Navigating Payment for High-Priced Drugs

May 7, 2012
By

By Michelle Andrews (Kaiser Health News):

When Kathi Ryness’s multiple sclerosis worsened in 2000, she began taking Avonex, a drug that helps slow the progression of the disease and reduces the number of relapses. At the time, her health plan covered the drug in full.

But in 2009, she and her husband, Gary, were forced to switch plans. Under their new coverage, the Alamo, Calif., couple owed $660 every four weeks for the weekly Avonex injections, 30 percent of the $2,200 cost. Within a year, the cost went up again, leaving Kathi, who is now 62, and Gary, 66, on the hook for $800 every four weeks.

The coinsurance was killing them. “It was a choice between that and eating,” says Gary Ryness.

Working with an insurance consultant, they switched from a preferred provider organization to a health maintenance organization that didn’t have coinsurance charges for self-injectable drugs such as Avonex. Now, they pay nothing for the drug.

“Everybody has different ways of classifying these drugs,” Gary says.

In coming years, experts say, more people will have to navigate the confusing and expensive terrain of such “specialty” medications.

While most drugs are made from chemicals and can have generic as well as brand-name versions, a typical specialty drug is biologic — that is, derived from living organisms — and has no substitute. In addition to treating MS, these drugs are used for such complex, serious conditions as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis and Crohn’s disease. Growth in spending on specialty drugs is far outpacing spending on traditional drugs, and many new ones are in the pipeline.

“In the next five to 10 years, the consensus of all the experts we spoke to was that a much larger proportion of consumers will be eligible for some kind of specialty drug,” says Ha Tu, a senior researcher at the Center for Studying Health System Change. She was the lead author on a recent report about managing spending on specialty drugs.

Health plans’ spending for each patient using these drugs often exceeds $1,200 per month, according to the center’s report. Although they account for just 1 percent of prescriptions, specialty drugs make up 17 percent of drug spending, according to IMS Health, a health-care information and services company.

Employers that provide their workers with health insurance are struggling with how to manage these costs.

Many plans have placed specialty drugs in a tier where, instead of a flat co-payment — $20, $50 or some other amount — patients must pay a percentage of the medications’ cost. For people who need specialty drugs, that can amount to tens of thousands of dollars annually.

Some plans cap the amount a patient must pay out-of-pocket for specialty drugs at $1,000 or $2,000 annually, says Allan Zimmerman, national pharmacy practice leader in the human resources group at PwC, a business-services company formerly known as PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Employers also seek to reduce costs through intensive case management, providing their workers with education and coaching about specialty-drug dosages, side effects and adverse reactions, says Julie Stone, a senior consultant with benefits consultant Towers Watson.

One potentially useful strategy is called value-based insurance design (V-BID). This approach ties employees’ out-of-pocket costs to the value of a medical service: Treatments that are deemed to provide important clinical benefits cost employees less than ones that are less effective; some may even be free.

According to a survey by human resources consultant Mercer, 17 percent of all employers with at least 500 workers used value-based design provisions in 2011, often with medications to treat chronic conditions such as diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol.

Now businesses are considering whether the same strategy might work with specialty drugs, says A. Mark Fendrick, director of the University of Michigan’s Center for Value-Based Insurance Design.

“V-BID would make high-value interventions more accessible, and in some instances would make it more difficult for people to get unproven specialty drugs,” he says.

The approach doesn’t determine what’s covered and what’s not, he says. “It tries to nudge people to get services that produce value.”

Still, specialty drugs present challenges, say experts.

Take multiple sclerosis. “Because the drugs affect people differently, the question of value would be open to interpretation,” says Bari Talente, vice president of state and local government relations for the National Multiple Sclerosis Society.

No employer has yet decided to apply V-BID to specialty drugs, says Fendrick. But as they grapple with managing drug costs for some of their sickest employees, some may implement it soon, he says, possibly even for next fall’s open enrollment season.

Like Kathi Ryness, many patients who rely on specialty drugs are coping with very serious, long-term medical conditions. “Consumerism” – encouraging patients to shop wisely for health care – doesn’t really apply when such patients need drugs for which there are few or no alternatives, says Stone.

“With people as sick as the patients we’re talking about, I don’t think they’re going to say, ‘Is there a less expensive injectable drug I can take?’ ” she says. “It’s a whole different dynamic.”

Did you like this? If so, please bookmark it,
tell a friend
about it, and subscribe to the blog RSS feed.

3 Responses to Navigating Payment for High-Priced Drugs

  1. maggiemahar on May 7, 2012 at 7:11 pm

    Merrill–

    Great post.

    Let me just add that this is where the government needs to play a greater role in
    publicizing information on effectiveness–and which patients are most likely to benefit form a “specialty drug.”

    Talente says “The question of who would benefit is open to question.”

    But when insurers and providers such as Kaiser, the Mayo Clinic and the VA keep electronic records, they can mine their own records (as these three do) to figure out which patients are most likely to benefit.

    It may be an “open question” when the new drug hits the market,but it doesn’t have to remain an open question. (Information on who benefits who can also be updated over time.)

    Patient advocates like the NMSS should recognize this, and advocate for coverage for patients who meet a certain medical profile, but not for all patients.

    Finally, the government needs to step in and put a lid on prices for “specialty drugs.” Right now, the sky is the limit. Drug-makers realize that patietns who need these drugs are desperate.
    So, in this country, drugmakers are the “price-makers” who set prices and very sick patients are the “price takers.”

    In every other developed country in the world, government represenatives sit on the other side of the negotiating table, standing up for patients as they negotiate with drug-makers.

    I’m hopeful that, in 2 or 3 years, CMS will do that too.

  2. RA Patient on May 9, 2012 at 10:36 am

    Perhaps someone can explain something to me – drug makers of expensive biologics to treat conditions like rheumatoid arthritis have patient financial assistance plans that help those w/private insurance with co-pay and co-insurance amounts. If the drug companies can afford to do that, can’t they then afford to lower the price?

    The biologics, Enbrel and Humira, are two of the top prescribed drugs for RA. Enbrel was FDA approved in 1998 and Humira FDA approved in 2002. According to the IMS, each year since 2007, Enbrel has had over $3 billion in sales in the US. Sales of Humira in the US since 2008 have been over two billion each year – in 2011, sales of Humira hit $3.5 billion. Haven’t they recouped R&D costs and then some by now?

    In the new health law, there is a provision that requires the FDA to create an approval process for ‘biosimilars’ – a similar version of biologics, that would compete w/brand name biologics. Guidelines have yet to be finalized, yet the maker of Humira (projected to be the world’s top selling drug this year) has petitioned the FDA to not approve any biosimilar for Humira. The maker/marketer of Enbrel, whose patent should expire in 2013, may extend its patent for 17 more years, due to the final resolution of a patent appeal. Without competition from biosimilars, when will the prices of these biologics come down?

    For people w/RA, a chronic, systemic, autoimmune disease that can not only be crippling but also shorten one’s life, there are no alternatives to biologics. Often it is a trial and error approach as to finding the most effective biologic to manage RA, and often, after a period of time, the biologic loses effectiveness requiring the patient to switch and try another biologic. So, while V-BID may benefit the bottomline for insurers, I’m concerned about its impact on patients like those w/difficult to manage RA.

  3. TK on May 9, 2012 at 5:42 pm

    Question, are biosimilars available in European nations or other developed countries? If so I can see ordering up some generic anti-TNF drugs or even doing some medical tourism just to stock up for a year or so.

Yes! Send Me Weekly Headlines
Email:  

Yes! I Support Independent Health Care Journalism