization. Sanon, Redmond, and Mogahadam are employed by Otsuka Pharmaceutical. Michalopoulos was employed by Otsuka Pharmaceutical at the time of this study. Margaretos, Panzer, and Chambers are employed by Tufts Medical Center, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health. Lai was with Tufts Medical Center, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health at the time of this study.

What types of real-world evidence studies do U.S. commercial health plans cite in their specialty drug coverage decisions?

PURPOSE: To examine the RWE U.S. commercial health plans cite in their specialty drug coverage decisions. METHODS: We used the Tufts Medical Center Specialty Drug Evidence and Coverage Database to identify specialty drug coverage decisions (n = 7267) issued by 17 large commercial health plans. We categorized the clinical evidence plans cited in these coverage decisions (n = 5227) as randomized controlled trials (RCTs), RWE studies, and other clinical studies (studies other than RCT or RWE study). We categorized RWE studies with respect to study type, for example, case series, studies based on medical records, and so on. We compared the frequency that plans cited different categories of RWE, cited RWE for different diseases, and cited RWE for drugs on the market for different time periods. RESULTS: RWE comprised 16% of cited clinical studies. Health plans cited RWE with different frequencies (5%-31% of the cited clinical evidence). Overall, plans cited RWE categorized as medical records most often (26% of cited RWE studies). Plans varied in the frequency they cited different RWE categories. Plans most frequently cited RWE for gastroenterological diseases (35% of clinical study citations) and least frequently for respiratory diseases (11% of clinical study citations). Plans cited RWE more for drugs that have long been on the market. CONCLUSIONS: Health plans varied with respect to the number and types of RWE studies they cited in their specialty drug coverage decisions. Plans cited RWE more often for some diseases than others, and cited more RWE for older drugs.

Variation in US private health plans' coverage of orphan drugs.

OBJECTIVES: To compare coverage of orphan and nonorphan drugs, to examine variation in orphan drug coverage across the largest US private plans, and to evaluate factors influencing coverage decisions. STUDY DESIGN: Database and regression analyses. METHODS: We analyzed a data set of private health plan coverage decisions for specialty drugs (N = 5000) in 3 ways. First, we compared the frequency with which plans applied restrictions in their decisions for orphan and nonorphan drugs. Second, we examined variation in the frequency with which 17 of the largest 20 private plans applied coverage restrictions for orphan drugs. Third, we used multivariate regression to examine factors associated with restricted orphan drug coverage. RESULTS: Health plans are less likely to restrict orphan drugs compared with nonorphan drugs. Of orphan drug decisions (n = 2168), plans did not apply coverage restrictions in 70% of cases, applied restrictions in 29%, and did not cover in 1%. In contrast, of nonorphan drug decisions (n = 2832), plans did not apply coverage restrictions in 53% of cases, applied restrictions in 41%, and did not cover in 6%. The frequency of restrictions for orphan drugs varied from 11% to 65% across plans. The attributes of orphan drugs that were more likely to be associated with restrictions than others included drugs for noncancer diseases, drugs with alternatives, self-administered drugs, drugs indicated for diseases with a higher prevalence, and drugs with higher annual costs (all P <.05). CONCLUSIONS: Health plans restrict access to orphan drugs approximately one-third of the time, and restrictions vary considerably across plans. Plans more often add restrictions for orphan drugs that are indicated for diseases with a higher prevalence and that have higher annual costs.