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.

Little Consistency In Evidence Cited By Commercial Plans For Specialty Drug Coverage

We found wide variation in the evidence that US commercial health plans reported reviewing in their specialty drug coverage policies. There was little consistency in the numbers or types of studies cited by health plans. On average, only 15 percent of health plans' coverage policies cited the same study evaluating a specific drug for a specific indication.

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.

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.

Discrepancies Between FDA-Required Labeling and Evidence that Payers Cite in Drug Coverage Policies

BACKGROUND

FDA-required labeling summarizes certain data that the FDA relies on in its drug approval process. However, when determining coverage of specialty drugs, health care payers may consider dissimilar evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To compare evidence cited by the largest U.S. commercial payers in their specialty drug coverage policies with evidence featured in the labeling of the indicated drugs.

METHODS

We used the Tufts Medical Center Specialty Drug Evidence and Coverage Database (SPEC)-a database of specialty drug coverage policies issued by 17 of the 20 largest U.S. commercial health care payers-to identify coverage policies for drugs indicated for multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). These disease categories were selected because each was represented by multiple drugs. For each drug, we identified endpoints included in the clinical studies presented in the FDA-required labeling. Using SPEC, we identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and other clinical studies that at least 1 payer cited in its coverage policies for the included drugs. We reviewed the full text of each study to identify the endpoints reported. We categorized endpoints as identical to endpoints in the FDA-required labeling of the drugs; similar (e.g., a different measurement scale was used to evaluate the same endpoint); and different (the endpoint was not featured in the FDA-required labeling).

RESULTS

We included 41 drugs and reviewed 348 studies (246 RCTs and 102 other clinical studies). Of 2,237 endpoints, 63% were categorized as identical, 26% as similar, and 12% as different. Rheumatoid arthritis was the indication with the largest proportion of endpoints categorized as identical (74% of endpoints in the RCTs cited by payers; 59% of endpoints in the other clinical studies cited by payers). NSCLC was the indication with the largest proportion of endpoints categorized as different (33% of end-points in the RCTs cited by payers; 37% of endpoints in the other clinical studies cited by payers).

CONCLUSIONS

Payers often report reviewing clinical evidence that goes beyond information included in FDA-required labeling. Our findings suggest that the FDA should continue engaging with the manufacturer and payer communities to appropriately facilitate communication of information necessary to allow for informed coverage decisions.

DISCLOSURES

This study was funded by an unrestricted grant from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The authors work with The Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, which is partially supported through the CEA Registry Sponsorship program; the CEA Registry has received funding from the National Science Foundation, National Library of Medicine, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and a variety of pharmaceutical and device companies that subscribe to the data. Chambers reports personal fees from Health Advances, Ernst & Young, Magellan Health, Summit Therapeutics, and Sanofi-Aventis, unrelated to this study. Neumann reports past advisory board work with Amgen, Avexis, Axovant, Bayer, Bluebird, Congressional Budget Office, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pacira, Paratek, and Sage; consulting work for Boston Health Economics, GSK, Precision Health Economics, Veritech, and Vertex; speaker fees from AbbVie, Celgene, and Roche; and grants from the Alzheimer's Association, Amgen, Gates, Lundbeck, NIH, NPC, and Sage, all unrelated to this study. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

Hemophilia Burden of Disease: A Systematic Review of the Cost-Utility Literature for Hemophilia

BACKGROUND

Prophylaxis with clotting factor replacement products is recommended by the Medical and Scientific Advisory Council of the National Hemophilia Foundation as the optimal therapy for the prevention of bleeding episodes in individuals with severe hemophilia A or B (< 1 IU per dL endogenous factor VIII or factor IX activity, respectively). Prophylaxis is associated with an improved health-related quality of life and has been shown to be cost-effective compared with on-demand therapy. However, the overall cost of treatment remains high, particularly among patients with a greater propensity to bleed. The overall value of hemophilia treatments and their associated benefits, measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and dollar costs compared with other interventions can be evaluated through the use of cost-utility analyses (CUAs). Previous CUA studies in hemophilia have focused primarily on patients with more severe forms of hemophilia and on prophylaxis compared with on-demand treatment. However, to our knowledge, no studies to date have utilized QALYs as a standardized outcome measure to systematically evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of current hemophilia treatment options.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the CUA literature of hemophilia treatments and demonstrate the challenges in producing cost-utility evidence compared with other rare diseases.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review using the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database for English-language CUAs published from 2000 through 2015 with the search terms hemophilia, haemophilia, factor VIII, or factor IX. Two trained reviewers independently reviewed every study to extract relevant data. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were converted to 2014 U.S. dollars using exchange rates for currency conversion and the Consumer Price Index to adjust for inflation.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 52 studies, 11 of which met our inclusion criteria. The cost-effectiveness of hemophilia treatments varied widely based on variations in the study designs, including differences in time horizon, discount rates, and medical interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

We found the cost-effectiveness of hemophilia treatments to be broadly comparable to that of other orphan drugs. Improved standardization of future CUA studies will be important for further evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of hemophilia treatments.

DISCLOSURES

This research was funded by Biogen, which provided an unrestricted research grant to the Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health at Tufts Medical Center. Biogen and Sobi reviewed and provided feedback on the manuscript. The authors had full editorial control of the manuscript and provided final approval of all content. The authors report no conflict of interest regarding the material discussed in this article. Neumann and Chambers are employed at the Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health at Tufts Medical Center. Thorat was an employee of Center for Evaluation Value and Risk in Health, Tufts Medical Center when the analyses were carried out. Chambers has participated on advisory boards for Sanofi and Astellas Pharma.

Drugs Cleared Through The FDA's Expedited Review Offer Greater Gains Than Drugs Approved By Conventional Process

We investigated whether drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) through expedited review have offered larger health gains, compared to drugs approved through conventional review processes. We identified published estimates of additional health gains (measured in quality-adjusted life-years, or QALYs) associated with drugs approved in the period 1999-2012 through expedited (seventy-six drugs) versus conventional (fifty-nine) review processes. We found that drugs in at least one expedited review program offered greater gains than drugs reviewed through conventional processes (0.182 versus 0.003 QALYs). We also found that, compared to drugs not included in the same program, greater gains were provided by drugs in the priority review (0.175 versus 0.007 QALYs), accelerated approval (0.370 versus 0.031 QALYs), and fast track (0.254 versus 0.014 QALYs) programs. Our analysis suggests that the FDA has prioritized drugs that offer the largest health gains.

Variation in Private Payer Coverage of Rheumatoid Arthritis Drugs

BACKGROUND

Payers in the United States issue coverage determinations to guide how their enrolled beneficiaries use prescription drugs. Because payers create their own coverage policies, how they cover drugs can vary, which in turn can affect access to care by beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVE

To examine how the largest private payers based on membership cover drugs indicated for rheumatoid arthritis and to determine what evidence the payers reported reviewing when formulating their coverage policies.

METHODS

Coverage policies issued by the 10 largest private payers that make their policies publicly available were identified for rheumatoid arthritis drugs. Each coverage determination was compared with the drug's corresponding FDA label and categorized according to the following: (a) consistent with the label, (b) more restrictive than the label, (c) less restrictive than the label, or (d) mixed (i.e., more restrictive than the label in one way but less restrictive in another). Each coverage determination was also compared with the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2012 treatment recommendations and categorized using the same relative restrictiveness criteria. The policies were then reviewed to identify the evidence that the payers reported reviewing. The identified evidence was divided into the following 6 categories: randomized controlled trials; other clinical studies (e.g., observational studies); health technology assessments; clinical reviews; cost-effectiveness analyses; and clinical guidelines.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine percent of coverage determinations were more restrictive than the corresponding FDA label; 15% were consistent; 3% were less restrictive; and 13% were mixed. Thirty-four percent of coverage determinations were consistent with the ACR recommendations, 33% were more restrictive; 17% were less restrictive; and 17% were mixed. Payers most often reported reviewing randomized controlled trials for their coverage policies (an average of 2.3 per policy). The payers reported reviewing an average of 1.4 clinical guidelines, 1.1 clinical reviews, 0.8 other clinical studies, and 0.5 technology assessments per policy. Only 1 payer reported reviewing cost-effectiveness analyses. The evidence base that the payers reported reviewing varied in terms of volume and composition.

CONCLUSIONS

Payers most often covered rheumatoid arthritis drugs more restrictively than the corresponding FDA label indication and the ACR treatment recommendations. Payers reported reviewing a varied evidence base in their coverage policies.

DISCLOSURES

Funding for this study was provided by Genentech. Chambers has participated in a Sanofi advisory board, unrelated to this study. The authors report no other potential conflicts of interest. Study concept and design were contributed by Chambers. Anderson, Wilkinson, and Chenoweth collected the data, assisted by Chambers, and data interpretation was primarily performed by Chambers, along with Anderson and with assistance from Wilkinson and Chenoweth. The manuscript was written primarily by Chambers, along with Wilkinson and with assistance from Anderson and Chenoweth. Chambers, Chenoweth, Wilkinson, and Anderson revised the manuscript.

The Decline in Vitamin Research Funding: A Missed Opportunity?

Background: The National Nutrition Research Roadmap has called for support of greater collaborative, interdisciplinary research for multiple areas of nutrition research. However, a substantial reduction in federal funding makes responding to these calls challenging. Objectives: The objectives of this study were to examine temporal trends in research funding and to discuss the potential consequences of these trends. Methods: We searched the NIH RePORTER database to identify NIH research grants and USASpending to identify National Science Foundation and USDA research grants awarded from 1992 to 2015. We focused on those that pertained to vitamin research. For the years 2000 to 2015, we examined funding trends for different vitamins, including vitamins A, B (one-carbon B-vitamins were considered separately from other B-vitamins), C, D, E, and K. Results: From 1992 to 2015, total federal research spending increased from ∼$14 to $45 billion (2016 US dollars). Although vitamin research spending increased from ∼$89 to $95 million, the proportion of grants awarded for vitamin research declined by more than two-thirds, from 0.65% in 1992 to 0.2% in 2015. Federal agencies awarded 6035 vitamin research grants over the time period, with vitamin A associated with the most research projects per year on average (n = 115) and vitamin K the fewest (n = 8). Vitamin D research projects were associated with the greatest average yearly project value ($34.8 million). Conclusions: Vitamin research has faced a disproportionate decline in research funding from 1992 to 2015. Insufficient federal research funding streams risk stalling progress in vitamin research and leaving important advancements unrealized.

A Review of Empirical Analyses of Disinvestment Initiatives

BACKGROUND

Disinvesting in low-value health care services provides opportunities for investment in higher value care and thus an increase in health care efficiency.

OBJECTIVES

To identify international experience with disinvestment initiatives and to review empirical analyses of disinvestment initiatives.

METHODS

We performed a literature search using the PubMed database to identify international experience with disinvestment initiatives. We also reviewed empirical analyses of disinvestment initiatives.

RESULTS

We identified 26 unique disinvestment initiatives implemented across 11 countries. Nineteen addressed multiple intervention types, six addressed only drugs, and one addressed only devices. We reviewed 18 empirical analyses of disinvestment initiatives: 7 reported that the initiative was successful, 8 reported that the initiative was unsuccessful, and 3 reported that findings were mixed; that is, the study considered multiple services and reported a decrease in the use of some but not others. Thirty-seven low-value services were evaluated across the 18 empirical analyses, for 14 (38%) of which the disinvestment initiative led to a decline in use. Six of the seven studies that reported the disinvestment initiative to be successful included an attempt to promote the disinvestment initiative among participating clinicians.

CONCLUSIONS

The success of disinvestment initiatives has been mixed, with fewer than half the identified empirical studies reporting that use of the low-value service was reduced. Our findings suggest that promotion of the disinvestment initiative among clinicians is a key component to the success of the disinvestment initiative.

Estimating Population Health Benefits Associated with Specialty and Traditional Drugs in the Year Following Product Approval

OBJECTIVE

Compared to traditional drugs, specialty drugs tend to be indicated for lower prevalence diseases. Our objective was to compare the potential population health benefits associated with specialty and traditional drugs in the year following product approval.

METHODS

First, we created a dataset of estimates of incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains and incremental life-year (LY) gains for US FDA-approved drugs (1999-2011) compared to standard of care at the time of approval identified from a literature search. Second, we categorized each drug as specialty or traditional. Third, for each drug we identified estimates of US disease prevalence for each pertinent indication. Fourth, in order to conservatively estimate the potential population health gains associated with each new drug in the year following its approval we multiplied the health gain estimate by 10% of the identified prevalence. Fifth, we used Mann-Whitney U tests to compare the population health gains for specialty and traditional drugs.

RESULTS

We identified QALY gain estimates for 101 drugs, including 56 specialty drugs, and LY gain estimates for 50 drugs, including 34 specialty drugs. The median estimated population QALY gain in the year following approval for specialty drugs was 4200 (IQR = 27,000) and for traditional drugs was 694 (IQR = 24,400) (p = 0.245). The median estimated population LY gain in the year following approval for specialty drugs was 7250 (IQR = 39,200) and for traditional drugs was 2500 (IQR = 58,200) (p = 0.752).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite often being indicated for diseases of lower prevalence, we found a trend towards specialty drugs offering larger potential population health gains than traditional drugs, particularly when measured in terms of QALYs.

Medicare is scrutinizing evidence more tightly for national coverage determinations

We examined Medicare national coverage determinations for medical interventions to determine whether or not they have become more restrictive over time. National coverage determinations address whether particular big-ticket medical items, services, treatment procedures, and technologies can be paid for under Medicare. We found that after we adjusted for the strength of evidence and other factors known to influence the determinations of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the evidentiary bar for coverage has risen. More recent coverage determinations (from mid-March 2008 through August 2012) were twenty times less likely to be positive than earlier coverage determinations (from February 1999 through January 2002). Furthermore, coverage during the study period was increasingly and positively associated both with the degree of consistency of favorable findings in the CMS reviewed clinical evidence and with recommendations made in clinical guidelines. Coverage policy is an important payer tool for promoting the appropriate use of medical interventions, but CMS's rising evidence standards also raise questions about patients' access to new technologies and about hurdles for the pharmaceutical and device industries as they attempt to bring innovations to the market.

Despite high costs, specialty drugs may offer value for money comparable to that of traditional drugs

Specialty drugs are often many times more expensive than traditional drugs, which raises questions of affordability and value. We compared the value of specialty and traditional drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the period 1999-2011. To do this, we identified published estimates of additional health gains (measured in quality-adjusted life-years, or QALYs) and increased costs of drug and health care resource use that were associated with fifty-eight specialty drugs and forty-four traditional drugs, compared to preexisting care. We found that specialty drugs offered greater QALY gains (0.183 versus 0.002 QALYs) but were associated with greater additional costs ($12,238 versus $784), compared to traditional drugs. The two types of drugs had comparable cost-effectiveness. However, the distributions across the two types differed, with 26 percent of specialty drugs--but only 9 percent of traditional drugs--associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of greater than $150,000 per QALY. Our study suggests that although specialty drugs often have higher costs than traditional drugs, they also tend to confer greater benefits and hence may still offer reasonable value for money.

Mapping US commercial payers' coverage policies for medical interventions

OBJECTIVES

To examine coverage policies for medical interventions issued by the largest US commercial payers.

STUDY DESIGN

Review of publicly accessible coverage policies for medical interventions.

METHODS

We categorized the 20 largest commercial payers' medical benefit coverage policies for medical technologies-current as of August 1, 2014-with respect to technology type (eg, medical devices, pharmaceuticals, surgeries). We identified the interventions most commonly subject to coverage policies and compared payer coverage determinations in terms of whether they covered the intervention and the evidence they reported reviewing.

RESULTS

Eighteen payers made their coverage policies publicly available and 17 reported the evidence they reviewed in formulating policies. The types of technologies considered varied across payers, although most focused on devices and diagnostics. Of the 28 interventions most commonly subject to coverage policies, the coverage of 9 varied (ie, some payers covered the intervention and others did not). On average, payers reported reviewing clinical studies in 87% of coverage policies (range = 25%-100%). Two payers did not report reviewing systematic reviews or meta-analyses in any coverage policies, and 9 reported reviewing such evidence in at least half of their policies. Fourteen payers reported reviewing cost-effectiveness analyses at least some of the time, with frequency ranging from 8% to 43%. Commercial payers' coverage decisions did not appear to reflect direct input from patients or patient advocates, at least as stated in published coverage policies.

CONCLUSIONS

Coverage of medical interventions varies across US private payers. Payers often report reviewing different evidence when formulating coverage policies, but do not report considering input directly from patients in evidence assessments.

The impact of formulary drug exclusion policies on patients and healthcare costs

OBJECTIVES

In an attempt to increase the efficiency of their drug benefit policies, insurers are increasingly excluding drugs from their formularies that they deem to be of low value. Our objective was to identify and review empirical evaluations of drug exclusion policies and examine how they affected patients and healthcare costs.

STUDY DESIGN

Literature review.

METHODS

We performed a literature search to identify empirical studies that evaluated drug exclusion policies. We reviewed each study to determine how the policy impacted patients (ie, if disease control or frequency, or severity of symptoms, were affected) and if healthcare costs (eg, drug expenditures and costs associated with physician office visits, hospitalizations, laboratory tests) changed.

RESULTS

We included 26 studies pertaining to 27 drug exclusion policies. Twenty studies reported the impact of 21 drug exclusion policies on patients: 6 (28.6%) policies were reported to have had a positive impact, 6 (28.6%) to have had a negative impact, and 9 (42.8%) to not have impacted patients. Eighteen studies reported the impact of 19 drug exclusion policies on overall healthcare costs: 14 (73.7%) policies were reported to have reduced costs, 1 (5.3%) to have had a neutral impact on costs, and 4 (21.1%) to have increased costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there were important exceptions, most studies found that drug exclusion policies reduced costs and did not negatively impact patients.

The Role of Decision Models in Health Care Policy: A Case Study

BACKGROUND

In 2009, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) underwent a National Coverage Determination on computed tomography colonography (CTC) to screen for colorectal cancer. The Cancer Intervention & Surveillance Network developed decision models to inform this decision. The purpose of our study was to investigate the role of models in this decision.

METHODS

We performed a descriptive case study. We conducted semistructured telephone interviews with members of the CMS coverage and analysis group (CAG) and Medicare Coverage and Analysis Advisory Committee (MEDCAC) panelists. Informed by previously published literature, we developed a coding scheme to analyze interview transcripts, MEDCAC meeting transcripts, and the final CMS decision memo.

RESULTS

Four members of the CAG and 8 MEDCAC panelists were interviewed. The total number of codes across all study documents was 772. We found evidence that decision makers believed in the adequacy of models to inform decision making. In interview transcripts, the code Models Are Adequate to Inform was more frequent than the code Models Are Inadequate to Inform (47 times v. 5). Discussion of model conceptualization dominated the MEDCAC meeting (Model Conceptualization assigned 113 times) and was frequently discussed during interviews (Model Conceptualization assigned 84 times). We also found evidence that the models helped to focus the policy discussion. Across study documents, the codes Focus on Cost, Focus on Clinical-Health Impact, and Focus on Inadequacy of Evidence Base were assigned 99, 98, and 97 times, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Decision makers involved in the CTC decision believed in the adequacy of models to inform coverage decisions. The model played a role in focusing the CTC coverage policy discussion.

Thirty Years of Media Coverage on High Drug Prices in the United States--A Never-Ending Story or a Time for Change?

In recent years drug prices have increasingly become a topic of debate for patients, providers, payers and policy makers. To place the current drug price debate into historical context, we searched the New York Times and Wall Street Journal from 1985 - 2015 and found that concerns about drug prices have commonly featured in the press over the study period with recently stronger calls for change. Price levels, types of innovations, stakeholder responses, and strategies to address high prices discussed in the media suggest that concerted efforts are required to enable affordable and high-value innovations.

How Do Payers Respond to Regulatory Actions? The Case of Bevacizumab

PURPOSE

In February 2008, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval for bevacizumab for metastatic breast cancer. After public hearings in July 2010, and June 2011, the FDA revoked this approved indication in November 2011, on the basis of additional evidence regarding its risk/benefit profile. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, local Medicare contractors, and commercial payers varied in their stated intentions to cover bevacizumab after FDA's regulatory actions. We examined payer-specific trends in bevacizumab use after the FDA's regulatory actions.

METHODS

We used outpatient medical claims compiled by IMS Health to evaluate trends in bevacizumab use for breast cancer for Medicare-insured and commercially insured patients (N = 102,906) using segmented regression. Given that Medicare coverage policies may vary across regional contractors, we estimated trends in bevacizumab use across 10 local coverage areas. In a sensitivity analysis, we estimated trends in bevacizumab use for breast cancer compared with trends in use for lung cancer using difference-in-differences models.

RESULTS

Among chemotherapy infusions for breast cancer, bevacizumab use decreased from 31% in July 2010, to 4% in September 2012. Use decreased by 11% among commercially insured and 13% among Medicare-insured patients after July 2010 (interaction P = .68) and continued to decline by 9% per month (interaction P = .61). We observed no contractor-level variation in bevacizumab use among Medicare beneficiaries. During the same period, bevacizumab use for lung cancer was stable.

CONCLUSION

Although insurers varied in public statements regarding coverage intentions, bevacizumab use declined similarly among all payers, suggesting that provider decision making, rather than payer-specific coverage policies, drove reductions.