Payer

MMIT Reality Check on Hepatocelluar Carcinoma (Oct 2019)

October 18, 2019

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

According to our recent payer coverage analysis for hepatocelluar carcinoma 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 hepatocelluar carcinoma treatments shows that under the pharmacy benefit, almost 55% of the lives under commercial formularies are covered with utilization management restrictions.

Trends: In May 2019, the FDA expanded the label of Cyramza (ramucirumab) to include the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma in people with an alpha fetoprotein (AFP) of >400 ng/mL who previously were treated with Nexavar (sorafenib).

Perspectives on New Solutions to Finance High-Cost Treatments

October 17, 2019

With concerns mounting about how health plan sponsors will pay for breakthrough treatments with ultra-high price tags, some major insurers are offering up new solutions aimed at easing that burden, AIS Health reported.

With concerns mounting about how health plan sponsors will pay for breakthrough treatments with ultra-high price tags, some major insurers are offering up new solutions aimed at easing that burden, AIS Health reported.

Cigna Corp. “appears at the forefront” of initiatives to cope with super-high-cost drugs, as Citi analyst Ralph Giacobbe puts it, given that the firm recently introduced a new solution that would help clients pay for and manage two gene therapies: Luxturna and Zolgensma.

Members whose plan sponsors pay a per-member per-month fee for Cigna’s new solution — called Embarc Benefit Protection — will pay nothing out of pocket for Zolgensma or Luxturna if they meet the clinical qualifications to be treated with one of those therapies.

Steve Wojcik, vice president of public policy for the National Business Group on Health, says that “employers are looking for solutions like that from their health plan partners and the PBMs.” However, while offerings like Cigna’s could help employers “smooth out the spikes in expenses,” businesses remain concerned about the overall costs of breakthrough therapies in the pipeline, he notes.

Besides Cigna, other major names in the insurance sector, such as CVS Health Corp.’s Aetna and Anthem, Inc., are working on their own solutions to help cope with high-cost therapies, including annuity-style payment arrangements and value-based contracts.

David Dross, managed pharmacy practice leader at the consulting firm Mercer, says some large, self-insured employers that are concerned about ultra-costly treatments are rethinking their decision to forgo stop-loss coverage.

However, issues can arise if clinical and financial management of a high-cost drug are done separately, he adds. In other words, a plan sponsor may determine that a member qualifies for a high-cost drug, but the stop-loss carrier that’s taking on the financial responsibility may not agree.

Radar On Market Access: Would Drug Pricing Legislation Impact Innovation?

October 17, 2019

Many innovative new therapies are coming onto the market, but they also are launching with increasingly higher price tags, even as lawmakers and regulators launch a flurry of activity aimed at bringing down drug prices. Some industry experts caution that a few of the bills, if passed, could endanger the research and development efforts around these novel drugs, while others question that hypothesis, AIS Health reported.

Many innovative new therapies are coming onto the market, but they also are launching with increasingly higher price tags, even as lawmakers and regulators launch a flurry of activity aimed at bringing down drug prices. Some industry experts caution that a few of the bills, if passed, could endanger the research and development efforts around these novel drugs, while others question that hypothesis, AIS Health reported.

One of the proposals is the International Pricing Index, an effort by HHS to bring payments for Medicare Part B closer to what 16 other “developed economies” pay for these drugs. The Senate’s Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act of 2019 proposes multiple changes to Medicare Part B and Part D, as well as Medicaid. And the House’s Lower Drug Costs Now Act proposes, among other things, requiring HHS to negotiate the prices of up to 250 drugs in Medicare without competitors. Companies not coming to an agreement would be subject to financial penalties.

Drugmakers have vociferously pushed back on many of the proposals, with one of the arguments against them being that the efforts would have a chilling effect on pharma R&D.

“Empirical evidence” exists to support the idea that “lower spending on pharmaceuticals will lead to lower R&D spending and lower yield of innovative drugs,” says Elan Rubinstein, Pharm.D., principal at EB Rubinstein Associates. But “there isn’t enough evidence either way” to say whether “there aren’t policies besides spending that can impact innovation.”

“Additional patent protections and favorable tax treatment of R&D expenditures for drugs designated to treat ‘orphan’ indications appear have resulted in a large push among manufacturers and investors to bring those products to market,” he notes.

According to Lisa Kennedy, Ph.D., chief economist and managing principal at Innopiphany LLC, “the biopharmaceutical industry is responsible for approximately 70% of all innovation within health care. Price fixing of pharmaceuticals has been shown in several studies to have a knock-on effect on innovation.”

She also asserts that oncology, one of the most productive and exciting areas of innovation in the biopharmaceutical industry, could be hit particularly hard.

Radar On Market Access: Study Shows Growing IL-17 Use in Psoriasis

October 15, 2019

For many years, the psoriasis treatment landscape was dominated by tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors. But with the FDA’s approval of three interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitors — as well as other drugs with different mechanisms of action — for the condition, those therapies are becoming more common among treatment regimens, AIS Health reported.

For many years, the psoriasis treatment landscape was dominated by tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors. But with the FDA’s approval of three interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitors — as well as other drugs with different mechanisms of action — for the condition, those therapies are becoming more common among treatment regimens, AIS Health reported.

The first IL-17 inhibitor on the U.S. market was Cosentyx (secukinumab) from Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., which launched in 2015. The next therapy was Taltz (ixekizumab) from Eli Lilly and Co., and then on Feb. 15, 2017, the agency approved Siliq (brodalumab) from Ortho Dermatologics.

An AllianceRx Walgreens Prime study sampled 5,215 members who started on an IL-17 from January 2016 through December 2017. The study showed that 2,218, or 42.5%, switched from a prior biologic, while 2,997, or 57.5%, started on an IL-17 as their first psoriasis biologic. Among those who started their biologic regimens on an IL-17 inhibitor, 2,266 started on Cosentyx, followed by 725 who initiated on Taltz and six who started on Siliq.

Researchers also examined 180-day adherence outcomes among members who switched to an IL-17 inhibitor from another biologic, as determined by proportion of days covered (PDC). The mean PDC increase after moving to an IL-17 was 6.4%.

Among those moving to an IL-17, 45.7% said their outcomes were better, 26.5% said they were the same, 5.3% said they were worse, and 22.6% said they were inconsistent.

According to Renee Baiano, Pharm.D., clinical program manager at AllianceRx Walgreens Prime and the lead author of the poster, the main takeaway for payers is that “by [the] last quarter of 2017, IL-17 inhibitors may have gained clinical acceptance in the treatment of psoriasis, given the increase in patients prescribed as their first biologic.” She adds that “it is important for payers to be aware they may see more of their members being prescribed IL-17 inhibitors and will need to determine the appropriate placement of these newer agents within their formulary.”

MMIT Reality Check on Psoriasis (Oct 2019)

October 11, 2019

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

According to our recent payer coverage analysis for psoriasis (PsO) 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 psoriasis treatments shows that under the pharmacy benefit, almost 74% of the lives under commercial formularies are covered with utilization management restrictions.

Trends: In July 2019, the FDA approved Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd.’s Hadlima (adalimumab-bwwd) for the treatment of plaque psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, adult Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis.

Radar On Market Access: PhRMA, Conservatives Criticize Pelosi Drug Pricing Legislation

October 10, 2019

Although there is bipartisan support for drug pricing reform and recent bills introduced in the House and the Senate share some concepts, conservatives and pharmaceutical manufacturers have found plenty to dislike about the drug pricing legislation unveiled in September by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), AIS Health reported.

Although there is bipartisan support for drug pricing reform and recent bills introduced in the House and the Senate share some concepts, conservatives and pharmaceutical manufacturers have found plenty to dislike about the drug pricing legislation unveiled in September by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), AIS Health reported.

In addition to restructuring the Part D benefit to include an out-of-pocket cap, the Lower Drug Costs Now Act (H.R. 3) would allow the HHS secretary to negotiate drug prices for at least 250 drugs where there is no effective competition. Manufacturers would be subject to certain transparency requirements and a “noncompliance fee.” Moreover, the bill would require that the negotiated price should be no more than 1.2 times the weighted average of the price in six other countries.

Speaking at AHIP’s 2019 National Conference on Medicare, held Sept. 23-24 in Washington, D.C., American Action Forum President Douglas Holtz-Eakin called H.R. 3 a “terrible bill” and said the structure of an upper limit and a noncompliance penalty is not negotiation but is “price fixing and extortion.” He also argued that its proposed inflation rebate would only incentivize manufacturers to create high launch prices.

Also speaking at the conference, PhRMA Senior Vice President for Policy and Research Jennifer Bryant said that while Pelosi’s bill is being presented as a “benign and fairly incremental approach,” the proposed structure is “not actually one of negotiation at all and is about tying prices in the U.S. to prices internationally.” Moreover, she challenged AHIP, which released a statement in support of the Pelosi bill, to make a case for an “alternative that reduces costs through competition.”

Meanwhile, Pelosi advisor Wendell Primus made a last-minute appearance at the conference to outline the bill and express the speaker’s confidence that it could come to a Senate vote by the end of October.