Variation in Private Payer Coverage of Rheumatoid Arthritis Drugs

Medicare Advantage coverage restrictions for the costliest physician-administered drugs

OBJECTIVES

To examine the use of step therapy, prior authorization, and Part D formulary exclusion by 4 large Medicare Advantage (MA) insurers to manage 20 physician-administered drugs with the highest total Medicare expenditures (top 20 drugs).

STUDY DESIGN

We collected data for United Healthcare, CVS/Aetna, Humana, and Kaiser plans to create a database of 2020 Part B coverage restrictions and conducted a retrospective analysis of 2018-2020 Part D formularies.

METHODS

For each insurer, we calculated the number of top 20 physician-administered drugs subject to prior authorization and step therapy. For physician-administered drugs for which there were no similar or interchangeable alternatives, we examined which insurers required prior authorization or step therapy. Finally, we examined whether insurers restricted access to physician-administered drugs by reducing coverage on Part D formularies.

RESULTS

Of the top 20 physician-administered drugs, 17 were subject to prior authorization and 10 were subject to step therapy by at least 1 insurer. For 5 physician-administered drugs without a similar or interchangeable alternative, none were subject to step therapy and all were subject to prior authorization by at least 1 insurer. Across the 4 insurers, 16 physician-administered drugs were covered on all or some of the Part D formularies in 2018, which decreased to 6 in 2020.

CONCLUSIONS

Four large MA insurers managed access to expensive physician-administered drugs with a combination of prior authorization, step therapy, and Part D formulary design. When a low-cost alternative exists, these tools can help reduce wasteful spending, but the administrative barriers may also reduce access.

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.

Patient Characteristics and Indicators of Treatment Initiation with Repository Corticotropin Injection in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Claims Database Analysis

Repository corticotropin injection (RCI) is indicated as adjunctive, short-term therapy in selected patients with RA. To characterize RCI users and identify predictors of RCI initiation in RA, we compared preindex characteristics, treatment patterns, comorbidities, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and costs for patients who had initiated RCI treatment (RCI cohort) versus patients with no RCI claims and ≥ 1 targeted synthetic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (ts/bDMARD) claim (non-RCI ts/bDMARD cohort). We analyzed pharmacy and medical claims data from a large commercial and Medicare supplemental administrative database. Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18 years, ≥ 1 inpatient or ≥ 2 outpatient claims with RA diagnosis (January 1, 2007–December 31, 2018), and 12-month continuous medical and pharmacy coverage preindex. Results from baseline cohort comparisons informed multiple logistic regression analysis. Compared with the non-RCI ts/bDMARD cohort (n = 162,065), the RCI cohort (n = 350) had a greater proportion of patients with higher Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) scores; higher mean claims-based index of RA severity and CCI scores; greater frequency of almost all comorbidities; higher use of nontraditional DMARDs, glucocorticoids, and opioids; higher all-cause HCRU; and higher medical and total costs. By multivariable analysis, the most significant predictors of RCI initiation were intermittent glucocorticoid use at any dose (odds ratio [OR] 1.67), extended-use glucocorticoids at medium (OR 2.03) and high doses (OR 2.99), nontraditional DMARD use (OR 2.09), anemia (OR 1.39), and renal disease (OR 2.45). Before RCI initiation, patients had more severe RA, higher comorbidity burden, greater use of glucocorticoids and opioids, and higher HCRU compared with non-RCI initiators. The most significant predictors for starting RCI in patients with RA were intermittent use of glucocorticoids at any dose, extended-use high-dose glucocorticoids, use of nontraditional DMARDs, and comorbid anemia and renal disease.

Is Real-World Evidence Used in P&T Monographs and Therapeutic Class Reviews?

BACKGROUND

Payers are faced with making coverage and reimbursement decisions based on the best available evidence. Often these decisions apply to patient populations, provider networks, and care settings not typically studied in clinical trials. Treatment effectiveness evidence is increasingly available from electronic health records, registries, and administrative claims. However, little is known about when and what types of real-world evidence (RWE) studies inform pharmacy and therapeutic (P&T) committee decisions.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate evidence sources cited in P&T committee monographs and therapeutic class reviews and assess the design features and quality of cited RWE studies.

METHODS

A convenience sample of representatives from pharmacy benefit management, health system, and health plan organizations provided recent P&T monographs and therapeutic class reviews (or references from such documents). Two investigators examined and grouped references into major categories (published studies, unpublished studies, and other/unknown) and multiple subcategories (e.g., product label, clinical trials, RWE, systematic reviews). Cited comparative RWE was reviewed to assess design features (e.g., population, data source, comparators) and quality using the Good ReseArch for Comparative Effectiveness (GRACE) Checklist.

RESULTS

Investigators evaluated 565 references cited in 27 monographs/therapeutic class reviews from 6 managed care organizations. Therapeutic class reviews mostly cited published clinical trials (35.3%, 155/439), while single-product monographs relied most on manufacturer-supplied information (42.1%, 53/126). Published RWE comprised 4.8% (21/439) of therapeutic class review references, and none (0/126) of the monograph references. Of the 21 RWE studies, 12 were comparative and assessed patient care settings and outcomes typically not included in clinical trials (community ambulatory settings [10], long-term safety [8]). RWE studies most frequently were based on registry data (6), conducted in the United States (6), and funded by the pharmaceutical industry (5). GRACE Checklist ratings suggested the data and methods of these comparative RWE studies were of high quality.

CONCLUSIONS

RWE was infrequently cited in P&T materials, even among therapeutic class reviews where RWE is more readily available. Although few P&T materials cited RWE, the comparative RWE studies were generally high quality. More research is needed to understand when and what types of real-world studies can more routinely inform coverage and reimbursement decisions.

DISCLOSURES

This project was funded by the National Pharmaceutical Council. Hurwitz, Brown, Peters, and Malone have nothing to disclose. Graff is employed by the National Pharmaceutical Council Part of this study was presented as a poster presentation at the AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy 2016 Annual Meeting; April 19-22, 2016; San Francisco, CA. Study concept and design were primarily contributed by Malone and Graff, along with Hurwitz and Brown. All authors participated in data collection, and data interpretation was performed by Malone, Hurwitz, and Graff, with assistance from Brown and Peters. The manuscript was written primarily by Hurwitz and Malone, along with Graff, Brown, and Peters, and revised by Malone, Brown, Peters, Hurwitz, and Graff.

Specialty Drug Coverage Varies Across Commercial Health Plans In The US

We analyzed specialty drug coverage decisions issued by the largest US commercial health plans to examine variation in coverage and the consistency of those decisions with indications approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Across 3,417 decisions, 16 percent of the 302 drug-indication pairs were covered the same way by all of the health plans, and 48 percent were covered the same way by 75 percent of the plans. Specifically, 52 percent of the decisions were consistent with the FDA label, 9 percent less restrictive, 2 percent mixed (less restrictive in some ways but more restrictive in others), and 33 percent more restrictive, while 5 percent of the pairs were not covered. Health plans restricted coverage of drugs indicated for cancer less often than they did coverage of drugs indicated for other diseases. Using multivariate regression, we found that several drug-related factors were associated with less restrictive coverage, including indications for orphan diseases or pediatric populations, absence of safety warnings, time on the market, lack of alternatives, and expedited FDA review. Variations in coverage have implications for patients' access to treatment and health system costs.

Is Real-World Evidence Used in P&T Monographs and Therapeutic Class Reviews?

BACKGROUND

Payers are faced with making coverage and reimbursement decisions based on the best available evidence. Often these decisions apply to patient populations, provider networks, and care settings not typically studied in clinical trials. Treatment effectiveness evidence is increasingly available from electronic health records, registries, and administrative claims. However, little is known about when and what types of real-world evidence (RWE) studies inform pharmacy and therapeutic (P&T) committee decisions.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate evidence sources cited in P&T committee monographs and therapeutic class reviews and assess the design features and quality of cited RWE studies.

METHODS

A convenience sample of representatives from pharmacy benefit management, health system, and health plan organizations provided recent P&T monographs and therapeutic class reviews (or references from such documents). Two investigators examined and grouped references into major categories (published studies, unpublished studies, and other/unknown) and multiple subcategories (e.g., product label, clinical trials, RWE, systematic reviews). Cited comparative RWE was reviewed to assess design features (e.g., population, data source, comparators) and quality using the Good ReseArch for Comparative Effectiveness (GRACE) Checklist.

RESULTS

Investigators evaluated 565 references cited in 27 monographs/therapeutic class reviews from 6 managed care organizations. Therapeutic class reviews mostly cited published clinical trials (35.3%, 155/439), while single-product monographs relied most on manufacturer-supplied information (42.1%, 53/126). Published RWE comprised 4.8% (21/439) of therapeutic class review references, and none (0/126) of the monograph references. Of the 21 RWE studies, 12 were comparative and assessed patient care settings and outcomes typically not included in clinical trials (community ambulatory settings [10], long-term safety [8]). RWE studies most frequently were based on registry data (6), conducted in the United States (6), and funded by the pharmaceutical industry (5). GRACE Checklist ratings suggested the data and methods of these comparative RWE studies were of high quality.

CONCLUSIONS

RWE was infrequently cited in P&T materials, even among therapeutic class reviews where RWE is more readily available. Although few P&T materials cited RWE, the comparative RWE studies were generally high quality. More research is needed to understand when and what types of real-world studies can more routinely inform coverage and reimbursement decisions.

DISCLOSURES

This project was funded by the National Pharmaceutical Council. Hurwitz, Brown, Peters, and Malone have nothing to disclose. Graff is employed by the National Pharmaceutical Council Part of this study was presented as a poster presentation at the AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy 2016 Annual Meeting; April 19-22, 2016; San Francisco, CA. Study concept and design were primarily contributed by Malone and Graff, along with Hurwitz and Brown. All authors participated in data collection, and data interpretation was performed by Malone, Hurwitz, and Graff, with assistance from Brown and Peters. The manuscript was written primarily by Hurwitz and Malone, along with Graff, Brown, and Peters, and revised by Malone, Brown, Peters, Hurwitz, and Graff.