Shah Eric D, Saini Sameer D, Chey William D
Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire; Division of Gastroenterology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Division of Gastroenterology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Dec;17(13):2687-2695.e11. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.02.039. Epub 2019 Mar 1.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Increasing drug prices lead to payer coverage restrictions, which limit access to therapy. We assessed the cost effectiveness of rifaximin in management of patients with irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea (IBS-D) under common payer coverage restrictions and determined the maximum price at which rifaximin would be cost effective using contemporary cost-effectiveness thresholds.
A decision analytic model was constructed to evaluate quality of life, cost, and cost effectiveness of rifaximin for patients with IBS-D and complete noncoverage (insurer pays none of the drug cost), unrestricted access (insurer pays 100% of the drug cost), and formulary-restricted access (insurer pays 100% of the drug cost after for patients failed by initial therapy). The maximum cost-effective drug price was determined for each level of drug coverage using threshold analysis adjusted for willingness to pay thresholds from $50,000 to $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Analysis was performed from a payer perspective with a 1-year time horizon.
Unrestricted and formulary-restricted access were more effective than complete non-coverage, resulting in additional 0.03 and 0.05 QALYs gained over noncoverage. However, unrestricted and formulary-restricted coverage were more expensive. At current drug prices, unrestricted or formulary-restricted coverage would cost an additional $1,207,136 or $171,850/QALY gained, compared to complete non-coverage. A 12% to 62% price reduction ($18.46 to $26.34/pill) for formulary-restricted access and 84% to 88% price reduction ($3.53 to $4.71/pill) for unrestricted access would be needed for rifaximin to be a cost-effective treatment strategy. Rifaximin retreatment intervals, response rates, and adverse events were important factors in sensitivity analysis.
Using a decision analytic model, we show that payer coverage for rifaximin for patients with IBS-D exceeds generally accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds at current drug prices. Improved payer coverage could be justified using value-based pricing methods.
药品价格上涨导致支付方的保险覆盖限制,进而限制了治疗的可及性。我们评估了在常见支付方保险覆盖限制下,利福昔明治疗腹泻型肠易激综合征(IBS-D)患者的成本效益,并使用当代成本效益阈值确定了利福昔明具有成本效益的最高价格。
构建了一个决策分析模型,以评估利福昔明对IBS-D患者的生活质量、成本和成本效益,以及完全无保险覆盖(保险公司不支付任何药品费用)、无限制保险覆盖(保险公司支付100%的药品费用)和医保目录限制保险覆盖(初始治疗失败的患者,保险公司支付100%的药品费用)的情况。使用阈值分析确定了每个药品保险覆盖水平下具有成本效益的最高药品价格,该阈值分析针对每质量调整生命年(QALY)50,000美元至150,000美元的支付意愿阈值进行了调整。从支付方的角度进行了为期1年的分析。
无限制和医保目录限制保险覆盖比完全无保险覆盖更有效,与无保险覆盖相比,可多获得0.03和0.05个QALY。然而,无限制和医保目录限制保险覆盖的成本更高。以当前药品价格计算,与完全无保险覆盖相比,无限制或医保目录限制保险覆盖每获得一个QALY将额外花费1,207,136美元或171,850美元。利福昔明要成为具有成本效益的治疗策略,医保目录限制保险覆盖需要降价12%至62%(每片18.46美元至26.34美元),无限制保险覆盖需要降价84%至88%(每片3.53美元至4.71美元)。利福昔明的再治疗间隔、缓解率和不良事件是敏感性分析中的重要因素。
通过使用决策分析模型,我们表明,以当前药品价格,支付方为IBS-D患者提供利福昔明保险覆盖超过了普遍接受的成本效益阈值。使用基于价值的定价方法可能证明改善支付方保险覆盖是合理的。