The Effect of Formulary Restrictions on Patient and Payer Outcomes: A Systematic Literature Review

Economics of Antibody Drug Conjugates (ADCs): Innovation, Investment and Market Dynamics

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to explore the intricate interplay between scientific advancements and economic considerations in the development, production, and commercialization of Antibody Drug Conjugates (ADCs). The focus is on understanding the challenges and opportunities at this unique intersection, highlighting how scientific innovation and economic dynamics mutually influence the trajectory of ADCs in the pharmaceutical landscape.

RECENT FINDINGS

There has been a significant increase in interest and investment in the development of ADCs. Initially focused on hematological malignancies, ADCs are now being researched for use in treating solid tumors as well. Pharmaceutical companies are heavily investing to broaden the range of indications for which ADCs can be effective. According to a report from the end of 2023, the global ADCs market grew from USD 1.4 billion in 2016 to USD 11.3 billion in 2023, with projections estimating a value of USD 23.9 billion by 2032, growing at a CAGR of 10.7%. ADCs represent a promising class of biopharmaceuticals in oncology, with expanding applications beyond hematological malignancies to solid tumors. The significant growth in the ADC market underscores the impact of scientific and economic factors on their development. This review provides valuable insights into how these factors drive innovation and commercialization, shaping the future of ADCs in cancer treatment.

Medicare Part D Plans Greatly Increased Utilization Restrictions On Prescription Drugs, 2011-20

Drug utilization management tools can be employed to ensure that medicines are prescribed cost-effectively, but they can also be implemented in ways that reduce adherence and harm patient health. We examined trends in the prevalence of utilization restrictions on non-protected-class compounds in Medicare Part D plans during the period 2011-20, including prior authorization and step therapy requirements as well as formulary exclusions. Part D plans became significantly more restrictive over time, rising from an average of 31.9 percent of compounds restricted in 2011 to 44.4 percent restricted in 2020. The prevalence of formulary exclusions grew particularly fast: By 2020, plan formularies excluded an average of 44.7 percent of brand-name-only compounds. Formulary restrictions were more common among brand-name-only compared with generic-available compounds, among more expensive compounds, and in stand-alone compared with Medicare Advantage prescription drug plans.

Impact of formulary-related pharmacy claim rejections of cariprazine on health care utilization and treatment patterns among patients with bipolar I disorder

BACKGROUND

Formulary restrictions, intended to limit inappropriate medication use and decrease pharmacy costs, may prevent or delay patients with bipolar I disorder from initiating cariprazine, a dopamine D3-preferring D3/D2 and serotonin 5HT1A receptor partial agonist that is approved to treat manic/mixed or depressive episodes associated with bipolar I disorder. Little is known about the downstream consequences of formulary-related cariprazine prescription rejections.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of formulary-related cariprazine claim rejections on health care resource utilization (HCRU) and treatment patterns among patients newly prescribed cariprazine for bipolar I disorder.

METHODS

Symphony Health Integrated Dataverse was used to identify commercially insured adults (aged ≥18 years) with bipolar I disorder and at least 1 pharmacy claim for cariprazine (rejected because of formulary restrictions or approved; date of the first claim is the index date) from March 2015 through October 2020. Formulary-related rejection reasons included noncoverage, prior authorization requirement, and step therapy requirement. Baseline characteristics were evaluated during the 12 months pre-index and balanced between rejected and approved cohorts using 1:2 propensity score matching. HCRU outcomes included all-cause and mental health (MH)-related hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) visits, and outpatient visits. Treatment patterns were analyzed descriptively and included treatment delay and atypical antipsychotic use. HCRU was reported per patient-year and compared between cohorts using rate ratios; 95% CIs and P values were calculated using nonparametric bootstrap procedures.

RESULTS

The matched rejected and approved cohorts comprised 1,554 and 3,108 patients, respectively. The rejected cohort had 22% more all-cause and 24% more MH-related hospitalizations per patient-year vs the approved cohort (rate ratio [95% CI], all-cause: 1.22 [1.01-1.48], P = 0.024; MH-related: 1.24 [1.01-1.55], P = 0.044). ED and outpatient visits were numerically, but not significantly, greater in the rejected cohort. Of patients in the rejected cohort, 34.7% never received an atypical antipsychotic and 76.8% never received cariprazine. For those who later received cariprazine or another atypical antipsychotic, the average treatment delay was approximately 6 months (188 days) and approximately 4 months (123 days) after the initial rejection, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with bipolar I disorder and formulary-related cariprazine claim rejections experienced significantly more hospitalizations than patients whose initial claim was approved; ED and outpatient visits were similar between cohorts. Less than a quarter of patients whose initial claim was rejected later received cariprazine, and more than one-third never received any atypical antipsychotic. To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the impact of formulary-related rejections of cariprazine on HCRU and treatment patterns in patients with bipolar I disorder.

Decision Impact Analysis to Measure the Influence of Molecular Signature Response Classifier Testing on Treatment Selection in Rheumatoid Arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Clinical guidelines offer little guidance for treatment selection following inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). A molecular signature response classifier (MSRC) was validated to predict tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) inadequate response. The decision impact of MSRC results on biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD) selection was evaluated.

METHODS

This is an analysis of AIMS, a longitudinal, prospective database of patients with RA tested using the MSRC. This study assessed selection of b/tsDMARDs class after MSRC testing by surveying physicians, the rate of b/tsDMARD prescriptions aligning with MSRC results, and the percentage of physicians utilizing MSRC results for decision-making.

RESULTS

Of 1018 participants, 70.7% (720/1018) had treatment selected after receiving MSRC results. In this MSRC-informed cohort, 75.6% (544/720) of patients received a b/tsDMARD aligned with MSRC results, and 84.6% (609/720) of providers reported using MSRC results to guide treatment selection. The most prevalent reason reported (8.2%, 59/720) for not aligning treatment selection with MSRC results from the total cohort was health insurance coverage issues.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that rheumatologists reported using the MSRC test to guide b/tsDMARD selection for patients with RA. In most cases, MSRC test results appeared to influence clinical decision-making according to physician self-report. Wider adoption of precision medicine tools like the MSRC could support rheumatologists and patients in working together to achieve optimal outcomes for RA.

Medicare formulary restrictions for glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists and sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors used in type 2 diabetes mellitus: 2019-2023

BACKGROUND

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RAs) and sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) have proven benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus related to decreasing cardiovascular events and heart failure hospitalizations as well as preventing the progression of kidney disease. This led the American Diabetes Association (ADA) to update their guidelines in 2022 to recommend GLP1-RAs and SGLT2is as potential first-line options in patients with cardiorenal conditions. Formulary restrictions, such as step therapy and prior authorizations, can limit access to these beneficial medications.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate trends in Medicare formulary restrictions of GLP1-RAs and SGLT2is following the recommendations by the ADA for first-line use.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of Quarter 1 Medicare formulary restrictions on GLP1-RAs and SGLT2is from 2019 to 2023. We analyzed changes in formulary restrictions by year, before and after the ADA first-line recommendations, single vs combination products, and products with and without other indications on a medication level (ie, each unique National Drug Code number on each unique formulary) and formulary level (ie, any prior authorization or step therapy requirements yield formulary restriction).

RESULTS

We analyzed 12,212 unique Medicare formularies. GLP1-RAs were 12.5% less likely (relative risk [RR] = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.84-0.91; P < 0.001) and 33.2% less likely (RR = 0.67; 95% CI = 0.60-0.74; P < 0.001) to have restrictions after the ADA guideline changes on a medication and formulary level, respectively. SGLT2is were 87.8% less likely (RR = 0.12; 95% CI = 0.11-0.13; P < 0.001) and 53.0% less likely (RR = 0.47; 95% CI = 0.27-0.80; P = 0.005) to have restrictions after the ADA guideline changes on medication and formulary levels, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Decreasing trends of medications and formularies with restrictions may indicate payers are recognizing GLP1-RAs and SGLT2is as potential first-line agents, aligning with ADA recommendations.

Patient and Clinician Challenges with Anticholinergic Step Therapy in the Treatment of Overactive Bladder: A Narrative Review

Anticholinergics have been used in the treatment of overactive bladder (OAB), but their use is limited by poor tolerability and anticholinergic-related side effects. Increasingly, providers are discontinuing anticholinergic prescribing because of growing evidence of the association of anticholinergic use with increased risk of cognitive decline and other adverse effects. Newer medications for OAB, the β3-adrenergic receptor agonists mirabegron and vibegron, do not have anticholinergic properties and are typically well tolerated; however, many insurance plans have limited patient access to these newer OAB medications by requiring step therapy, meaning less expensive anticholinergic medications must be trialed and/or failed before a β3-agonist will be covered and dispensed. Thus, many patients are unable to easily access these medications. Step therapy and other drug utilization strategies (e.g., prior authorization) are often used to manage the growing costs of pharmaceuticals, but these policies do not always follow treatment guidelines and may harm patients as a result of treatment delays, discontinuations, or related increases in adverse events. Medical professionals have called for reform of drug utilization strategies through partnerships that include clinicians and policymakers. This narrative review discusses prescribing patterns for OAB treatment and the effect of switching between drugs, as well as the costs of step therapy and prior authorization on patients and prescribers.

Effects of utilization management on health outcomes: evidence from urinary tract infections and community-acquired pneumonia

BACKGROUND

Utilization management policies are pervasive in the Medicare Part D program. We assess the effect of utilization management restrictions in the Medicare Part D program on the quality of care in two clinical areas - community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and urinary tract infections (UTI).

METHODS

In this study, we identified new cases of CAP and UTI from Medicare claims data from 2010 to 2016. We assessed the relationship between exposure to utilization management for antibiotic medications suitable for treating these conditions and adverse health outcomes, based on the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality prevention quality indicators.

RESULTS

We identified 147,526 cases of CAP and 632,407 UTI cases in our data. In these samples, the adverse event rate varied from 3.6 to 5.7%. The probability of an adverse event increased by 0.75 (p = 0.061) percentage points for each ten percentage point increase in exposure to quantity limits (one form of utilization management) among people with CAP. There was no relationship between utilization management and adverse events in the UTI cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

In some circumstances, exposure to utilization management policies-particularly quantity limits-may adversely affect health.

Impact of Policy Interventions on Oxycodone Prescribing in Queensland, Australia: An Uncontrolled Interrupted Time Series Study

INTRODUCTION

Opioid prescribing rates are continuing to increase in Australia in line with prescribing rates seen internationally. Prescribing limits are one policy strategy to reduce short-term opioid prescribing, but there is limited evidence of their impact.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of state and national policy interventions on changes to oxycodone 5 mg discharge prescriptions in public hospitals using electronic prescribing in Queensland, Australia by evaluating the proportion of oxycodone 5 mg discharge prescriptions written for ≤ 10 tablets across the study period.

METHOD

This research utilised a retrospective uncontrolled interrupted time-series design and was undertaken at 12 public hospitals using electronic prescribing from December 2018 to February 2021. The study analysed the impact of two sequential policy interventions that limited the recommended quantity of oxycodone 5 mg on discharge for all hospitalised patients. The first state-wide policy came into effect on 19 September 2019 and the second national policy came into effect on 1 June 2020.

RESULTS

Over the 27-month period, there were 110,728 discharge prescriptions written in the 12 Queensland hospitals for oxycodone 5 mg. During the baseline period, approximately 50.7% (95% CI 49.5-51.8) of all oxycodone 5 mg prescriptions were from tablet quantities of ≤ 10 tablets. After the implementation of the state-wide policy, the proportion increased by 9% (95% CI 7.4-10.7; p = 0.001). The implementation of the national policy increased the proportion of oxycodone 5 mg prescriptions written for ≤10 tablets by 9.8% (95% CI 8.1-11.5; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Restrictive prescribing policies at a state and national level may have resulted in decreased quantities of oxycodone 5 mg prescriptions provided on discharge from public hospitals using electronic prescribing in Queensland, Australia. Despite these positive results, continued multi-faceted policy efforts and individual tailored interventions are necessary to ensure safe and judicious opioid prescribing.

Prescription drug coverage satisfaction and medication nonadherence among Medicare beneficiaries with cancer

BACKGROUND

Medication nonadherence among older patients with cancer can have profound health consequences. This study examines the association between prescription drug coverage satisfaction and medication nonadherence among Medicare beneficiaries with cancer.

METHODS

We analyzed the 2017 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey Public Use File of beneficiaries aged ≥65 years with reported non-skin cancer (n = 806). Beneficiaries were considered to have medication nonadherence if they reported: skipping doses, taking smaller doses than prescribed, or delaying or not filling a prescription because of cost. A survey-weighted logistic model, adjusted for covariates, was conducted to examine the association between prescription drug coverage satisfaction and medication nonadherence.

RESULTS

Of study beneficiaries with cancer, 14.7% reported medication nonadherence. Higher proportions of beneficiaries with medication nonadherence were dissatisfied with the amount paid for medications (33.2% vs. 11.0%, p < 0.001) and the medications included on formulary (29.5% vs 5.2%, p < 0.001). In the adjusted analysis, the risk for medication nonadherence was higher among those who were dissatisfied with the amount paid for medications (OR = 2.22; p = 0.050) and the medications included on formulary (OR = 5.03; p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Strategic mitigation of these barriers is essential to improving health outcomes in this at-risk population.

The association of Medicare Part D prior authorization for buprenorphine-naloxone with adherence to opioid use disorder treatment guidelines in the United States

AIMS

To assess differences in the quality of opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment received by Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in health plans that used prior authorization (PA) for buprenorphine-naloxone compared with those enrolled in plans that did not use PA.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Cross-sectional observational study, United States. Continuously enrolled beneficiaries (71 294) with an OUD who filled at least one prescription for buprenorphine-naloxone between March 2012 and July 2017.

MEASUREMENTS

Percentage of patients tested for hepatis B, hepatis C, HIV and liver functioning; percentage of patients with urine drug screens and number of urine drug screens; continuous use of buprenorphine-naloxone for at least 180 days; co-use of benzodiazepines; number of outpatient visits with and without an OUD diagnosis.

FINDINGS

PA was significantly associated with a lower likelihood of testing for hepatitis B [-3.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -4.4, -2.7] and C (-5.9, 95% CI = -6.9, -4.9), but the findings were inconclusive as to whether or not there was a difference in HIV (-1.1, 95% CI = -2.5, 0.4) or liver function testing (1.3, 95% CI = -0.1, 2.7). PA was associated with a lower likelihood of urine drug screening (-25.5, 95% CI = -26.8, -24.1) and with fewer drug screens (-2.5, 95% CI = -3.0, -2.1). Findings were inconclusive as to whether or not there was a difference in continuous use of buprenorphine-naloxone (0.3, 95% CI = -1.2, 1.8). PA was associated with fewer outpatient visits (-2.1, 95% CI = -3.0, -1.2) and fewer outpatient visits with an OUD diagnosis (-1.7, 95% CI = -2.1, -1.3). PA was associated with a lower likelihood of filling benzodiazepine prescriptions before and after buprenorphine-naloxone induction (-28.9, 95% CI = -29.6, -28.3) but a greater likelihood of only using benzodiazepines after buprenorphine-naloxone induction (10.6, 95% CI = 9.3, 11.8).

CONCLUSIONS

US Medicare patients subject to prior authorization for buprenorphine-naloxone are not more likely to receive high-quality treatment for opioid use disorder than patients not subject to prior authorization.

Economic Aspects of Delivering Primary Care Services: An Evidence Synthesis to Inform Policy and Research Priorities

Policy Points The 2018 Declaration of Astana reemphasized the importance of primary health care and its role in achieving universal health coverage. While there is a large amount of literature on the economic aspects of delivering primary care services, there is a need for more comprehensive overviews of this evidence. In this article, we offer such an overview. Evidence suggests that there are several strategies involving coverage, financing, service delivery, and governance arrangements which can, if implemented, have positive economic impacts on the delivery of primary care services. These include arrangements such as worker task-shifting and telemedicine. The implementation of any such arrangements, based on positive economic evidence, should carefully account for potential impacts on overall health care access and quality. There are many opportunities for further research, with notable gaps in evidence on the impacts of increasing primary care funding or the overall supply of primary care services.

CONTEXT

The 2018 Declaration of Astana reemphasized the importance of primary health care and its role in achieving universal health coverage. To strengthen primary health care, policymakers need guidance on how to allocate resources in a manner that maximizes its economic benefits.

METHODS

We collated and synthesized published systematic reviews of evidence on the economic aspects of different models of delivering primary care services. Building on previous efforts, we adapted existing taxonomies of primary care components to classify our results according to four categories: coverage, financing, service delivery, and governance.

FINDINGS

We identified and classified 109 reviews that met our inclusion criteria according to our taxonomy of primary care components: coverage, financing, service delivery, and governance arrangements. A significant body of evidence suggests that several specific primary care arrangements, such as health workers' task shifting and telemedicine, can have positive economic impacts (such as lower overall health care costs). Notably absent were reviews on the impact of increasing primary care funding or the overall supply of primary care services.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a great opportunity for further research to systematically examine the broader economic impacts of investing in primary care services. Despite progress over the last decade, significant evidence gaps on the economic implications of different models of primary care services remain, which could help inform the basis of future research efforts.

Use of prescriber requirements among US commercial health plans

BACKGROUND: Prescriber requirements are a form of utilization management (UM) in which health plans require that a certain type of physician (eg, a rheumatologist) prescribe a drug. OBJECTIVE: To examine how a set of US commercial health plans impose prescriber requirements in their specialty drug coverage decisions. METHODS: We identified specialty drug coverage decisions from the Tufts Medical Center Specialty Drug Evidence and Coverage (SPEC) Database. SPEC includes coverage information issued by 17 large US commercial health plans. We categorized prescriber requirements as the following: (1) the drug must be prescribed in consultation, supervision, or coordination with a specialist; (2) the drug must be prescribed by a specialist (eg, a neurologist); or (3) the drug must be prescribed by a specialist with particular expertise (eg, a neurologist with expertise in spinal muscular atrophy). First, we examined how often each plan imposed prescriber requirements. Second, we determined the degree of specialization that plans required prescribing physicians to have. Third, we used Pearson's chi-square tests to examine the association between plans' use of prescriber requirements and the following drug characteristics: cancer treatment, orphan indication, pediatric indication, drug approved in the last year, black box warning, and self-administered formulation. RESULTS: Overall, health plans imposed prescriber requirements in 22.0% (1,844/8,383) of their coverage decisions, although the frequency that they did so varied (range: 0.8%-86.0%). Of prescriber requirements, 79.1% (1,459/1,844) required that the drug be prescribed in consultation, supervision, or coordination with a specialist; 18.3% (338/1,844) required that the drug be prescribed by a specialist; and 2.6% (47/1,844) required that the drug be prescribed by a specialist with particular expertise. Plans were more likely to impose prescriber requirements for drugs with the following characteristics: indicated for a pediatric population, black box warning, self-administered, and noncancer treatments (all P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Health plans varied in the frequency that they imposed prescriber requirements in their specialty drug coverage decisions and with respect to the degree of specialization they required prescribing physicians to have. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by the Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health at Tufts Medical Center. The center receives funding from a variety of sources, including government agencies, foundations, and pharmaceutical and device companies. The SPEC Database, which provided data for this study, is funded in part through a data subscription program to which a number of pharmaceutical companies subscribe. All authors are employed by the Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health. In addition, Chambers reports speaker fees from Astellas and consulting fees from Biogen and Lundbeck. The other authors have nothing to disclose. An earlier version of this study was presented as a poster at the AMCP 2021 Virtual Meeting, April 12-16, 2021.

Evaluating implementation outcomes (acceptability, adoption, and feasibility) of two initiatives to improve the medication prior authorization process

BACKGROUND

Processes such as prior authorization (PA) for medications, implemented by health insurance companies to ensure that safe, appropriate, cost-effective, and evidence-based care is provided to all members, have created inefficiencies within healthcare systems. Thus, healthcare systems have implemented supplemental processes to reduce burden and ensure efficiency, timeliness, and appropriate care.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate implementation outcomes of two initiatives related to PA for medications: a common record that records all PA-related information that was integrated into the health record and an auto-routing of specialty prescriptions to a hospital-owned specialty pharmacy.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with medical staff to understand their experience, acceptability, adoption, and feasibility of these initiatives guided by Proctor's Framework for Implementation Outcomes. Transcripts were analyzed using consensus coding.

RESULTS

Eleven medical staff participated in semi-structured interviews. The two initiatives were analyzed together because the findings were similar across both for our outcomes of acceptability, adoption, and feasibility. Participants found the implemented initiatives to be acceptable and beneficial but felt there were still challenges with the new workflow. The initiatives were fully adopted by only one clinic site within the healthcare system, but limitations arose when adopting to another site. Individuals felt the initiatives were feasible and improved workflow, communication, and transparency. However, participants described future adaptations that would help improve this process including improved standardization, automation, and transparency.

CONCLUSION

The acceptability, adoption, and feasibility of two initiatives to improve the PA process within the one clinical site were well received but issues of generalizability limited the initiatives adoption system wide.

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.

Prevalence of Pre-existing Conditions Relevant for Adverse Events and Potential Drug-Drug Interactions Associated with Augmentation Therapies Among Patients with Treatment-Resistant Depression

INTRODUCTION

Pre-existing conditions relevant for adverse events (AE) and the potential for drug-drug interactions (DDIs) may limit safe pharmacotherapeutic augmentation options for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). This concern may be heightened among patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD), who often have comorbid medical disorders.

METHODS

Adults with MDD and ≥ 1 antidepressant claim within the first observed major depressive episode were identified in the MarketScan® Databases. Those initiating a new regimen after two regimens at adequate dose and duration were considered to have TRD. The index date was defined at TRD onset or on a random antidepressant claim among patients with non-TRD MDD. Pre-existing conditions 12 months pre-index and potential DDIs 3 months pre/post-index associated with specific non-antidepressant augmentation therapies, including atypical antipsychotics (APs), buspirone, psychostimulants, anticonvulsants, thyroid hormone, and lithium were compared between 1:1 matched TRD and non-TRD MDD cohorts.

RESULTS

Overall, 3414 patients with TRD and non-TRD MDD (mean age 39.7 years, 69% female) were matched. Relative to non-TRD MDD, patients with TRD had 33% higher likelihood of ≥ 1 pre-existing condition relevant for AEs listed in product labels of non-antidepressant augmentation therapies (p < 0.001). Patients with TRD vs. non-TRD MDD had 12.9 and 6.4 times higher likelihood of ≥ 2 and ≥ 3 DDIs, respectively, based on their medication regimen (all p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Pre-existing conditions relevant for listed AEs and potential DDIs limit safe augmentation options in MDD, particularly among patients with TRD. Payer prior authorization policies requiring several augmentation therapy trials to access novel treatments may complicate clinical management of this population.

Do patients benefit from legislation regulating step therapy?

Step therapy, also termed fail-first policy, describes a practice of insurance and pharmacy benefit management companies denying reimbursement for a specific treatment until after other treatments have first been found ineffective (i.e. failed). Laws to limit step therapy have been passed in 29 states of the United States. Using extrapolated data on fully insured employees, we find that except for New York and New Mexico, enacted State laws don't apply to even one-third of a state's population. Using the more robust Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) data, which do not include fully insured employees, we find that only 2-10% of a state's population is covered. Advocating for these laws has been an expensive and time-consuming process, likely to become more so for the 21 states without such laws. The laws that have been enacted can be near impossible, to enforce, and loopholes exist. As a result, using KFF data, more than 90% of people in the United States with health insurance may still be unable to access the treatment chosen as most appropriate for them with their physician. Based on these data, we conclude federal step-therapy legislation is needed.

[Reduction of social coverage for symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis: a disinvestment initiative in Argentina, 2015-2017]

In April 2016, the National Institute of Social Services for Retirees and Pensioners discontinued its policy of 100% coverage for 159 drugs (the "social subsidy"), including symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis (SYSADOAs), due to insufficient evidence of significant clinical benefit. We evaluated the effect of this measure on the use of SYSADOAs as well as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), which were unaffected by this policy change. We compared outpatient dispensations of SYSADOAs and NSAIDs from 2015 to 2017, measuring dispensed units, retail price, and out-of-pocket expenses for beneficiaries each month. After the change in coverage, there was a 61.6% total decrease in SYSADOA units dispensed, and a 63.4% decrease in the final sales price to the public, measured in constant values. Dispensation was not reoriented towards NSAIDs, which fell by 6.1%. The incidence of new treatments decreased (from 6.4 to 3.3 treatments per 1,000 beneficiaries per month), as did their continuity. Beneficiaries' out-of-pocket spending on SYSADOAs increased by 75.8% (at constant values). Disinvestment in interventions with questionable therapeutic value is an important tool in working toward the sustainability of health systems.

Consequences of insurance denials among U.S. patients prescribed repository corticotropin injection (Acthar Gel) for nephrotic syndrome

INTRODUCTION

Repository corticotropin injection (RCI; Acthar Gel) is indicated to induce a diuresis or a remission of proteinuria in nephrotic syndrome (NS) without uremia of the idiopathic type or that due to lupus erythematosus. This study compares patient characteristics and measurable healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) between NS patients who received a prescription for RCI and then were either approved or denied treatment by their insurers.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of adults with NS from January 2015 to December 2018 was conducted using a de-identified open-source claims database. Patients were included in the study if they had ≥1diagnosis associated with NS, were age 18+, and had medical claims activity at some point in the year preceding ("baseline") and year following ("follow up") their first approved or denied RCI prescription. Baseline characteristics were reported with p-values indicating the significance of characteristics between cohorts. To assess outcomes, approved and denied patients were matched (1:1) using propensity-matching to account for underlying differences.

RESULTS

Overall, 1,232 patients met inclusion criteria for the study. At baseline, approved patients were older than denied patients (mean age 53.9 vs. 48.4) and had higher rates of comorbidities. A greater proportion of approved patients required inpatient admissions (34.1 vs. 28.0%) and "high" doses of corticosteroids (CS) (26.2 vs. 20.7%) at baseline. Matched outcomes showed directionally more denied patients with inpatient admissions compared to approved (64 vs. 52) and a greater utilization of deep vein thrombosis ultrasound (12.2 vs. 6.6%) and dialysis (10.5 vs. 6.1%). Matched, denied patients had directionally greater CS use during follow-up both in the number of patients receiving CS (104 vs. 95) and the average annualized daily dose (4.1 vs. 3.4 mg).

CONCLUSION

Patients denied access to RCI treatment had directionally higher HCRU compared to matched, approved counterparts. Thus, the results of this study may aid providers and payers in evaluating scenarios where RCI may be beneficial and improve quality of care for NS patients.

Barriers to Somatic Health Care for Persons With Severe Mental Illness in Belgium: A Qualitative Study of Patients' and Healthcare Professionals' Perspectives

BACKGROUND

A huge and still growing mortality gap between people with severe mental illness (SMI) and the general population exists. Physical illnesses, mainly cardiovascular diseases, substantially contribute to the high mortality rates in patients with SMI. Disparities in somatic health care access, utilisation, and provision contribute to these poor physical health outcomes.

METHODS

A qualitative study, using semi-structured interviews, was set up to explore SMI patients' and healthcare professionals' perspectives on somatic health care in different psychiatric settings of the three Belgian regions (Flanders, Brussels, Wallonia). Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed prior to qualitative inductive thematic analysis, using Nvivo software. The COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research (COREQ) were used for reporting methods and findings.

RESULTS

Collaboration and information flows between psychiatric healthcare professionals, non-psychiatric healthcare professionals, and persons with SMI were troublesome. This seemed to be mainly due to stigma and prejudice and challenging communication and data transfer. Lack of sufficient training and experience to identify and treat somatic health problems in people with SMI (for psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses) and lack of psychiatric knowledge and feeling or sensitivity for psychiatric patients (for non-psychiatric healthcare professionals) further complicated adequate somatic health care. Finally, optimal somatic follow-up of patients with SMI was hampered by organisational problems (unavailability of equipment, unadapted infrastructure, understaffing, hospital pharmacy issues, and insufficient health promotion/lifestyle interventions), patient-related issues (unawareness of physical problems, non-adherence, need for accompaniment) and financial barriers.

CONCLUSION

There is an urgent need for integrated somatic and mental healthcare systems and a cultural change. Psychiatrists and primary care providers continue to consider the mental and physical health of their patients as mutually exclusive responsibilities due to a lack of sufficient training and experience, poor or absent liaison links, time constraints and organisational and financial barriers. Modifying these aspects will improve the quality of somatic health care for these vulnerable patients.

Treatment Delays Associated With Prior Authorization for Infusible Medications: A Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

Prior authorizations (PAs) are commonly used by health payers as cost-containment strategies for expensive medications, including infused biologics. There is scarce data about the effect of PA requirements on patient-oriented outcomes.

METHODS

We included patients for whom an infusible medication was prescribed for a rheumatologic condition. The exposures of interest were a PA requirement and whether or not the PA was denied. The primary outcome was the difference in days from medication request to infusion. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of denied PAs and differences in glucocorticoid exposure following a PA request.

RESULTS

Of the 225 patients, the infusible medications of 160 (71%) required a PA. PAs were associated with a greater number of days to infusion compared to cases in which no authorization was required (median 31 days [interquartile range (IQR) 15-60 days] versus median 27 days [IQR 13-41 days]; P = 0.045), especially among the 33 patients (21%) whose PA was denied initially (median 50 days [IQR 31-76 days] versus median 27 days [IQR 13-41 days]; P < 0.001). PA denials were associated with greater prednisone-equivalent glucocorticoid exposure in the 3 months following the request than when a PA was not required (median 605 mg [IQR 0-1,575] versus median 160 mg [IQR 0-675]; P = 0.01). Twenty-seven of the 33 PA requests that were initially denied (82%) were eventually approved. Thus, 96% of all PAs were ultimately approved.

CONCLUSION

PA requirements are associated with treatment delays and denials are associated with greater glucocorticoid exposure. Because the great majority of PA requests are ultimately approved, the value of PA requirements and their impact on patient safety should be reevaluated.

Impact of Formulary Restrictions on Antiepileptic Drug Dispensation Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this analysis was to assess the relationship between formulary restrictions and antiepileptic drug (AED) dispensation in patients with focal seizure (FS).

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using data from Symphony Health's Integrated Dataverse® (1 April 2015-30 June 2018).

METHODS

This study included two patient populations: the overall patient population (N = 54,097) and a pediatric population (< 18 years) (N = 12,610). Cohorts were defined based on approval or rejection of the index AED claim. Study outcomes were prescription life cycle analysis, proportion of patients with dispensation, time to dispensation, and likelihood of successful dispensation. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was estimated to study the association between formulary restriction and likelihood of successful AED dispensation.

RESULTS

Among patients in the overall population with a rejected claim (n = 9133), 8.0% did not receive any AED and 77.6% received approval for the index AED following an appeal. Among the pediatric patients with a rejected claim (n = 3081), 6.0% did not receive any AED and 81.7% received approval for the index AED after an appeal. In both populations, formulary restrictions were associated with significant delays in index AED dispensation (6.9 and 5.3 days, respectively; P  < 0.0001 for each population), compared to approved AED claims. In the overall and pediatric populations, formulary-related rejections of AEDs were associated with a 35% (hazard ratio [HR] 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-0.66; P  < 0.0001) and 27% (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.69-0.76; P  < 0.0001) lower likelihood of successful dispensation of the index AED, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Formulary restrictions of AEDs were associated with significant delays in treatment and significantly lower likelihood of successful AED dispensation in patients with FS.

Trends In Coverage For Disease-Modifying Therapies For Multiple Sclerosis In Medicare Part D

The high cost of multiple sclerosis (MS) disease-modifying therapies can negatively affect access for patients through increased payer restrictions and higher out-of-pocket spending. Our objective was to describe changes in pharmacy benefit coverage and cost-sharing amounts for MS disease-modifying therapies in the Medicare Part D program, using enrollment-weighted Prescription Drug Plan Formulary files for the period 2007-16. Among therapies available throughout the study period, the rate of prior authorization use increased from 61-66 percent of plans to 84-90 percent. The share of plans with at least one therapy available without limitations declined from 39 percent to 17 percent. The projected cumulative out-of-pocket spending for 2019 was $6,894. The therapy with the highest out-of-pocket spending was generic glatiramer acetate. Policy makers need to consider both access restrictions and a growing cost-sharing burden as potential consequences of high and rising drug prices for people with MS.

Regional Disparities in Qualified Health Plans' Prior Authorization Requirements for HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis in the United States

IMPORTANCE

With the goal of ending the HIV epidemic in the United States, access to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is essential to help curb new HIV infections. There has been differential uptake of PrEP by region, with the South lagging behind other regions. Discriminatory benefit design (benefit design that prevents or delays people with complex or expensive conditions from obtaining appropriate treatment) through prior authorization requirements could be a systemic barrier that contributes to the decreased PrEP uptake in the South.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether there are regional disparities in prior authorization requirements for combined tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine for qualified health plans (QHPs) and to assess whether any QHP characteristics explain the disparities.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This design was a cross-sectional study of QHPs offered in the 2019 Affordable Care Act Marketplace. The QHPs studied included all Affordable Care Act-compliant individual and small-group market plans in the United States.

EXPOSURES

The primary exposure was the 4 census regions (Northeast, West, Midwest, and South). Additional covariates included other plan characteristics.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Prior authorization requirement for combined tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine at the QHP level.

RESULTS

In total, 16 853 QHPs were analyzed (18.2% in the Northeast, 19.5% in the West, 25.0% in the Midwest, and 37.3% in the South). Overall, 18.9% of QHPs required prior authorization for combined tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine. This percentage varied by region, with 2.3%, 6.2%, 13.3%, and 37.3% of plans requiring prior authorization in the Northeast, West, Midwest, and South, respectively. Compared with QHPs in the Northeast, QHPs in the South were 15.89 (95% CI, 12.57-20.09) times as likely to require prior authorization, whereas the Midwest and West were 5.69 (95% CI, 4.45-7.27) and 2.65 (95% CI, 2.02-3.47) times as likely, respectively. Other plan characteristics did not account for the regional variation.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Compared with QHPs in the Northeast, QHPs in the South were almost 16 times as likely to require prior authorization for PrEP, and the reasons for these disparities are unknown. The prior authorization requirement is a possible barrier to PrEP access in the South, which is the region of the United States with the most annual new HIV diagnoses. There is limited regulation of QHPs' prior authorization requirements. Federal- or state-level health policy laws may be necessary to remove this system-level barrier to ending the HIV epidemic in the United States.

Impact of Pharmacy Benefit Managers on Oncology Practices and Patients

Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) are thoroughly integrated into the drug supply chain as administrators of prescription drug benefits for private insurers, self-insuring business, and government health plans. As the role of PBMs has expanded, their opaque business practices and impact on drug prices have come under increasing scrutiny. PBMs are particularly influential in oncology care because prescription drugs play a major role in the treatment of most cancers and an increasing number of patients with cancer are treated with oral oncology agents managed by PBMs. There is concern that some PBM practices may threaten access to high-quality cancer care and may increase the financial and administrative burden on patients and practices. In this article, we review the role of PBMs in prescription drug coverage and reimbursement, discuss the impact of PBMs on oncology care, and present data from the 2018 ASCO Practice Survey assessing the knowledge and attitude of oncology practices toward PBMs.

Association of Formulary Prior Authorization Policies With Buprenorphine-Naloxone Prescriptions and Hospital and Emergency Department Use Among Medicare Beneficiaries

IMPORTANCE

Prior authorization requirements may be a barrier to accessing medications for opioid use disorder treatment and may, therefore, be associated with poor health care outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the association of prior authorization with use of buprenorphine-naloxone and health care outcomes.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This comparative interrupted time series analysis examined enrollment and insurance claims data from Medicare beneficiaries with an opioid use disorder diagnosis or who filled a prescription for an opioid use disorder medication between 2012 and 2017. Over this period, 775 874 members were in 1479 Part D plans that always required prior authorization, 113 286 members were in 206 plans that removed prior authorization, 189 461 members were in 489 plans that never required prior authorization, and 619 919 members were in 485 plans that added prior authorization. Data analysis was performed from April 2019 to February 2020.

EXPOSURES

Removal or addition of prior authorization and new prescriptions filled for buprenorphine-naloxone.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Buprenorphine-naloxone use, inpatient admissions, emergency department visits, and prescription drug and medical expenditures.

RESULTS

The study population in 2012 included 949 206 Medicare beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 57 [15] years; 550 445 women [58%]). Removal of prior authorization was associated with an increase of 17.9 prescriptions (95% CI, 1.1 to 34.7 prescriptions) filled for buprenorphine-naloxone per plan per year, which is a doubling of the number of prescriptions, on average. Each prescription filled was associated with statistically significant decreases in adverse health care outcomes: substance use disorder-related inpatient admissions decreased by 0.1 admission per plan per year (95% CI, -0.2 to -0.1 admission per plan per year), and substance use disorder-related emergency department visits decreased by 0.1 visit per plan per year (95% CI, -0.13 to -0.03 visit per plan per year) (all P < .001). Combining these results, removal of prior authorization was associated with a reduction in substance use disorder-related inpatient admissions by 2.0 admissions per plan per year (95% CI, -4.3 to -0.1 admissions per plan per year) and substance use disorder-related emergency department visits by 1.4 visits per plan per year (95% CI, -3.2 to -0.1 visits per plan per year).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Removing prior authorization for buprenorphine-naloxone was associated with an increase in the medication use and decreases in health care utilization and expenditures.

Association Between Medicare and FDA Policies and Prior Authorization Requirements for Buprenorphine Products in Medicare Part D Plans

This study describes changes in the proportion of Medicare Part D plans requiring prior authorization for buprenorphine products before and after a 2017 FDA rquirement that the drug’s label emphasize the importance of drug treatment of opioid use disorder.

Mixed effects of restriction strategies in antimicrobial stewardship programs on antimicrobial use in 121 tertiary hospitals in China, 2013-2017

Background: The research evaluated the impact of intravenous antimicrobial restriction strategy (IARS) on different types of hospitals in China for evidence-based management, for outpatients implemented in 2016. Methods: Based on panel data on antimicrobial use in 121 tertiary hospitals in Zhejiang, China, segmented regression analysis was used to evaluate the impact of IARS in children's hospitals (CHs), obstetrics and gynecology hospitals (OGHs), women's and children's hospitals (WCHs), traditional Chinese medicine hospitals (TCMHs) and general hospitals (GHs). Antimicrobial use was measured using the percentage of total encounters with prescribing and the percentage of total drug expenditure relating to antimicrobials (APP and AEP). Results: There was a downward baseline slope of APP in all types of hospitals and AEP in WCHs, TCMHs and GHs (P < 0.01). After IARS, a level reduction in AEP in CHs (-3.14%, 95% CI = -6.21 to 0.06), WCHs (-1.33%, 95% CI = -2.44 to 0.22) and TCMHs (-0.85%, 95%CI = -1.51 to 0.18). After IARS, the slope of AEP changed significantly in OGHs (-0.42%, 95%CI = -0.81 to 0.03) and WCHs (0.29%, 95% CI = 0.08 to 0.49), and the slope of APP changed significantly in CHs (2.35%, 95%CI = 1.20 to 3.49). Conclusions: IARS had the mixed effects including positive effect in AEP and no significant change in APP, and an unexpected rise in APP in CHs needs further study.