Literature DB >> 29985695

Specialty Drug Coverage Varies Across Commercial Health Plans In The US.

James D Chambers1, David D Kim2, Elle F Pope3, Jennifer S Graff4, Colby L Wilkinson5, Peter J Neumann6.   

Abstract

We analyzed specialty drug coverage decisions issued by the largest US commercial health plans to examine variation in coverage and the consistency of those decisions with indications approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Across 3,417 decisions, 16 percent of the 302 drug-indication pairs were covered the same way by all of the health plans, and 48 percent were covered the same way by 75 percent of the plans. Specifically, 52 percent of the decisions were consistent with the FDA label, 9 percent less restrictive, 2 percent mixed (less restrictive in some ways but more restrictive in others), and 33 percent more restrictive, while 5 percent of the pairs were not covered. Health plans restricted coverage of drugs indicated for cancer less often than they did coverage of drugs indicated for other diseases. Using multivariate regression, we found that several drug-related factors were associated with less restrictive coverage, including indications for orphan diseases or pediatric populations, absence of safety warnings, time on the market, lack of alternatives, and expedited FDA review. Variations in coverage have implications for patients' access to treatment and health system costs.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Insurance Coverage < Insurance; Pharmaceuticals

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29985695     DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1553

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)        ISSN: 0278-2715            Impact factor:   6.301


  9 in total

1.  Orphan Drugs Offer Larger Health Gains but Less Favorable Cost-effectiveness than Non-orphan Drugs.

Authors:  James D Chambers; Madison C Silver; Flora C Berklein; Joshua T Cohen; Peter J Neumann
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2020-04-13       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Coverage for Biosimilars vs Reference Products Among US Commercial Health Plans.

Authors:  James D Chambers; Rachel C Lai; Nikoletta M Margaretos; Ari D Panzer; Joshua T Cohen; Peter J Neumann
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2020-05-19       Impact factor: 56.272

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

Authors:  James D Chambers; Nikoletta M Margaretos; Daniel E Enright; Rosa Wang; Xin Ye
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2021-10-26       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Value-based drug pricing in the Biden era: Opportunities and prospects.

Authors:  Peter J Neumann; Daniel A Ollendorf; Joshua T Cohen
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2021-06-03       Impact factor: 3.734

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

Authors:  Adda Grimberg; Genevieve P Kanter
Journal:  J Endocr Soc       Date:  2019-08-28

6.  Cost-effectiveness of cancer drugs: Comparative analysis of the United States and England.

Authors:  Avi Cherla; Matthew Renwick; Ashish Jha; Elias Mossialos
Journal:  EClinicalMedicine       Date:  2020-11-05

7.  Patients' access to rare neuromuscular disease therapies varies across US private insurers.

Authors:  Nikoletta M Margaretos; Komal Bawa; Natalie J Engmann; James D Chambers
Journal:  Orphanet J Rare Dis       Date:  2022-02-05       Impact factor: 4.123

8.  The Physician and Administrator-Reported Cost of Drug Utilization Management to Physician Practices: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

Authors:  Marie Louise Edwards; Perry T Yin; Michael Kuehn; Keith Bratti; Noam Kirson; Anupam Jena; Scott Howell
Journal:  Pharmacoecon Open       Date:  2022-07-23

9.  Physician perceptions of drug utilization management: Results of a national survey.

Authors:  Marie Louise Edwards; Perry T Yin; Michael Kuehn; Keith Bratti; Noam Kirson; Anupam B Jena; Scott Howell
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-09-20       Impact factor: 3.752

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.