Forum for Science, Industry and Business

Sponsored by:     3M 
Search our Site:

 

Which drugs should health plans cover?

31.10.2005


Five principles guide decisions that improve patient safety and lower costs, say Group Health experts



With the cost of prescription drugs rising faster than any other part of health care, more insurers and health systems have begun adopting restrictive policies for coverage of newer drugs. How can consumers and health care organizations be sure that such policies don’t lean too far in either direction--either restricting necessary treatment or wasting consumers’ premiums on expensive medicines that offer no real advantage?

These issues are addressed by experts from Group Health in an article in the October 2005 issue of the Journal of General Internal Medicine. The piece presents five principles that organizations can use to protect patients when they compare the benefits, risks, and costs of drugs to include in their "formularies," the lists of drugs approved for coverage.


"Manufacturers of new drugs make a range of claims about clinical benefits, differences in cost, and cost effectiveness," said Greg Simon, MD, MPH, a Group Health psychiatrist and researcher who is the lead author of the article. "Decision makers need some principles for sorting through those claims." While other groups have established broad principles for addressing the problem, the Group Health authors offer "more specific rules for identifying the right questions and the most important evidence," Simon explained.

In addition to Simon, co-authors on this paper include Bruce Psaty, MD, PhD, a Center for Health Studies senior investigator and University of Washington professor of medicine and epidemiology who is also a member of Institute of Medicine Committee on the Assessment of the U.S. Drug Safety System; Group Health physician Marc Mora, MD, former chair of the committee that establishes formulary policies for Group Health; and Group Health pharmacist Jennifer Berg Hrachovec, PharmD, MPH.

The five principles, described in more detail below, are:

1. Give more weight to true experiments than to models or simulations, and carefully examine assumptions of such models.

2. Give more weight to real health outcomes than changes in risk factors.

3. Look at the full range of alternatives rather than those selected by industry when considering claims for advantages of new treatments.

4. Understand that variation in effects across individuals or subgroups argues against restrictions on first-line treatment, but only if those differences are predictable.

5. Understand that variation in effects argues against requiring changes in ongoing treatment.

"The money we have available for health care is not unlimited," said Simon. "Health insurers and government agencies that pay for health care have a responsibility to make sure the money we have is used for the greatest benefit. Our society tends to assume that a newer, more expensive treatment must be more effective. That assumption can be bad for our pocketbooks and our health."

Principles for evidence-based drug formulary policy

1. Give more weight to true experiments than to models or simulations, and carefully examine assumptions of such models.

The highest standard for finding true differences between newer and older treatments is the "randomized controlled trial," where study participants are assigned to different treatments by chance. Those "gold standard" comparisons are costly and may take years to complete. Policy makers sometimes rely on simulated comparisons, but those comparisons are often based on expert opinion and subject to bias. "When models or simulations are the best data available, appropriate skepticism is necessary," the authors write.

As an example, they point to Cox-2 inhibitor drugs such as Vioxx and Celebrex, which are more expensive, but no more effective on average, than older anti-inflammatory drugs. Simulated comparisons supported by the pharmaceutical industry showed that Cox-2 inhibitors could save money in the long run by reducing the risk of ulcers and intestinal bleeding. But that claim was not consistently demonstrated in randomized comparisons. The most recent evidence now finds that Cox-2 inhibitors probably do not reduce intestinal side effects and probably do increase risk of heart problems.

"Fortunately, many health care organizations had weighed the true scientific evidence of the potential risks and benefits of these drugs and decided years ago not to include them in their formularies," said Mora. "The principles we present can help organizations make these kinds of sound decisions in the interest of patient safety."

2. Give more weight to real health outcomes than changes in risk factors.

Comparisons should give more credit to medications that are actually proven to result in less illness and fewer deaths, rather than simply changing risk factors. For example, many long-term medications, such as cholesterol or blood pressure drugs, are prescribed to reduce future risk of disease. While newer blood pressure drugs have been shown to reduce blood pressure, older and more affordable drugs are probably more effective for actually preventing heart disease, explained Simon.

3. Look at the full range of alternatives rather than those selected by industry when considering claims for advantages of new treatments.

Studies needed for new drug approval often compare a placebo with a current standard treatment. But sometimes there are many standard treatments available, and the manufacturer of a new drug may not always choose the most informative comparison. Psaty and his colleagues have developed a method called "network meta-analysis" that can be used to make valid comparisons across several treatments that are studied separately. This can be "especially important when the comparisons most interesting to clinicians and policy-makers differ from those that are most interesting or advantageous to research sponsors," the authors write.

4. Understand that variation in effects across individuals or subgroups argues against restrictions on first-line treatment, but only if those differences are predictable.

Drugs approved for the same problem often show equal efficacy on average, but their effects can vary widely between individuals, the authors explain. "This …can be misinterpreted to support either unnecessarily broad or inappropriately restrictive formulary policies." If it’s not possible to predict at the beginning of treatment which drug will have the best effect, then starting with the most affordable alternative makes sense, the authors contend. But a more expensive medication is often justified for patients who respond poorly to first-line treatment.

The authors use the class of drugs for depression known as serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs) as an example. Direct randomized comparisons of SRIs show no difference in average effectiveness. But studies also show that half the patients who fail to respond to one SRI may do well on another. It’s not possible to predict who will do well on which drug at the beginning of treatment. Therefore, it makes sense for an insurance company to only cover the most affordable drug for anyone starting treatment for the first time, the authors write. Patients who do poorly with the first medication should be allowed to use one of the more expensive alternatives.

5. Understand that variation in effects argues against requiring changes in ongoing treatment.

With this principle, the authors argue that formulary changes should not necessarily result in requirements that patients switch to new drugs. "In addition to concern about variability in effect, decisions …must consider added visits and other costs of medication changes, as well as the likelihood that many physicians and patients may be hesitant to disrupt stable treatment," the authors write.

About Group Health and the Center for Health Studies

Group Health is a consumer-governed, nonprofit health care system that coordinates care and coverage. Based in Seattle, Group Health and Group Health Options, Inc. serve nearly 550,000 members in Washington and Idaho. Group Health’s Center for Health Studies conducts research related to prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of major health problems. The Center for Health Studies is funded primarily through government and private research grants.

Joan DeClaire | EurekAlert!
Further information:
http://www.ghc.org

More articles from Health and Medicine:

nachricht A promising target for kidney fibrosis
21.04.2017 | Brigham and Women's Hospital

nachricht Stem cell transplants: activating signal paths may protect from graft-versus-host disease
20.04.2017 | Technische Universität München

All articles from Health and Medicine >>>

The most recent press releases about innovation >>>

Die letzten 5 Focus-News des innovations-reports im Überblick:

Im Focus: Deep inside Galaxy M87

The nearby, giant radio galaxy M87 hosts a supermassive black hole (BH) and is well-known for its bright jet dominating the spectrum over ten orders of magnitude in frequency. Due to its proximity, jet prominence, and the large black hole mass, M87 is the best laboratory for investigating the formation, acceleration, and collimation of relativistic jets. A research team led by Silke Britzen from the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy in Bonn, Germany, has found strong indication for turbulent processes connecting the accretion disk and the jet of that galaxy providing insights into the longstanding problem of the origin of astrophysical jets.

Supermassive black holes form some of the most enigmatic phenomena in astrophysics. Their enormous energy output is supposed to be generated by the...

Im Focus: A Quantum Low Pass for Photons

Physicists in Garching observe novel quantum effect that limits the number of emitted photons.

The probability to find a certain number of photons inside a laser pulse usually corresponds to a classical distribution of independent events, the so-called...

Im Focus: Microprocessors based on a layer of just three atoms

Microprocessors based on atomically thin materials hold the promise of the evolution of traditional processors as well as new applications in the field of flexible electronics. Now, a TU Wien research team led by Thomas Müller has made a breakthrough in this field as part of an ongoing research project.

Two-dimensional materials, or 2D materials for short, are extremely versatile, although – or often more precisely because – they are made up of just one or a...

Im Focus: Quantum-physical Model System

Computer-assisted methods aid Heidelberg physicists in reproducing experiment with ultracold atoms

Two researchers at Heidelberg University have developed a model system that enables a better understanding of the processes in a quantum-physical experiment...

Im Focus: Glacier bacteria’s contribution to carbon cycling

Glaciers might seem rather inhospitable environments. However, they are home to a diverse and vibrant microbial community. It’s becoming increasingly clear that they play a bigger role in the carbon cycle than previously thought.

A new study, now published in the journal Nature Geoscience, shows how microbial communities in melting glaciers contribute to the Earth’s carbon cycle, a...

All Focus news of the innovation-report >>>

Anzeige

Anzeige

Event News

Expert meeting “Health Business Connect” will connect international medical technology companies

20.04.2017 | Event News

Wenn der Computer das Gehirn austrickst

18.04.2017 | Event News

7th International Conference on Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaics in Freiburg on April 3-5, 2017

03.04.2017 | Event News

 
Latest News

New quantum liquid crystals may play role in future of computers

21.04.2017 | Physics and Astronomy

A promising target for kidney fibrosis

21.04.2017 | Health and Medicine

Light rays from a supernova bent by the curvature of space-time around a galaxy

21.04.2017 | Physics and Astronomy

VideoLinks
B2B-VideoLinks
More VideoLinks >>>