Use of health technology assessments in specialty drug coverage decisions by US commercial health plans.

IF 2.9 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Daniel E Enright, Emma G van Duijnhoven, Daniel A Ollendorf, James D Chambers
{"title":"Use of health technology assessments in specialty drug coverage decisions by US commercial health plans.","authors":"Daniel E Enright, Emma G van Duijnhoven, Daniel A Ollendorf, James D Chambers","doi":"10.18553/jmcp.2025.31.3.289","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Health technology assessment (HTA) involves a formal review of the clinical, economic, and societal implications of health technologies. Internationally, HTA supports decisions regarding access to novel therapeutics. However, the role of HTA in the decision-making processes of US-based health care payers remains unclear.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess how frequently US commercial health plans reference HTAs in their specialty drug coverage policies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using the Tufts Medical Center Specialty Drug Evidence and Coverage database, we reviewed the evidence cited in the publicly available specialty drug coverage policies of 17 US commercial health plans. We assessed the frequency of HTA citations and characterized them by (1) country of origin, (2) publishing organization, (3) whether it addressed a treatment's cost-effectiveness, (4) disease category addressed, and (5) whether it assessed orphan or nonorphan treatments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>HTAs accounted for 450 of the 14,033 citations in our analysis (3.2%), with the frequency of HTA citations varying across health plans (0.1% to 7.4% of cited evidence). Ex-US HTAs were cited more frequently than US-based HTAs (65.3%). However, a single health plan accounted for the majority of HTA citations (57.1%) and ex-US citations (76.2%). Most cited HTAs included cost-effectiveness assessments (78.7%). The 3 disease categories for which plans most often cited HTAs were neurological disorders (24.8%), musculoskeletal disorders (21.5%), and cancers (14.6%). Health plans cited HTAs for nonorphan drugs more often than for orphan drugs (59.4%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>HTAs represented a small portion of the evidence cited by health plans in specialty drug coverage decisions, with significant variation in citation frequency across plans. Plans cited both US and ex-US HTAs, and most cited HTAs included a cost-effectiveness assessment. These findings suggest that health plans may consider the information provided by HTAs when formulating coverage policies.</p>","PeriodicalId":16170,"journal":{"name":"Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy","volume":"31 3","pages":"289-295"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11871157/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2025.31.3.289","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Health technology assessment (HTA) involves a formal review of the clinical, economic, and societal implications of health technologies. Internationally, HTA supports decisions regarding access to novel therapeutics. However, the role of HTA in the decision-making processes of US-based health care payers remains unclear.

Objective: To assess how frequently US commercial health plans reference HTAs in their specialty drug coverage policies.

Methods: Using the Tufts Medical Center Specialty Drug Evidence and Coverage database, we reviewed the evidence cited in the publicly available specialty drug coverage policies of 17 US commercial health plans. We assessed the frequency of HTA citations and characterized them by (1) country of origin, (2) publishing organization, (3) whether it addressed a treatment's cost-effectiveness, (4) disease category addressed, and (5) whether it assessed orphan or nonorphan treatments.

Results: HTAs accounted for 450 of the 14,033 citations in our analysis (3.2%), with the frequency of HTA citations varying across health plans (0.1% to 7.4% of cited evidence). Ex-US HTAs were cited more frequently than US-based HTAs (65.3%). However, a single health plan accounted for the majority of HTA citations (57.1%) and ex-US citations (76.2%). Most cited HTAs included cost-effectiveness assessments (78.7%). The 3 disease categories for which plans most often cited HTAs were neurological disorders (24.8%), musculoskeletal disorders (21.5%), and cancers (14.6%). Health plans cited HTAs for nonorphan drugs more often than for orphan drugs (59.4%).

Conclusions: HTAs represented a small portion of the evidence cited by health plans in specialty drug coverage decisions, with significant variation in citation frequency across plans. Plans cited both US and ex-US HTAs, and most cited HTAs included a cost-effectiveness assessment. These findings suggest that health plans may consider the information provided by HTAs when formulating coverage policies.

美国商业健康计划在特殊药物覆盖决策中使用卫生技术评估。
背景:卫生技术评估(HTA)涉及对卫生技术的临床、经济和社会影响的正式审查。在国际上,HTA支持有关获得新疗法的决策。然而,HTA在美国医疗保健支付者决策过程中的作用仍不清楚。目的:评估美国商业健康计划在其特殊药物覆盖政策中引用hta的频率。方法:利用塔夫茨医学中心专业药物证据和覆盖数据库,我们回顾了美国17个商业健康计划中公开的专业药物覆盖政策中引用的证据。我们评估了HTA引用的频率,并通过(1)原产国,(2)出版组织,(3)是否涉及治疗的成本效益,(4)涉及的疾病类别,以及(5)是否评估了孤儿或非孤儿治疗。结果:在我们的分析中,14033次引用中,HTA占450次(3.2%),不同健康计划中HTA被引用的频率不同(占引用证据的0.1%至7.4%)。美国以外的贸易协定被引用的频率高于美国的贸易协定(65.3%)。然而,单一健康计划占HTA引用的大部分(57.1%)和美国以外的引用(76.2%)。大多数引用的hta包括成本效益评估(78.7%)。计划最常引用hta的3种疾病类别是神经系统疾病(24.8%)、肌肉骨骼疾病(21.5%)和癌症(14.6%)。健康计划中,非孤儿药的hta比孤儿药更多(59.4%)。结论:hta代表了医疗计划在特殊药物覆盖决策中引用的一小部分证据,不同计划的引用频率差异很大。计划引用了美国和非美国的hta,大多数引用的hta包括成本效益评估。这些发现表明,健康计划在制定覆盖政策时可能会考虑hta提供的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy
Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy Health Professions-Pharmacy
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.80%
发文量
131
期刊介绍: JMCP welcomes research studies conducted outside of the United States that are relevant to our readership. Our audience is primarily concerned with designing policies of formulary coverage, health benefit design, and pharmaceutical programs that are based on evidence from large populations of people. Studies of pharmacist interventions conducted outside the United States that have already been extensively studied within the United States and studies of small sample sizes in non-managed care environments outside of the United States (e.g., hospitals or community pharmacies) are generally of low interest to our readership. However, studies of health outcomes and costs assessed in large populations that provide evidence for formulary coverage, health benefit design, and pharmaceutical programs are of high interest to JMCP’s readership.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信