Market Access

MMIT Reality Check on Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (July 2020)

July 10, 2020

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

According to our recent payer coverage analysis for acute lymphoblastic leukemia 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 acute lymphoblastic leukemia treatments shows that under the pharmacy benefit, about 49% of the lives under commercial formularies are covered with utilization management restrictions.

Trends: In April 2020, the FDA cleared an investigational new drug (IND) application for Autolus Therapeutics plc’s AUTO1, a CD19-targeting chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy for the treatment of adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Radar On Market Access: Upheld Transparency Rule Is Slated to Reshape Payer-Provider Negotiations

July 9, 2020

In another blow to an industry already beleaguered by the COVID-19 pandemic, a federal judge recently upheld a federal rule that requires hospitals to engage in unprecedented price transparency measures, AIS Health reported.

The rule would require hospitals to disclose the rates they negotiate with payers for all items and services they offer. It is slated to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2021, but the American Hospital Association (AHA) and other trade groups and health systems sued to block it.

In another blow to an industry already beleaguered by the COVID-19 pandemic, a federal judge recently upheld a federal rule that requires hospitals to engage in unprecedented price transparency measures, AIS Health reported.

The rule would require hospitals to disclose the rates they negotiate with payers for all items and services they offer. It is slated to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2021, but the American Hospital Association (AHA) and other trade groups and health systems sued to block it.

The crux of the plaintiffs’ argument in American Hospital Association v. Azar is that CMS exceeded its authority by redefining the “standard charges” that hospitals must disclose under the Affordable Care Act to include negotiated rates. But in a decision issued June 23, U.S. District Court Judge Carl Nichols determined that CMS’s interpretation of the statute was reasonable.

The AHA has already appealed the decision, and depending on how the D.C. Circuit Court rules on that appeal, the case could make it to the Supreme Court, says David Kaufman, a partner at Laurus Law Group LLC.

“Insurers today actually do have a pretty good sense of how hospitals are charging, but this is going to be a quantum leap forward for them in understanding the strategy that hospitals take in negotiating across insurance markets,” Dan Mendelson, founder of Avalere Health says regarding what will happen if the rule does take effect.

However, “the insurer will have more information, but I question whether they will have more leverage,” Mendelson says. “I think over time what this [rule] is likely to do is to drive more consistency in pricing — not necessarily lower prices across the board.”

Kaufman observes that the disclosure of hospitals’ negotiated rates may not have a uniform impact across different types of insurers.

“In certain ways, it’s a procompetitive kind of rule by providing more transparency,” he says. “However, large established insurers that have the advantage of broad networks with lower prices based on their large membership benefit by keeping their prices confidential. It helps them with providing better prices to large employers, etc. So by making those prices more transparent, it might ease barriers to entry [for] other insurers.”

MMIT Reality Check on Hemophilia A or B With Inhibitors (July 2020)

July 3, 2020

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

According to our recent payer coverage analysis for hemophilia A or B with inhibitors 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 hemophilia A or B with inhibitors treatments shows that under the pharmacy benefit, about 48% of the lives under commercial formularies are covered with utilization management restrictions.

Trends: In April 2020, the FDA approved Laboratoire Francais du Fractionnement et des Biotechnologies S.A.’s Sevenfact [coagulation factor VIIa (recombinant)-jncw] for the treatment and control of bleeding episodes in people at least 12 years old with hemophilia A or B with inhibitors.

Trends That Matter for DMD Therapies

July 2, 2020

Since 2016, the FDA has approved a handful of therapies to treat Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). But some uncertainty exists over their effectiveness, in addition to concerns about their costs.

When DMD is suspected, a blood test that measures creatine kinase (CK) levels is performed. “CK is an enzyme found in abnormally high levels when muscle is damaged,” Mesfin Tegenu, R.Ph., president of PerformRx, LLC., tells AIS Health. “The detection of an elevated CK level leads to molecular genetic testing to confirm a definitive diagnosis of DMD.”

Since 2016, the FDA has approved a handful of therapies to treat Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). But some uncertainty exists over their effectiveness, in addition to concerns about their costs.

When DMD is suspected, a blood test that measures creatine kinase (CK) levels is performed. “CK is an enzyme found in abnormally high levels when muscle is damaged,” Mesfin Tegenu, R.Ph., president of PerformRx, LLC., tells AIS Health. “The detection of an elevated CK level leads to molecular genetic testing to confirm a definitive diagnosis of DMD.”

In February 2017, the FDA approved then-manufacturer Marathon Pharmaceuticals LLC’s Emflaza (deflazacort). The company said it would be priced at $89,000, which sparked outrage since people have been buying a generic version from overseas since the 1990s for about $1,000 per year. After the backlash, Marathon ultimately sold the drug to PTC Therapeutics Inc., which launched it later that year with a $35,000 annual price tag. Since then, PTC has raised the price to more than Marathon’s original one.

In September 2016, the FDA gave accelerated approval to Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc.’s Exondys 51 (eteplirsen). The dystrophin gene has 79 exons, and about 80% of people with DMD have genotypes that are amenable to exon skipping. Exondys 51 targets those with a mutation of the DMD gene that is amenable to exon 51 skipping.

Sarepta also has a second exon-skipping therapy, Vyondys 53 (golodirsen), which treats DMD in people with a mutation amenable to exon 53 skipping. The FDA gave the drug accelerated approval in December, almost four months after the agency rejected the drug through a complete response letter.

Both drugs are weight-based with similar prices: about $300,000 per year but up to $1 million annually.

“It’s unclear how much a health plan may spend on someone with DMD; however, a recent study from the Muscular Dystrophy Association found that the annual cost for DMD for U.S. society as a whole is around $362-$488 million dollars,” says Tegenu. “The price of the newer DMD therapies (Exondys 51 and Vyondys 53) are both estimated to cost approximately $750,000 per year for the treatment of one patient.”

Radar On Market Access: CMS Proposes New Medicaid Best Price Rules for Pricey Therapies

June 30, 2020

In an effort to boost adoption and lower costs for curative therapies, CMS proposed a new rule that the agency says would allow state Medicaid plans to enter into value-based, outcome-dependent purchasing agreements with drug manufacturers using a new interpretation of best price rules, AIS Health reported.

CMS proposed an updated interpretation of Medicaid “best price” rules by clarifying best price reporting requirements and enabling new structures including year-to-year scheduled prices that could change in relation to patient outcomes.

In an effort to boost adoption and lower costs for curative therapies, CMS proposed a new rule that the agency says would allow state Medicaid plans to enter into value-based, outcome-dependent purchasing agreements with drug manufacturers using a new interpretation of best price rules, AIS Health reported.

CMS proposed an updated interpretation of Medicaid “best price” rules by clarifying best price reporting requirements and enabling new structures including year-to-year scheduled prices that could change in relation to patient outcomes.

New curative therapies present a novel financial challenge for payers. Curative therapies eliminate the need for intensive treatment of chronic and terminal conditions, which create substantial savings for payers, patients and providers alike.

However, their high up-front cost is borne by payers and patients, and the initial payer may not see the entire financial benefit of the curative therapy. What’s more, under a traditional payment model, insurers are unable to recoup costs if a new, experimental therapy with curative potential has limited effect.

In order to spread risk and value across all stakeholders involved, some drug benefit industry leaders have called for broad adoption of the value-based pricing methods CMS’s proposed rule seeks to create, backed by a reinsurance mechanism.

Avalere Health principal Mike Schneider tells AIS Health that, although CMS’s proposal does not include a reinsurance mechanism, it should advance adoption of curative therapies. He says that, as they are currently implemented, Medicaid’s best price rules have made it difficult for commercial payers to negotiate with drug manufacturers to include outcomes and proof of concept in purchasing agreements.

Though the proposed rule applies directly to state Medicaid plans, Schneider says that the rule could have a substantial impact on the commercial market as plans bidding on Medicaid contracts gain experience with the new paradigm.

Still, barriers remain in adopting new curative therapies. Drug Channels Institute CEO Adam Fein points out that the rule does not address the challenge presented by copay accumulators to patients who might benefit from expensive, new specialty drugs — which suggests the rule might not speed up curative therapy adoption as quickly as patients might hope.

MMIT Reality Check on Ankylosing Spondylitis (June 2020)

June 26, 2020

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

According to our recent payer coverage analysis for ankylosing spondylitis 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 ankylosing spondylitis treatments shows that under the pharmacy benefit, about 69% of the lives under commercial formularies are covered with utilization management restrictions.

Trends: The FDA’s recent approvals of two interleukin-17A (IL-17A) antagonists — Eli Lilly and Co.’s Taltz (ixekizumab) and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.’s Cosentyx (secukinumab) — to treat active non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis, a less advanced form of ankylosing spondylitis, provide a new mechanism of action.