Payer

MMIT Reality Check on Neutropenia (Feb 2019)

February 1, 2019

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

According to our recent payer coverage analysis for neutropenia 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 neutropenia treatments shows that about 40% of the covered lives under the pharmacy benefit in commercial and health exchange formularies have utilization management restrictions.

Trends: The surge of pipeline biosimilars will mean increased competition. Granix and Zarxio utilization is on the rise, which is taking market share from Neulasta and Neupogen . Via AIS Health.

Radar On Market Access: California Makes Waves With Pharma Benefits, Purchasing Plan

January 31, 2019

Under the direction of its new governor, Democrat Gavin Newsom, California is planning to take control of the pharmacy benefit for all of the state’s Medi-Cal beneficiaries — the vast majority of which currently have that part of their care administered by private insurers and their PBMs, AIS Health reported. What’s more, the order directs state agencies to create bulk-purchasing arrangements for high-priority drugs and establish a framework for letting private businesses and insurers join the state’s buying pool.

Under the direction of its new governor, Democrat Gavin Newsom, California is planning to take control of the pharmacy benefit for all of the state’s Medi-Cal beneficiaries — the vast majority of which currently have that part of their care administered by private insurers and their PBMs, AIS Health reported. What’s more, the order directs state agencies to create bulk-purchasing arrangements for high-priority drugs and establish a framework for letting private businesses and insurers join the state’s buying pool.

The idea of the state’s Medicaid program shifting to an entirely fee-for-service drug benefits system is already sparking worries about what it will do to PBMs’ bottom lines.

“We suspect that the fee-for-service aspect [of the executive order] may have an adverse impact on PBMs and potentially MCOs that provide managed Medicaid services in the state,” RBC Capital Markets, LLC analyst George Hill wrote in a research note. Currently, California’s Medicaid managed care organizations contract with 10 different PBMs to administer the pharmacy benefit for 10.64 million managed Medicaid lives — which comprise nearly 90% of the state’s total Medicaid lives.

In addition, one concern for managed care plans is the fact that carving out benefits makes it more difficult to coordinate care, according to L.A. Care CEO John Baackes.

“I think one of the advantages of a managed Medi-Cal plan like ours is that for people who are in very difficult circumstances health-wise, we do provide an element of care management that’s important,” he says. “And if there’s an element of the benefit that we don’t control, then it’s awkward.”

Regarding the the concept of California starting a bulk-pharmaceutical buying program, Andrey Ostrovsky, M.D., former chief medical officer at CMS’s Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services and current CMO at Solera Health, says it could indeed help drive down prices, since the PBMs that currently serve the state operate independently.

But other experts aren’t so sure.

“If you’re negotiating directly with the manufacturers on drug prices, how’s the delivery system of that going to work, and how are the pharmacies, at the local level, going to be able to maintain a profit and not lose money?” asks Brian Anderson, a principal with Milliman, Inc. Just because a state can negotiate a large rebate from drug manufacturers doesn’t necessarily mean it’s negotiating a lower drug price, he adds.

Trends That Matter for Hep C Treatment

January 31, 2019

A small study suggests it might be possible to shorten the length of expensive drug treatment for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV), potentially cutting treatment time in half for 50% of patients. But managed care pharmacy clinicians say the results are far from ready to implement widely, and it’s possible the new approach might not even save money, AIS Health reported.

A small study suggests it might be possible to shorten the length of expensive drug treatment for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV), potentially cutting treatment time in half for 50% of patients. But managed care pharmacy clinicians say the results are far from ready to implement widely, and it’s possible the new approach might not even save money, AIS Health reported.

The study, conducted at Loyola University Chicago and three medical centers in Israel, involved only 22 patients. It used a technique called modeling-based response-guided therapy, which estimated how long it would take to completely eliminate the hepatitis C virus.

“There’s a potential to save up to 20% of the costs of hepatitis C drugs,” says study author and Loyola researcher Harel Dahari, Ph.D.

However, April Kunze, Pharm.D., senior director of clinical formulary development and trend management strategy for Prime Therapeutics LLC, says that if PBMs or health plans apply policies that use the Loyola study’s data, the result may not necessarily be lower prices for hepatitis C therapy. “Drug pricing may vary significantly based on contracts and utilization,” she says. “Additionally, patients who relapse may require additional therapy, which could increase the overall cost of treatment.”

Regardless of the prospects for the response-guided therapy approach, there could be more price upheaval coming to the HCV antiviral market in 2019. Gilead said in September that it will soon launch steeply discounted generic versions of two of its HCV drugs.

 

MMIT Reality Check on Hemophilia (Jan 2019)

January 25, 2019

According to our recent payer coverage analysis for hemophilia 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 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 all hemophilia A and B medications shows that 99% of Medicare beneficiaries are not covered for at least one of the drugs.

Trends: Starting Jan. 1, Express Scripts Holding Co. will exclude Factor VIII recombinant products for hemophilia treatment in its 2019 National Preferred Formulary.

Perspectives on New MA Rule That Touches Protected Classes

January 24, 2019

CMS on Nov. 26, 2018 issued a proposed rule making changes to the Medicare Advantage and Part D programs that would take effect in 2020. Key provisions in CMS’s latest drug pricing rule include a proposal to extend new flexibility to plan sponsors in the area of so-called six “protected” drug classes and the required implementation of a new electronic real-time benefit tool (RTBT), AIS Health reported.

CMS on Nov. 26, 2018 issued a proposed rule making changes to the Medicare Advantage and Part D programs that would take effect in 2020. Key provisions in CMS’s latest drug pricing rule include a proposal to extend new flexibility to plan sponsors in the area of so-called six “protected” drug classes and the required implementation of a new electronic real-time benefit tool (RTBT), AIS Health reported.

Under CMS’s Contract Year 2020 Medicare Advantage and Part D Drug Pricing Proposed Rule, plans would be able to:

  • Implement broader use of prior authorization and step therapy for protected class drugs;
  • Exclude a protected class drug from a formulary if the drug represents only a new formulation of an existing single-source drug or biological product, regardless of whether the older formulation remains on the market; and
  • Exclude a protected class drug from a formulary if the price of the drug increased beyond a certain threshold over a specified look-back period.

Michael Strazzella at Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney PC., says, “I think being able to exclude [certain] protected class drugs from the formulary is going to be very significant for plans….And it is going to force the pharmaceutical companies to work more within the formulary managed care communication.”

CMS in the proposed rule extended the opportunity given to plans for 2019 to implement appropriate utilization management tools for managing Part B drugs. The new rule included a proposal to modify Part D adjudication time periods for organization determinations and appeals involving Part B drugs to make sure that enrollees maintain access to all medically necessary Part B covered therapies.

According to Heidi Harmon at Gorman Health Group, “This Part B and Part D comingling will be easier for MA-PD [Medicare Advantage prescription drug] plans that already have a Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committee in place. MA-only plans will now need to develop and utilize a P&T Committee.”

The recent rule also proposed a new requirement that each plan adopt an RTBT by Jan. 1, 2020. This tool would allow prescribers to have a “complete view of the beneficiary’s prescription benefit information.” Plans are encouraged to “promote full drug cost transparency by showing each drug’s full negotiated price.”

“I think it’s going to be very interesting if they decide to try and forward with the tool,” says Strazzella. “Information doesn’t hurt decisions, but whether it gets utilized or not is unclear to me. And if medical decisions are going to be totally based on pricing, that’s a dangerous way to go.” And it would require “constant monitoring” and additional education to providers, which could be challenging, he adds.

Radar On Market Access: Drug-Pricing Transparency, Vertical PBM Deals Are Top of Mind for Employers in 2019

January 22, 2019

As they look to win over employer clients this year, PBMs should be prepared to face stiff competition and embrace emerging trends such as value-based formularies and rebate-free models, benefits consultants tell AIS Health.

As they look to win over employer clients this year, PBMs should be prepared to face stiff competition and embrace emerging trends such as value-based formularies and rebate-free models, benefits consultants tell AIS Health.

“I’ve heard more interest about RFPs and going out, looking for or market-checking vendors than I have in a while — particularly on the PBM side,” says Suzanne Taranto, a principal and consulting actuary for Milliman, Inc.

Companies are also considering how the vertical integration in the PBM space is “reshaping the landscape,” says Renya Spak, who leads Mercer’s Center for Health Innovation.

“The main players in the pharmacy and medical space are all going to start operating a little bit differently,” Spak says. “We thought we knew how they operated and their business model, but now that they’re vertically integrated, I think we need to apply a whole new lens to understanding how they will operate and what will drive their business forward in the future.”

That said, many of the same themes that employers are focused on will apply, including greater transparency around drug pricing and rebates, and even rebate-free models, she says. Presumably in response to that demand, CVS in early December unveiled a Guaranteed Net Cost PBM model, under which it will pass 100% of rebates to plan sponsors.

Along similar lines, Spak says she’s seeing renewed interest in formularies that are based on the value that certain drugs deliver versus how rebates flow.

Another trend that Taranto is seeing involves “more care management programs, more interest in the specialty space and looking at alternative ways to procure those drugs,” she says.

Specialty drug spending is always a high-attention area, Taranto explains, but now there more tools and different options available — not only from the “usual suspects,” PBMs — but also from other vendors that are offering to help manage these pricey medications.

For employers that are large enough, that may mean they consider a different contract, she says. But “if you’re smaller, you may be looking at a number of specialty pharmacy providers outside of the standard PBM, on a carve-out basis, who promise better pricing, better deals.”