Variation in Private Payer Coverage of Rheumatoid Arthritis Drugs.
BACKGROUND
Payers in the United States issue coverage determinations to guide how their enrolled beneficiaries use prescription drugs. Because payers create their own coverage policies, how they cover drugs can vary, which in turn can affect access to care by beneficiaries.


OBJECTIVE
To examine how the largest private payers based on membership cover drugs indicated for rheumatoid arthritis and to determine what evidence the payers reported reviewing when formulating their coverage policies.


METHODS
Coverage policies issued by the 10 largest private payers that make their policies publicly available were identified for rheumatoid arthritis drugs. Each coverage determination was compared with the drug's corresponding FDA label and categorized according to the following: (a) consistent with the label, (b) more restrictive than the label, (c) less restrictive than the label, or (d) mixed (i.e., more restrictive than the label in one way but less restrictive in another). Each coverage determination was also compared with the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2012 treatment recommendations and categorized using the same relative restrictiveness criteria. The policies were then reviewed to identify the evidence that the payers reported reviewing. The identified evidence was divided into the following 6 categories: randomized controlled trials; other clinical studies (e.g., observational studies); health technology assessments; clinical reviews; cost-effectiveness analyses; and clinical guidelines.


RESULTS
Sixty-nine percent of coverage determinations were more restrictive than the corresponding FDA label; 15% were consistent; 3% were less restrictive; and 13% were mixed. Thirty-four percent of coverage determinations were consistent with the ACR recommendations, 33% were more restrictive; 17% were less restrictive; and 17% were mixed. Payers most often reported reviewing randomized controlled trials for their coverage policies (an average of 2.3 per policy). The payers reported reviewing an average of 1.4 clinical guidelines, 1.1 clinical reviews, 0.8 other clinical studies, and 0.5 technology assessments per policy. Only 1 payer reported reviewing cost-effectiveness analyses. The evidence base that the payers reported reviewing varied in terms of volume and composition.


CONCLUSIONS
Payers most often covered rheumatoid arthritis drugs more restrictively than the corresponding FDA label indication and the ACR treatment recommendations. Payers reported reviewing a varied evidence base in their coverage policies.


BACKGROUND
Funding for this study was provided by Genentech. Chambers has participated in a Sanofi advisory board, unrelated to this study. The authors report no other potential conflicts of interest. Study concept and design were contributed by Chambers. Anderson, Wilkinson, and Chenoweth collected the data, assisted by Chambers, and data interpretation was primarily performed by Chambers, along with Anderson and with assistance from Wilkinson and Chenoweth. The manuscript was written primarily by Chambers, along with Wilkinson and with assistance from Anderson and Chenoweth. Chambers, Chenoweth, Wilkinson, and Anderson revised the manuscript.
1 Tufts University School of Medicine and Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
James D
JD
Chambers
2 Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Colby L
CL
Wilkinson
2 Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Jordan E
JE
Anderson
2 Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Matthew D
MD
Chenoweth
D018501:Antirheumatic Agents / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D001172:Arthritis, Rheumatoid / Q000188:drug therapy*; D020811:Biomedical Technology; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D004348:Drug Labeling; D004363:Drug Utilization; D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine; D017408:Guidelines as Topic; D006801:Humans; D019458:Insurance Coverage / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D007356:Insurance, Pharmaceutical Services; D055553:Prescription Drugs; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D014481:United States; D014486:United States Food and Drug Administration
D018501:Antirheumatic Agents; D055553:Prescription Drugs
Health Policy. 2010 Feb;94(2):91-100
19815307
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2012 May;64(5):625-39
22473917
Health Aff (Millwood). 2013 Jun;32(6):1109-15
23733986
J Pers Med. 2012 Oct 30;2(4):201-16
25562360
Pharmacoeconomics. 2014 Aug;32(8):729-33
24859242
P T. 2013 Aug;38(8):465-83
24222979
Health Serv Res. 2003 Feb;38(1 Pt 1):169-90
12650387
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015 Jan;31(5):347-54
26750558
Am J Manag Care. 2016 Sep 01;22(9):e323-8
27662396
Health Aff (Millwood). 2015 Aug;34(8):1376-82
26240252
N Engl J Med. 2012 Nov 8;367(19):1775-7
23113832
Med Care. 2012 Mar;50(3):249-56
22193418
Health Aff (Millwood). 2015 Feb;34(2):253-60
25646105
Health Aff (Millwood). 2005 Jan-Feb;24(1):295-6; author reply 296
15647243
Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016 Jan;68(1):1-26
26545940