Specialty Drug Coverage Varies Across Commercial Health Plans In The US

Abstract

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.

US Growth Hormone Use in the Idiopathic Short Stature Era: Trends in Insurer Payments and Patient Financial Burden

“…Total and per-capita out-of-pocket spending in health care has been increasing over the last 15 years, primarily as a result of higher deductibles, increased patient exposure to rising health care costs, and a greater share of individuals covered by plans with high out-of-pocket costs [13, 14]. For specialty drugs, in particular, commercial insurers have been aggressively using prior authorization, formularies, and coverage restrictions to limit their exposure to high drug prices and temper rising drug spending [15, 16]. These insurer strategies, as well as frequent changes in formularies—based on changes in prices negotiated with manufacturers—also are driving brand switching.…”

Unintended Consequences of Coverage Laws Targeting Cancer Drugs

“…Determining drug coverage in closed formularies should be based on comparative clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness considerations, and ideally, both. Such evidence-based approaches can eliminate (or at least minimize) the arbitrary variation observed in coverage decisions among commercial insurers in the US (Chambers et al, 2018), and ensure patients have access to drugs with proven therapeutic value.…”

Prevalence of Utilization Management Policies Among the Psoriatic Disease Community: Results From the 2019 National Psoriasis Foundation Advocacy Survey

“…Decisions to implement ST policies that restrict access to particular treatments are often associated with the costs of particular medications or negotiated agreements with biopharmaceutical companies rather than scientific evidence or accepted treatment guidelines. 18,19 Nearly a third of health plans have restrictions on medications more stringent than the FDA-indication with ST policies representing nearly 75% of these plan-level restrictions. 19 More than one-third of health care plans have ST policies requiring a minimum of 2 failed treatments before access to the originally prescribed biologic treatment is granted.…”

“…Insurance claims data and health plan analysis undoubtedly represent valuable data sources to understand the prevalence of coverage patterns and UM policies such as ST policies; however, they provide only a limited view of the prevalence of these policies. For example, current studies on this topic may include only a limited number of insurance plans 19 or focus on specific treatments to manage psoriasis. 23 To better understand the prevalence of UM policies among individuals with psoriatic disease, the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) conducted a national survey of individuals with psoriatic disease.…”