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

Variation in Medicaid and commercial coverage of cell and gene therapies

Growth in the availability of cell and gene therapies (CGTs) promises significant innovation in the treatment of serious diseases, but the high cost and one-time administration of CGTs has also raised concern about strain on health plan budgets and inequity in access. We used coverage information from the Tufts Medical Center Specialty Drug Evidence and Coverage (SPEC) database for 18 large commercial health plans in the US and information from state Medicaid websites to examine variation in coverage of 11 CGTs in August 2021. We found that US commercial and Medicaid health plans imposed restrictions in 53.5 % and 68.3 % of their coverage policies for the 11 included CGTs, respectively. In addition, we identified significant variation in access to CGTs across commercial plans and across Medicaid plans. Coverage restrictions for certain CGTs were more common than others; clinical requirements were often (but not always) consistent with the inclusion criteria for the clinical trial central to the drug's approval. We conclude that there is variation in access to CGTs, creating differential patient access.

Do Reimbursement Recommendations by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health Translate Into Coverage Decisions for Orphan Drugs in the Canadian Province of Ontario?

OBJECTIVES

Unlike other high-income countries, Canada has no national policy for drugs treating rare diseases (orphan drugs). Nevertheless, in 2022, the Canadian government committed to creating a national strategy to make access to these drugs more consistent. Our aim was to study whether recommendations made by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health (CADTH) translated into coverage decisions for orphan drugs in Ontario, the largest Canadian province. This study is the first to look at this question for orphan drugs, which are at the center of policy attention.

METHODS

We included 155 orphan drug-indication pairs approved and marketed in Canada between October 2002 and April 2022. Cohen's kappa was used to test the agreement across health technology assessment (HTA) recommendations and coverage decisions in Ontario. Logistic regression was used to test which factors, relevant to decision-makers, might be associated with funding in Ontario.

RESULTS

We found only fair agreement between CADTH's recommendations and coverage decisions in Ontario. Although a positive and statistically significant association between favorable HTA recommendations and coverage was found, more than half of the drugs with a negative HTA recommendation were available in Ontario, predominately through specialized funds. Successful pan-Canadian pricing negotiations were a strong predictor of coverage in Ontario.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite efforts to harmonize access to drugs across Canada, considerable room for improvement remains. Introducing a national strategy for orphan drugs could help increase transparency, consistency, promote collaborations, and make access to orphan drugs a national priority.

Factors Associated with Biosimilar Exclusions and Step Therapy Restrictions Among US Commercial Health Plans

BACKGROUND

Biosimilars have been introduced with the goal of competing with high-priced biologic therapies, yet their adoption has been slower than expected and resulted in limited efficiency gains. We aimed to explore factors associated with biosimilar coverage relative to their reference products by commercial plans in the United States (US).

METHODS AND DATA

We identified 1181 coverage decisions for 19 commercially available biosimilars, corresponding to 7 reference products and 28 indications from the Tufts Medical Center Specialty Drug Evidence and Coverage database. We also drew on the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry for cost-effectiveness evidence, and the Merative™ Micromedex^® RED BOOK^® for list prices. We summarized the coverage restrictiveness as a binary variable based on whether the product is covered by the health plan, and if covered, the difference of payers' line of therapy between the biosimilar and its reference product. We used a multivariate logistic regression to examine the association between coverage restrictiveness and a number of potential drivers of coverage.

RESULTS

Compared with reference products, health plans imposed coverage exclusions or step therapy restrictions on biosimilars in 229 (19.4%) decisions. Plans were more likely to restrict biosimilar coverage for the pediatric population (odds ratio [OR] 11.558, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.906-34.203), in diseases with US prevalence higher than 1,000,000 (OR 2.067, 95% CI 1.060-4.029), and if the plan did not contract with one of the three major pharmacy benefit managers (OR 1.683, 95% CI 1.129-2.507). Compared with the reference product, plans were less likely to impose restrictions on the biosimilar-indication pairs if the biosimilar was indicated for cancer treatments (OR 0.019, 95% CI 0.008-0.041), if the product was the first biosimilar (OR 0.225, 95% CI 0.118-0.429), if the biosimilar had two competitors (reference product included; OR 0.060, 95% CI 0.006-0.586), if the biosimilar could generate annual list price savings of more than $15,000 per patient (OR 0.171, 95% CI 0.057-0.514), if the biosimilar's reference product was restricted by the plan (OR 0.065, 95% CI 0.038-0.109), or if a cost-effectiveness measure was not available (OR 0.066, 95% CI 0.023-0.186).

CONCLUSION

Our study offered novel insights on the factors associated with biosimilar coverage by commercial health plans in the US relative to their reference products. Cancer treatment, pediatric population, and coverage restriction of the reference products are some of the most significant factors that are associated with biosimilar coverage decisions.

The association between US Food and Drug Administration-expedited review designations and health plan specialty drug coverage

BACKGROUND: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) speeds approval of important clinical advancements through 4 expedited review programs: Priority Review, Accelerated Approval, Fast Track, and Breakthrough Therapy. Whether health plans prioritize coverage of expedited drugs relative to drugs that the FDA determined did not qualify from these programs is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To investigate how fast US commercial health plans issued coverage policies for drugs included in different numbers of FDA-expedited programs. Second, to examine the association between a drug's inclusion in an FDA-expedited program and plan coverage restrictiveness. METHODS: We used a separate dataset for each study objective. For the first objective, we created a dataset of policies issued by 17 large commercial health plans for 2018 FDA-approved drugs. Included policies were active exactly 1 year following each drug's FDA approval. We investigated the relationship between the speed of policy issuance and the number of expedited programs. We controlled for cancer and orphan indication. For the second objective, we analyzed a dataset of commercial health plan specialty drug coverage policies. We categorized drugs with respect to the number of expedited programs (0, 1, or 2+ programs). Coverage policies were categorized as whether plans imposed restrictions beyond a drug's FDA-approved labeling, for example, step therapy requirements. We used regression analysis to examine the association between FDA-expedited review and coverage restrictiveness when controlling for other relevant factors (eg, availability of alternatives). RESULTS: For our first objective, plans issued 62% (742/1,190) of policies within a year of a drug's FDA approval. In unadjusted analysis, policy issuance speed increased with each additional expedited program (hazard ratio=1.15; P<0.01). After controlling for cancer and orphan status, the number of expedited programs was not associated with faster policy issuance (hazard ratio=0.95; P=0.209). For our second objective, plans imposed coverage restrictions in 33% (672/2,027) of policies for drugs the FDA included in at least 1 FDA-expedited program vs 51% (870/1,706) of policies for drugs the FDA excluded from these programs. In multivariable regression, we did not find an association between FDA-expedited review and coverage restrictiveness after controlling for other decision-making factors (including disease prevalence, annual cost, etc). CONCLUSIONS: After controlling for other decision-making factors, we did not find that FDA-expedited approval was associated with faster coverage policy issuance, nor did we find that plans covered drugs the FDA included in expedited review programs less restrictively than drugs excluded from these programs. Our findings raise questions about why plans do not also accelerate access for these clinical advancements. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC. Mr Ingham is an employee of Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, and is a stockholder of Johnson & Johnson. Dr Chambers reports grants from Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, during the conduct of the study.

Examining US commercial health plans' use of The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's reports in specialty drug coverage decisions

BACKGROUND: The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) has emerged in a visible role in US health care. However, it is unclear to what extent US commercial health plans use ICER value assessments in their specialty drug coverage decisions. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between ICER's reported cost-effectiveness ratios (CERs) and coverage restrictiveness. Also, to examine the frequency with which plans have cited ICER in their coverage policies and to investigate how frequently health plans adjusted their drug coverage criteria in the 12 months after ICER's assessments. METHODS: We analyzed the Tufts Medical Center Specialty Drug Evidence and Coverage Database, which includes specialty drug coverage decisions issued by 17 large US commercial health plans. For ICER-assessed drugs, we recorded ICER's estimated CERs in the form of cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. First, we used multivariate logistic regression to examine the association between ICER's reported CERs and plan coverage restrictiveness, when controlling for other factors that were likely to affect decision-making. Next, we examined how often plans cited ICER's assessments in coverage decisions issued in years 2017-2020. Lastly, we examined whether plans added or removed coverage restrictions (eg, patient subgroup restrictions or step therapy protocols) in the 12 months following ICER's assessment. RESULTS: Plans tended to cover drugs with higher (less favorable) CERs more restrictively than drugs with CERs less than $100,000 per QALY: odds ratio (OR) = 4.48 if $100,000-$175,000 per QALY; OR = 2.00 if $175,000-$500,000 per QALY; and OR = 2.10 if $500,000 or more per QALY (all P < 0.01). Plans cited ICER in 0.8% (5/622) of coverage policies in 2017, 0.6% (5/833) in 2018, 1.7% (19/1,139) in 2019, and 2.4% (33/1,406) in 2020. For drugs with CERs less than $175,000 per QALY, plans adjusted coverage in 37% of cases: added restrictions in 20%, removed restrictions in 15%, and added one restriction but removed another in 2%. For drugs with CERs of $175,000 or more, plans changed coverage criteria in 29% of cases: added restrictions in 21%, removed restrictions in 5%, and added one restriction but removed another in 4%. CONCLUSIONS: We found that when controlling for other factors, health plans' specialty drug coverage decisions were associated with ICER's estimated CERs. Plans infrequently cited ICER value assessments. We did not observe a trend for plans more often narrowing coverage criteria for drugs with CERs $175,000 or more compared with drugs with CERs less than $175,000. DISCLOSURES: This research study was supported by a consortium of funders: Amgen, Genen-tech, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Otsuka, and GSK.

Time to inclusion in clinical guidance documents for non-oncological orphan drugs and biologics with expedited FDA designations: a retrospective survival analysis

Objectives

Drug and biological products that treat rare, serious or life-threatening conditions can receive US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) orphan designation and expedited programme designations (accelerated approval, breakthrough therapy, fast track or priority review) meant to incentivise development. Timely recommendations from guidance documents may encourage more rapid and appropriate use and access to these medicines for serious conditions. We sought to determine time between FDA approval and inclusion in guidance documents for non-oncological orphan products overall and by number and type of expedited programme designations.

Design and setting

Retrospective survival analysis of non-oncological orphan products with ≥1 expedited designation approved since 1992. In June 2020, PubMed, Turning Research into Practice and Guideline Central databases were searched to identify guidance documents influencing US practice that included each product.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was time to guidance inclusion, defined as any recommendation on use provided within the recommendation framework used by the guidance document.

Results

Among 135 included non-oncological orphan products, 97.0% (n=131) were designated with priority review, 49.6% (n=67) fast track, 16.3% (n=22) breakthrough therapy and 14.1% (n=19) accelerated approval. Sixty per cent of products (n=81) received ≥2 designations. Overall, 74.1% (n=100) were included in a guidance document. The median time to inclusion was 2.87 years (IQR 2.21–4.18) for the entire cohort. In survival analyses, guidance inclusion was more likely to occur earlier for products with ≥2 designations (HR, 1.84; 95% CI 1.21 to 2.79) and for those with fast-track designation compared with priority review (HR 1.40; 95% CI 1.02 to 2.0). Of 35 products not included in a guidance document, 54.3% (n=19) were approved in 2018 or later.

Conclusions

Among non-oncological orphan products with priority designations, nearly 3 years had passed between FDA approval and inclusion in any guidance document. These findings suggest that despite efforts to expedite availability, appropriate access to these treatments may be delayed because of the lack of timely guidance on their use in clinical practice.