James D Chambers1, Nikoletta M Margaretos2, Daniel E Enright2, Rosa Wang3, Xin Ye3. 1. Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. jchambers@tuftsmedicalcenter.org. 2. Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., Basking Ridge, NJ, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Orphan drugs' high prices raise questions about whether their costs are worth their benefits. We examined the association between an orphan drug's cost-effectiveness and health plan coverage restrictiveness. METHODS: We analyzed a dataset of US commercial health plan coverage decisions (information current as of 2019) for orphan drugs (n = 3298). We used multi-level random-effect logistic regression to examine the association between orphan drug cost-effectiveness and coverage restrictiveness. We identified cost-effectiveness estimates from the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, and from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's value assessments. We included only cost-effectiveness studies not funded by product manufacturers. We included the following independent variables: cancer indication, availability of alternatives, pediatric population, number of years since US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, disease prevalence, annual cost, additional non-orphan indication, safety, and inclusion in a FDA expedited review program. RESULTS: Plans restricted drug coverage in 29.7% (n = 981) of decisions. Plans were more likely to restrict drugs with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $50,000-$175,000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] (odds ratio = 1.855, p < 0.05), $175,000-$500,000 per QALY (odds ratio = 1.859, p < 0.05), and >$500,000 per QALY/dominated (odds ratio = 2.032, p < 0.01), compared to drugs with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios <$50,000 per QALY. Plans more often restricted drugs with non-cancer indications, having available alternatives, with more recent approval, in an FDA expedited review program, and for which the FDA additionally issued approval for a non-orphan disease. Plans more often restricted drugs with higher annual costs, and drugs indicated for higher prevalence diseases. All findings p < 0.05. CONCLUSIONS: Among other factors, an orphan drug's cost-effectiveness was associated with health plan drug coverage restrictiveness.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Orphan drugs' high prices raise questions about whether their costs are worth their benefits. We examined the association between an orphan drug's cost-effectiveness and health plan coverage restrictiveness. METHODS: We analyzed a dataset of US commercial health plan coverage decisions (information current as of 2019) for orphan drugs (n = 3298). We used multi-level random-effect logistic regression to examine the association between orphan drug cost-effectiveness and coverage restrictiveness. We identified cost-effectiveness estimates from the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, and from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's value assessments. We included only cost-effectiveness studies not funded by product manufacturers. We included the following independent variables: cancer indication, availability of alternatives, pediatric population, number of years since US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, disease prevalence, annual cost, additional non-orphan indication, safety, and inclusion in a FDA expedited review program. RESULTS: Plans restricted drug coverage in 29.7% (n = 981) of decisions. Plans were more likely to restrict drugs with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $50,000-$175,000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] (odds ratio = 1.855, p < 0.05), $175,000-$500,000 per QALY (odds ratio = 1.859, p < 0.05), and >$500,000 per QALY/dominated (odds ratio = 2.032, p < 0.01), compared to drugs with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios <$50,000 per QALY. Plans more often restricted drugs with non-cancer indications, having available alternatives, with more recent approval, in an FDA expedited review program, and for which the FDA additionally issued approval for a non-orphan disease. Plans more often restricted drugs with higher annual costs, and drugs indicated for higher prevalence diseases. All findings p < 0.05. CONCLUSIONS: Among other factors, an orphan drug's cost-effectiveness was associated with health plan drug coverage restrictiveness.
Authors: James D Chambers; David D Kim; Elle F Pope; Jennifer S Graff; Colby L Wilkinson; Peter J Neumann Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Stacie B Dusetzina; Ashley S Higashi; E Ray Dorsey; Rena Conti; Haiden A Huskamp; Shu Zhu; Craig F Garfield; G Caleb Alexander Journal: Med Care Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: James D Chambers; Ari D Panzer; David D Kim; Nikoletta M Margaretos; Peter J Neumann Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 2.229
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
Authors: David D Kim; Madison C Silver; Natalia Kunst; Joshua T Cohen; Daniel A Ollendorf; Peter J Neumann Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 4.981