Do patients benefit from legislation regulating step therapy?

Macular Degeneration Drug Prescribing Patterns After Step Therapy Introduction in Medicare Advantage

Importance

In Medicare Advantage (MA), step therapy for physician-administered drugs is an approach to lowering drug spending. The impact of step therapy in MA on prescribing behavior and the magnitude of any changes has not been analyzed.

Objective

To evaluate the impact of step therapy on macular degeneration drug prescribing patterns for 3 large MA insurers.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a retrospective encounter-based analysis using 20% nationally representative MA outpatient and carrier encounter records for 2017 to 2019. Participants were MA beneficiaries who were 65 years or older and had received a macular degeneration drug administration. Macular degeneration drug administrations for beneficiaries of MA Aetna, Humana, and UnitedHealthcare (UHC) insurers were assessed. Humana implemented macular degeneration step therapy in 2019, setting bevacizumab as the plan-preferred drug, and aflibercept and ranibizumab as the plan-nonpreferred drugs. Aetna and UHC, which did not implement macular degeneration step therapy, served as the control group. Data analyses were performed from May 2024 to December 2024.

Exposures

A macular degeneration drug administration subject to a step therapy policy.

Main Outcome and Measures

A binary indicator of whether the drug administered was bevacizumab. Linear probability models and a difference-in-differences framework were used to quantify changes in prescribing patterns before and after the introduction of step therapy for MA insurers that did and did not implement step therapy. To empirically measure the impact of step therapy, the first administration of a treatment episode was assessed, followed by switching patterns.

Results

A total of 18 331 MA beneficiaries, 21 683 treatment episodes, and 171 985 drug administrations were included across the control and treatment groups. The difference-in-differences regressions found a 7.8% (95% CI, 4.9%-10.7%; P < .001) greater probability of being prescribed bevacizumab for the first administration due to step therapy. The predicted probabilities of preferred-drug administration in the treatment group increased from 0.61 to 0.70 between the periods before and after step therapy implementation for the first administration. Step therapy was not significantly associated with an increased rate of medication switching (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.71-1.06; P = .15).

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this retrospective encounter-based analysis indicate that step therapy is associated with a greater probability of prescribing the plan-preferred drug for the first administration. The analysis failed to find a statistically significant greater rate of medication switching within a treatment episode. Step therapy changed macular degeneration prescribing patterns, but step therapy alone did not transition all administrations to the plan-preferred drug.

Analyzing the Benefits and Costs of the Safe Step Act on Patients, Physicians, and Insurers

Pharmaceutical expenditures in the United States, particularly in dermatology, have grown rapidly, driven by expensive topical and biologic treatments. Insurers are employing cost-containing strategies such as step therapy, which mandates the use of lower-cost treatments before more expensive medications. The bipartisan Safe Step Act aims to enhance step therapy policies by introducing a transparent process for requesting exceptions and reasonable timelines for the process. However, there is limited analysis on how the Safe Step Act would affect the healthcare environment. We examine the policies of the Safe Step Act and existing literature on prior authorizations and discuss how the bill could affect patients, physicians, and insurers. While the act could expedite access to necessary medications and prevent irreversible harm to patients from delaying efficacious treatment, it falls short in relieving the administrative burdens on dermatology clinics. Although there is no ideal solution for managing healthcare costs, measures like step therapy encourage cost-effective treatments and optimizing care for the population. Curtailing step therapy with the exemptions process of the Safe Step Act might streamline patient access to treatments but could impede cost-containment strategies, weaken the bargaining power of insurers, and result in higher insurance premiums.

Evaluating Policies of Expanding Versus Restricting First-Line Treatment Choices: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Framework

OBJECTIVES

Healthcare payers often implement coverage policies that restrict the utilization of costly new first-line treatments. Cost-effectiveness analysis can be conducted to inform these decisions by comparing the new treatment with an existing one. However, this approach may overlook important factors such as treatment effect heterogeneity and endogenous treatment selection, policy implementation costs, and diverse patient preferences across multiple treatment options. We aimed to develop a cost-effectiveness analysis framework that considers these real-world factors, facilitating the evaluation of alternative policies related to expanding or restricting first-line treatment choices.

METHODS

We introduced a metric of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) that compares an expanded choice set (CS) including the new first-line treatment with a restricted CS excluding the new treatment. ICER(CS) accounts for treatment selection influenced by heterogeneous treatment effects and policy implementation costs. We examined a basic scenario with 2 standard first-line treatment choices and a more realistic scenario involving diverse preferences toward multiple choices. To illustrate the framework, we conducted a retrospective evaluation of including versus excluding abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) (androgen deprivation therapy [ADT] + AAP) as a first-line treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.

RESULTS

The traditional ICERs for ADT + AAP versus ADT alone and ADT+ docetaxel were $104 269 and $206 324/quality-adjusted life-year, respectively. The ICER(CS) for comparing an expanded CS with ADT + AAP with a restricted CS without ADT + AAP was $123 179/quality-adjusted life-year.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed framework provides decision makers with policy-relevant tools, enabling them to assess the cost-effectiveness of alternative policies of expanding versus restricting patients' and physicians' first-line treatment choices.

Consequences of Insurance Coverage Delays and Denials for Patients With Hereditary Angioedema

BACKGROUND

Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare and potentially fatal genetic disease associated with recurrent and unpredictable episodes of angioedema. Although modern therapies have dramatically increased quality of life, insurance changes, delays, and denials are becoming more common.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the impact of insurance delays and denials on patient health and well-being.

METHODS

A total of 20 patients with HAE (type 1 and 2) who recently experienced insurance delays or denials completed an online survey, and 19 participated in a follow-up focus group. The survey and focus group addressed the impact of insurance challenges on the use of health care services, work/school attendance, and anxiety. Three independent reviewers coded each focus group transcript using a thematic saturation approach.

RESULTS

A total of 70% of participants reported an increased frequency of angioedema attacks resulting from insurance delays or denials. More than 50% missed work/school days because of increased attacks, and 90% reported greater anxiety. Twenty-five percent of respondents reported more urgent care or emergency department visits. In focus groups, participants identified specific ways that losing access to medication had a negative impact on their health, family, and work/school life. Insufficient notification of health insurance policy changes and the time and effort required to regain access to medications compounded patients' frustration and anxiety.

CONCLUSION

Insurance delays and denials have significant impacts on individuals with HAE including (1) increased urgent care and emergency department visits, (2) missed work/school days, (3) higher levels of anxiety, and (4) a negative impact on family life.

Commercial coverage of specialty drugs, 2017-2021

Health plans guide their enrollees' access to specialty drugs through coverage policies. We examined a set of health plan policies to determine if they have become more or less stringent over time. We did so by comparing the consistency of policies with Food and Drug Administration (FDA) label indications. We considered coverage policies for the same 187 specialty drugs issued by 17 large US commercial health plans from 2017 through 2021. Overall, the proportion of policies that were consistent with the FDA label declined from 57.1% in 2017 to 45.1% in 2021; the proportion of policies that were more restrictive than the FDA label increased from 39.5% to 51.7%. The proportion of policies excluding drug coverage remained approximately constant (3.4% in 2017; 3.2% in 2021). Trends in coverage restrictiveness varied across plans. For 13 plans, the proportion of policies with restrictions increased over time, while for 4 plans it declined.

Variation In Use And Content Of Prescription Drug Step Therapy Protocols, Within And Across Health Plans

Insurers limit the use of certain prescription drugs by requiring step therapy-that is, by allowing access only after alternatives have been tried and have failed. Using data from seventeen of the largest US commercial health plans, we examined step therapy protocols that determined patients' eligibility for specialty drugs and identified ten diseases that are often subject to that requirement. Overall, plans applied step therapy in 38.9 percent of drug coverage policies, with varying frequency across plans (20.6-57.5 percent). Of the protocols for the ten diseases, 34.0 percent were consistent with corresponding clinical guidelines, 55.6 percent were more stringent, and 6.1 percent were less stringent. Trials of alternatives not included in the clinical guidelines were required in 4.2 percent of protocols, and the consistency of protocols varied within and across plans. These findings raise questions about potentially overly restrictive step therapy protocols, as well as concerns that variability across health plans makes protocols onerous for patients and practitioners alike. The findings thus suggest the need for state and federal legislative initiatives to help ensure appropriate prescription drug use.