MMIT brings transparency and guidence to pharmacy and medical benefit information

Manage with confidence. Decide with information. Communicate with certainty.
MMIT

MMIT Reality Check on CLL (Nov 2018)

November 2, 2018

According to our recent payer coverage analysis for chronic lymphocyctic leukemia (CLL) treatments, combined with news from key healthcare influencers, market access is shifting in this drug landscape.

To help make sense of this new research, MMIT’s team of experts analyzes the data and summarizes the key findings for you. The following are brief highlights. To read the full piece, including payer coverage, drug competition and prescriber trends, click here.

According to our recent payer coverage analysis for chronic lymphocyctic leukemia (CLL) treatments, combined with news from key healthcare influencers, market access is shifting in this drug landscape.

To help make sense of this new research, MMIT’s team of experts analyzes the data and summarizes the key findings for you. The following are brief highlights. To read the full piece, including payer coverage, drug competition and prescriber trends, click here.

Payer Coverage: A review of market access for CLL treatments shows that more than half of the covered lives under Medicare formularies are restricted.

Trends: The FDA approved Verastem, Inc.’s Copiktra (duvelisib) for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory CLL after at least two treatments.

 

Perspectives on CVS Bid to Lower Drug Launch Prices

November 1, 2018

In an effort to pressure drug manufacturers to temper their launch prices for new drugs, CVS Health Corp. is rolling out a program in which drugs that have a price exceeding a certain cost-effectiveness threshold will be excluded from coverage, AIS Health reported.

CVS will let clients refuse to cover drugs that have a price tag of more than $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), provided they are not designated as “breakthrough”

In an effort to pressure drug manufacturers to temper their launch prices for new drugs, CVS Health Corp. is rolling out a program in which drugs that have a price exceeding a certain cost-effectiveness threshold will be excluded from coverage, AIS Health reported.

CVS will let clients refuse to cover drugs that have a price tag of more than $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), provided they are not designated as “breakthrough” therapies by the FDA.

What’s unique about CVS’s move is where that cost-effectiveness threshold comes from: the QALY ratio is based on publicly available analyses from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), a nonprofit organization that conducts comparative-effectiveness research. Experts say it’s the first instance they’re aware of in which ICER is playing a formal role in a PBM or payer’s coverage decisions.

“In theory, I think it’s a great idea,” says Art Shinn, Pharm.D., president of Managed Pharmacy Consultants, LLC. “I think their quality of work is good,” he says of ICER. “From what I have seen of their studies, I think they’re nonpartial.”

However, in a letter sent Sept. 12 to CVS Health Corp. CEO Larry Merlo, nearly 100 patient groups urged him to reconsider the company’s new policy, saying that coverage decisions based on cost-effectiveness “ignore important differences among patients and instead rely on a single, one-size-fits-all assessment.” They also say that ICER’s cost-effectiveness analyses discriminate against the chronically ill, the elderly and people with disabilities by “using algorithms that calculate their lives as ‘worth less’ than people who are younger or non-disabled.”

CVS is not alone in taking steps to push back against high launch prices for prescription drugs. Express Scripts Holding Co., one of CVS Caremark’s chief rivals, “was actually the first to market last year with a more comprehensive and flexible program through our National Preferred Formulary called Exclude at Launch, which helps protect payers from high-priced drug launches,” a spokesperson wrote in an email to AIS Health.

Jayson Slotnik, a partner at Health Policy Strategies, LLC, says CVS’s move may be an attempt to compete with Express Scripts, as the two companies are “racing for market share” in order to demonstrate growth to investors.

Radar On Market Access: Express Scripts Exec Urges Smarter Treatment of HIV

November 1, 2018

At the annual Medicaid Health Plans of America conference, Express Scripts Holding Co. Senior Vice President and Chief Medical Officer Steve Miller, M.D., had a simple message for health plan leaders: “You have to think long term if you’re going to have better outcomes,” AIS Health reported.

One area in which Medicaid is not heeding that call, Miller said, is how it approaches treating and preventing HIV.

While the number of HIV patients is decreasing,

At the annual Medicaid Health Plans of America conference, Express Scripts Holding Co. Senior Vice President and Chief Medical Officer Steve Miller, M.D., had a simple message for health plan leaders: “You have to think long term if you’re going to have better outcomes,” AIS Health reported.

One area in which Medicaid is not heeding that call, Miller said, is how it approaches treating and preventing HIV.

While the number of HIV patients is decreasing, the amount spent on treating HIV has risen in recent years — and the culprit is rising drug costs, Miller said. Thus, Medicaid programs and plans are often choosing to cover the least expensive medications, which tend to be multi-tablet regimens, rather than pricier single-tablet therapies, he said.

While that approach may cost less in the near term, patients treated this way are less likely to be adherent to their treatment plans than those who get a single-tablet therapy.

According to Miller, that link between medication adherence and simplified treatment regimens is key, as medication non-adherence can lead to complications that ultimately make patients more expensive to treat.

Commercial health plans, which have less of an issue with finances than Medicaid, almost always choose single-tablet regimens for patients, according to Miller. Medicaid beneficiaries with HIV, on the other hand, are getting single-tablet regimens less than 60% of the time.

“So the reality is we’re sub-optimizing that care, and therefore we’re actually going to cost ourselves a lot more in the long run,” he added.

Radar On Market Access: Proposed Part D Change Might Not Be “Catastrophic”

October 30, 2018

If the Trump administration gets its way, Medicare Part D plan sponsors may at some point be on the hook for a greater share of costs once beneficiaries reach the catastrophic phase of coverage for prescription drugs. While America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) is opposed to the idea, experts tell AIS Health that the time may be ripe for such a change.

Beneficiaries enter the catastrophic coverage phase when, as of 2018,

If the Trump administration gets its way, Medicare Part D plan sponsors may at some point be on the hook for a greater share of costs once beneficiaries reach the catastrophic phase of coverage for prescription drugs. While America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) is opposed to the idea, experts tell AIS Health that the time may be ripe for such a change.

Beneficiaries enter the catastrophic coverage phase when, as of 2018, their “true out-of-pocket costs” exceed $5,000. Once in that phase, beneficiaries pay no more than 5% of the total cost for their drugs, while the federal government pays 80% and the Part D plan pays 15%.

In its fiscal year 2019 budget proposal, the Trump administration suggests increasing plans’ share of costs for catastrophic coverage from 15% to 80% and shifting Medicare’s share from 80% to 20%. More recently, CMS Administrator Seema Verma said during an Oct. 18 event that the change is one area in which Part D could be “updated and modernized.”

Sean Creighton, a vice president in Avalere Health’s policy practice, says the change is probably needed because health plans will soon bear very little risk in the upper end of the Part D benefit.

AHIP, however, says it “strongly disagrees with the basic premise of this proposal — that incentives alone will produce such cost reductions.” It argues that “plans are already fully incentivized to negotiate vigorously for lower costs” and “drug companies are incentivized to provide price concessions only when leverage exists.”

Creighton says it is possible that shifting more risk to plans could result in higher premiums. But as long as the beneficiary cost-sharing in the catastrophic phase remains the same, the proposed policy change is likely to be “sort of invisible” to members, he adds.

On the other hand, increasing plans’ risk will likely cause them to step up some of their price-negotiation practices, such as excluding drugs from formularies, changing tier placement of drugs, and using prior authorization and step therapy. “So it may lead to a situation where access to particular drugs may become more restricted as the plans seek to contain costs,” Creighton says.

MMIT Reality Check on Hypertension (Oct 2018)

October 26, 2018

According to our recent payer coverage analysis for hypertension treatments, combined with news from key healthcare influencers, market access is shifting in this drug landscape.

To help make sense of this new research, MMIT’s team of experts analyzes the data and summarizes the key findings for you. The following are brief highlights. To read the full piece, including payer coverage, drug competition and prescriber trends, click here.

Payer Coverage: A review of market access for hypertension treatments shows that about 44% of the lives under commercial formularies are unrestricted.

According to our recent payer coverage analysis for hypertension treatments, combined with news from key healthcare influencers, market access is shifting in this drug landscape.

To help make sense of this new research, MMIT’s team of experts analyzes the data and summarizes the key findings for you. The following are brief highlights. To read the full piece, including payer coverage, drug competition and prescriber trends, click here.

Payer Coverage: A review of market access for hypertension treatments shows that about 44% of the lives under commercial formularies are unrestricted.

Trends: With a wide variety of generic drugs available, brand name hypertension drugs are rarely prescribed to patients, and costs remain low. Via AIS Health.