Issuu on Google+


EM EMD MD SSerono, erono, Inc. is a proud prou o d supporter supporter of of the the Magical Magical Moon Moon Foundation, Foundation, a non-profit non-profit located located in in Marshfield, Marshfield, M A. w ith the the mission mission of nurturing nurturing MA. with and d empowering empowering children children with with cancer. cancer. W When hen a cchild hild ccomes omes to tthe he Ma agical Moon Moon Foundation, Foundation, tthey hey aare re knighted knighted into into a magical magical med ieval Magical medieval kin ngdom and and unite unite with with fellow f llow knights fe knights to to build build a healthy healthy earth earth kingdom kingdom kin ngdom where where children children don’t don’t get get cancer. cancer. To To learn learn more more or or to to make make a donation, d nation, please do please visit visit h http://www.themagicalmoonfoundation.org/ ttp://www.themagicalmoo m nfoundation.org/ or call call 1-800-840-0205. 1-800-840-0205. The The Magical Magical Moon Moon Foundation Foundation is is a 501(c)(3) 501(c)(3) non-profit n on-profit oorganization. rganization. Covver aart Cover rt work work created created b byy SSir ir Lex Lexie, ie, Lege Legend nd of of Lov LLove, e, a 13-ye 13-year-old ar-old brain b rain ttumor umor survivor survivor from from the the Magical Magical M Moon oon FFoundation. oundation. H Her er m mission ission is twofold: t twofo ld: to to create create a kid’s kid’s ccancer ancer ccookbook, ookbook, because because sshe he kknows nows how how important im portant good good food food is is too keeping keeping her her body body healthy healthy and and to find find a little litt tle white white pill pill that that cures curess brain brain ttumors. umors.


Table of Contents Letter from President and CEO, (ad interim), EMD Serono . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Letter from Senior Vice President, Managed Markets, EMD Serono . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Editorial Advisory Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 •

Methodology and Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Classification of Specialty Drugs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Current Specialty Pharmacy Management Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

Benefit Coverage of Specialty Drugs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Managing Across Pharmacy and Medical Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

Specialty Pharmacy Costs and Financial Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Member Cost Share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Provider Reimbursement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Utilization Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Oncology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

Specialty Pharmacy Providers (SPPs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

Spotlight on Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Specialty Pharmacy Program Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

Most Effective Strategies to Manage Specialty Drugs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

Future Changes in Specialty Pharmacy Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46

1


Glossary of Commonly Used Abbreviations Abbreviation AWP

Average Wholesale Price

ASP

Average Sales Price

ESA

Erythropoietin Stimulating Agent

G-CSF HAE

Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor Hereditary Angioedema

IM

Intramuscular

IV

Intravenous

LOB

Line of Business

GH

Growth Hormone

LS

Lysosomal Storage

MA-PD MS

Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug plan Multiple Sclerosis

OAA

Office-Administered Agent

P&T

Pharmacy and Therapeutics

PA PAH RA

2

Description

Prior Authorization Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Rheumatoid Arthritis

RSV

Respiratory Syncytial Virus

SAA

Self-Administered Agent

SC

Subcutaneous

SPP

Specialty Pharmacy Provider


Dear Healthcare Colleagues: At EMD Serono, we are committed to understanding and meeting the needs of individual patients. We strive to create value by transforming medical science into breakthrough solutions in our core therapeutic areas of neurodegenerative diseases, fertility and metabolic endocrinology. We are committed to delivering our products to patients to make a difference in their lives, and to continually investing in research and development to build a pipeline that will address the urgent need for innovation in medicine. We also recognize that improving patient care is about more than providing a drug. It’s about ensuring that people have access to a full spectrum of resources, including unique delivery devices, emotional support, education, and reimbursement information—all important tools that are integral to managing disease effectively while experiencing rewarding and productive lives. As part of our dedication to improving care, we take pride in our partnerships with health care payers. Our relationships extend broadly and deeply to public and private payers, specialty pharmacies and pharmacy benefit management companies who are all faced with the task of staying current with trends while developing health care benefits and support programs for patients with challenging diseases. EMD Serono is proud to bring you the 7th edition of the EMD Serono Specialty Digest™ – the only dedicated resource available for health care decision makers to identify current and future trends in specialty pharmacy management. We value the contribution of 93 health plan medical and pharmacy directors, representing over 115 million covered lives, whose input makes this digest the most comprehensive tool available in the marketplace to benchmark specialty pharmacy management strategies. We hope that this publication will serve as a valuable resource for health care decision makers to better understand and stay abreast of the evolving specialty pharmaceutical marketplace.

Sincerely,

James E. Hoyes President and CEO (ad interim) EMD Serono, Inc.

3


Dear Managed Care Colleagues: We are proud to present the 7th edition of the EMD Serono Specialty Digest™ – a testimony of our commitment to you, our managed care partners. The managed markets group at EMD Serono recognizes that payers are faced with many challenges: our goal with this digest series is to bring you the most current trends related to how your colleagues are balancing access to specialty medications with the need to maintain affordable health coverage. Each year our Editorial Advisory Board provides their recommendations on subject matter to include in the survey. As a result, we have included the following new topics of interest to managed care payers: •

Management of oncology molecular diagnostics

Measurement and value of health outcomes

Managing across pharmacy and medical benefits

Where possible, we have also included benchmarks to prior years’ data so that trends can easily be tracked and identified. Our dedicated website (specialtydigest.emdserono.com) provides access to view and download this year’s digest as well as previous editions. Advances in personalized medicine, new product introductions, and technological innovations are changing the way health care is delivered. As a result, payers are continually updating their management processes to reflect the dynamic nature of the biotechnology industry. We are confident that managed care decision makers will find the information contained in this latest edition both informative and useful to continue the quality management of patients that require treatment with specialty pharmaceuticals. We welcome your input on how EMD Serono can continue to improve upon this report and provide value to your organization. Please contact me or your EMD Serono Account Manager with any questions, comments, or suggestions.

Regards,

Michael Dezelan Senior Vice President, Managed Markets EMD Serono, Inc.

4


To the Readers: As members of the Editorial Advisory Board for the EMD Serono Specialty Digest™, 7th edition, our responsibilities are to: •

Recommend possible revisions or improvements in the digest content to retain relevance to managed care decision makers

Provide editorial feedback on the digest manuscript to ensure clarity, validity, and utility of the data

Identify the most significant trends and findings that impact specialty pharmacy management

We are pleased to participate on this Editorial Advisory Board and, based on our review, we offer several comments and observations on the following topics: Specialty Pharmacy Provider (SPP) Offerings: Most SPPs provide therapy management programs to payers to enhance the value of the services they provide, yet, surprisingly, less than 30% of the survey respondents utilize these programs. Additionally, payers indicate they are least satisfied with the ability of their SPPs to provide measurements of outcomes and savings. These findings appear to be at odds with what SPPs consider to be their strengths. Payers need to communicate more to SPPs about their unmet needs, and SPPs need to improve their ability to quantify the value of their programs and services. Oncology and Molecular Diagnostics: Payers are continuing to increase their focus on managing both oral and infused oncology therapies by implementing prior authorization procedures; however, the management of molecular diagnostic testing is still in its infancy. Most payers are not yet tracking whether treatment decisions are in conformance with molecular test results and whether the coverage of these tests actually makes a difference in patient management and outcomes. Measuring Outcomes: Health plan decision makers inherently know that identifying clinical outcomes related to specialty drugs and making formulary decisions based on these outcomes is the optimal process; however, they may not have all the data and tools available to them to track and measure the desired outcomes. It may be necessary for the pharmaceutical industry to not only provide clinical data supporting efficacy and safety on new therapeutics, but to also provide real world comparative effectiveness data to support formulary decisions by payers. As highlighted throughout this digest, advances in pharmaceutical innovation and medical technology are driving current and future payer strategies. We encourage all stakeholders in the specialty pharmacy industry to continue to work together toward a common goal – to improve patient outcomes in the most cost-effective manner. Sincerely, Raulo Frear, PharmD Director of Pharmacy Services RegenceRx Boise, ID

Larry Georgopoulos, BS, PharmD Associate Dean of Clinical Affairs and Professor of Pharmacy Practice University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM

Bruce Kutinsky, PharmD Consultant Ann Arbor, MI

David Frobel, PharmD Vice President, Specialty Pharmacy Programs CVS Caremark Northbrook, IL

Patrick Gill, PharmD Manager, Specialty Pharmacy Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey Newark, NJ

Kenneth Schaecher, MD, FACP, CPC Medical Director SelectHealth Salt Lake City, UT

Survey questions were independently developed by Rxperts, Inc., which had sole control over the survey terms and content. The content of the EMD Serono Specialty Digest™ was developed by Rxperts, Inc., and was reviewed and approved by the Editorial Advisory Board prior to publication.

5


Introduction Increased knowledge of the genetic basis of disease is changing the landscape of health care, with two critical areas of growth focusing on personalized medicine and the biotechnology pipeline. Personalized medicine and molecular diagnostics are improving the way diseases are diagnosed, treated, and monitored. Biotechnology is advancing the development of specialty pharmaceuticals, particularly those targeting rare and difficult to treat diseases. While personalized health care and novel biopharmaceuticals are both creating an impact on the current market, they have yet to be fully integrated; however, rapid gains in our knowledge will almost certainly lead to reliance on these new technologies within the healthcare delivery system to maximize patient outcomes.

Molecular diagnostics are used in a variety of ways to personalize medicine and can provide the following benefits: •

Better diagnoses and earlier interventions: Molecular biomarkers, including genes and their protein products, provide the ability to detect an individual’s susceptibility to certain diseases, allowing for prevention and early intervention strategies.2 A test identifying genetic mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2, which increase the risk for breast and ovarian cancers, can be used to help guide preventive measures, such as increased frequency of mammography, prophylactic surgery, and chemotherapy in women whose family history includes breast and/or ovarian cancer.2 Another unique diagnostic test helps predict the likelihood of cancer recurrence by measuring the activity of several genes in breast tumors, and assesses the value of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with recently diagnosed breast cancer.1,2

More effective therapies: By identifying patients who will benefit from specific interventions, molecular diagnostics can help guide treatment and allow for the selection of optimal therapy. One of the most common applications is the detection of overexpression of the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)/neu gene in women with breast cancer to identify patients who will most likely respond to a specific therapy.2,6 Similarly, identification of patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) types of leukemia, often indicated by a mutation in the BCR-ABL gene, can help to choose the most effective, targeted chemotherapy.2 Additionally, treatments for metastatic colon cancer can be selected using genetic testing to identify patients with mutated forms of the KRAS gene, or patients with EGFR overexpression.2

Reduce adverse events: Variations in metabolizing enzymes can lead to increased adverse events and overdose in slow-metabolizers, or no effect in fastmetabolizers. Biomarkers can be used to tailor medication doses to account for these individual variations to minimize adverse events.2

More efficient drug development: Molecular diagnostics could help to preselect patients for clinical trials by identifying those with susceptibility to certain diseases, or who are likely to respond to treatment, ultimately reducing the size, duration, and cost of clinical trials.2 Additionally, refining inclusion and exclusion criteria using molecular diagnostic testing could help clinically needed therapies - especially those that may seem ineffective in larger populations - receive approval.2,6

Personalized Medicine Personalized medicine involves the tailoring of medical treatment to specific characteristics of each patient, and the use of genetic information to classify individuals into subpopulations that are either susceptible to a particular disease or are responsive to a specific treatment.1 This information can also play an important role in shifting emphasis to preventive therapy, reducing adverse events, and improving overall health outcomes.2 While most commonly applied in oncology, personalized medicine has more recently expanded beyond cancer to improve treatments in HIV, psychiatry, rheumatology, neurology, and cardiovascular disease.3 Personalized medicine has the potential to transform healthcare over the next several decades by offering the possibility for improved healthcare quality and reduced total healthcare expenditures.

Molecular Diagnostics Molecular diagnostics and molecular biomarkers are valuable tools to assist in the diagnosis and management of diseases. Table 1 provides examples of selected molecular biomarkers and their applications in personalized medicine. Particularly in oncology, molecular diagnostics are used to create new screening and diagnostic tools based on tumor-specific genes and cell surface proteins, and are improving clinicians’ ability to diagnose cancers, determine the likelihood of cancer recurrence, and predict a patient’s response to a particular treatment.4 Biomarkers have also shown promise in multiple sclerosis through the potential for improved diagnostics and identification of disease stages, prediction of disease onset and course, treatment selection and success, and development of novel therapeutics.5

6


Table 1. Selected Molecular Biomarker Applications in Personalized Medicine1,2

Disease

Biomarker/Test

Application

BRCA1, BRCA2 Uses PCR to measure expression of genes Uses PCR to measure expression of genes

Guide preventive measures based on risk for breast and/or ovarian cancer Helps to predict the likelihood of recurrence and assess the value of adjuvant chemotherapy Identify patients at low risk for acute cellular rejection and monitor immune response to guide immunosuppressive therapy

HER2/neu Ph+

Determine eligibility for specific chemotherapy Determine eligibility for specific chemotherapy

KRAS EGFR expression CCR5 receptor

Determine patients unlikely to respond to specific chemotherapy Determine patients more likely to respond to specific chemotherapy Determine eligibility for specific antiretroviral therapy

Multiple Diseases

CYP2D6, CYP2C19

Colon Cancer

UGT1A1

Leukemia

TPMT

HIV

HLA-B*5701

Adjust treatment and dosing choices based on variations in metabolizing enzymes Select dose of specific chemotherapy to maximize therapeutic effect and minimize adverse events Select dose of specific chemotherapy to maximize therapeutic effect and minimize adverse events Identify patients likely to experience a severe hypersensitivity reaction to a specific antiretroviral agent

Better Diagnoses and Earlier Interventions Breast and Ovarian Cancers Breast and Colon Cancers Heart Transplantation

More Effective Therapies Breast Cancer Chronic Myeloid Leukemia, Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Colon Cancer Lung and Colon Cancer HIV

Reduce Adverse Events

Abbreviations: BRCA – breast cancer susceptibility gene; CCR5 – chemokine (C-C motif) receptor type 5; CYP – cytochrome P450; EGFR – epidermal growth factor receptor; HER2 – human epidermal growth receptor 2; HIV – human immunodeficiency virus; HLA-B - major histocompatibility complex, class I, B (allele); KRAS - v-Ki-ras2 Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog; PCR – polymerase chain reaction; Ph+ - Philadelphia chromosome positive; TPMT – thiopurine S-methyltransferase; UGT1A1 – UDP-glucuronosyltransferase 1A1.

Challenges

Challenges

Incorporating personalized medicine into the healthcare system may ultimately decrease use of total healthcare resources and improve clinical outcomes. However, there are several issues associated with the widespread implementation and adoption of molecular diagnostic tools, particularly with respect to implementation of regulatory policies, laws protecting patient confidentiality, insurance coverage, and reimbursement policies.1,7 Figure 1 illustrates the primary factors that must be considered for the full implementation of personalized medicine into the healthcare system.2

in this digest, the majority of plans have not yet implemented many strategies to manage oncology molecular diagnostics. Currently, only a small number of payers require molecular diagnostic testing before approval of applicable oncology agents, determine the cost-effectiveness of a molecular diagnostic test for oncology before covering, and/or require a PA for molecular diagnostics for some/all relevant oncology therapies. Most plans do intend to implement additional strategies to manage molecular diagnostics in oncology in the next 12 to 24 months. As molecular diagnostic tests become increasingly available, payers are becoming more aware of the complexities associated with these tests and are beginning to implement strategies to manage them.

While personalized medicine and molecular diagnostics are becoming more widely accepted, health plans are faced with the challenge of determining strategies to manage the utilization and reimbursement of molecular diagnostic tests and their associated therapies. Among health plans surveyed

7


Introduction Figure 1. Primary Factors Involved in the Implementation of Personalized Medicine2

Specialty Drug Pipeline: Spotlight on Orphan Drugs Healthcare Patient Provider and Confidentiality and Patient Education Genetic Privacy Healthcare Information Technology

Regulatory Policies

Insurance Coverage and Reimbursement

Technology and Tools for Clinical Review

Expected Impact on Patient Care Personalized medicine is already influencing the way diseases are identified and managed, and has the potential to change the way future treatments are discovered and used. With an everimproving understanding of molecular diagnostics, the impact of personalized medicine is likely to allow for better diagnoses and earlier interventions, more efficient drug development, and more effective therapies with fewer severe adverse events. However, the growth in personalized medicine will require the development of new and innovative processes to ensure these advancements effectively reach patients.

Specialty pharmaceuticals and biotechnology are an emerging and expanding sector of the overall pharmaceutical pipeline. Within the category of specialty pharmaceuticals, an estimated one quarter are predicted to be in development for rare diseases.8 According to the National Institute of Health, 25-30 million Americans have one of the nearly 7,000 diseases classified as rare. The Orphan Drug Act of 1983 defined rare diseases as those that affect less than 200,000 patients.9 Since the inception of the act in 1983, over 350 medications have been approved to treat rare diseases compared to only 10 in the 1970s, and the growth continues.9 Since 2006, nearly one third of all new molecular entities (NMEs) and Biologic License Application (BLA) approvals have been for drugs with orphan status for at least one indication.8 This trend continued in 2010 with 6 new orphan drugs approved of the total 21 NMEs and BLAs, representing 28.6% of new approvals.10 In addition, a 2011 report tallied 460 medications in the pipeline for rare diseases, which is an increase from the 303 in 2007, and 176 in 1991 (Figure 2).9,11 The primary area of research, which accounts for one third of the 460 drugs currently in development, is rare cancers, including solid tumors of the liver, thyroid, cancer of the blood, and melanoma. However, other leading areas under development include genetic disorders, neurological disorders and infectious diseases. Examples of diseases in these areas include cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis and West Nile Virus, respectively.9 Figure 2 contains a listing compiled by PhRMA of the number of orphan drugs currently in late stage development, which include those in clinical trials or under review by the FDA.9

References 1 President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Priorities for Personalized Medicine. September 2008. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/ostp/PCAST/pcast_report_v2.pdf. Accessed 3/8/11. 2 Personalized Medicine Coalition. The Case for Personalized Medicine. May 2009. Available at: http://www.personalizedmedicinecoalition.org/about/ about-personalized-medicine/the-case-for-personalized-medicine. Accessed 3/8/11. 3 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Table of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labels. January 2011. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ScienceResearch/ResearchAreas/Pharmacogenetics/ucm083378.htm. Accessed 3/8/11. 4 National Cancer Institute. Understanding Cancer Series: Molecular Diagnostics. September 2006. Available at: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/ understandingcancer/moleculardiagnostics. Accessed 3/8/11. 5 Martin R, Bielekova B, Hohlfeld R, Utz U. Biomarkers in Multiple Sclerosis. In: Utz U, Ed. Disease Markers. The Netherlands: IOS Press. 2006; 22(4):183-185.

8


Figure 2. Orphan Drugs in Development9

107

Cancer, Rare Cancer, Blood Genetic Disorders Misc. Diseases/Conditions Neurological Disorders Infectious Diseases Cancer, Skin Transplantation Autoimmune Disorders Respiratory Disorders Blood Disorders Eye Disorders Gastrointestinal Disorders Cancer-related Conditions Cardiovascular Diseases Growth Disorders

79 67 37 37 31 31 20 18 14 12 11 10 10 6 5 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Number of Orphan Drugs in Development (Some medications listed in more than one category.)

Conclusions

onclusions

Advances in personalized medicine and specialty pharmacy will continue to provide novel methods to diagnose and effectively treat diseases. The increase in specialty pharmacy agents within the pharmaceutical pipeline, as evidenced by an increase in orphan drug approvals, is a trend that will likely continue in years to come. Many patients remain with limited or no treatment options, and the growth of specialty pharmacy as well as personalized medicine should only further expand

the potential for development of effective therapies for these patients. While advances in biotechnology will continue to make new therapeutics possible and molecular diagnostic testing becomes increasingly available, processes need to be developed to address regulatory policy issues, clinical review, and insurance reimbursement criteria, as well as developing methodology to measure the impact of these advancements on total health outcomes.

References 6 National Institute of General Medical Sciences. Frequently Asked Questions about Pharmacogenomics. January 2011. Available at: http://www.nigms.nih.gov/Initiatives/PGRN/Background/pgrn_faq.htm. Accessed 3/8/11. 7 Personalized Medicine Coalition. Personalized Medicine 101. Available at: http://www.personalizedmedicinecoalition.org/about/about-personalized-medicine. Accessed 3/8/11. 8 Medco Drug Trend Report 2010 9 PhRMA: Orphan Drugs in Development for Rare Diseases. Available at: http://www.phrma.org/sites/default/files/878/rarediseases2011.pdf. Accessed 3/8/11. 10 FDA: CDER New Molecular Entity (NME) & New BLA Calendar Year Approvals. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/HowDrugsareDevelopedandApproved/DrugandBiologicApprovalReports/UCM242677.pdf. Accessed 3/8/11. 11 PhRMA: Record Number of Medicines In Development for Rare Diseases. Available at: http://www.phrma.org/media/releases/record-number-medicinesdevelopment-rare-diseases Accessed 3/8/11.

9


Executive Summary Methodology and Demographics The EMD Serono Specialty Digest™, 7th edition, contains objective market data, gathered in January 2011, on the management of specialty pharmaceuticals by health plans in 2010. Total enrollment of the 93 health plans participating in this year’s survey exceeds 115 million lives, with approximately 70 million commercial lives (healthcare maintenance organization [HMO] and preferred provider organization [PPO]), 16 million Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug plan (MA-PD) lives, 14 million managed Medicaid lives, and 15 million other lives. The 93 health plans span the United States: 33% of survey participants represent Midwestern plans, 38% represent Northeastern plans, 26% represent Southern plans, and 34% represent Western plans (total greater than 100% due to business in more than one region).

Defining Specialty Drugs What qualifies a specific drug or therapy to be classified as a specialty pharmaceutical is not clearly defined, as there is no industry standard definition for specialty drugs. Most plans have criteria or a definition to describe these drugs in order to apply the appropriate benefit design and distribution methodology. Survey data indicate that 80% of payers typically classify a drug as specialty if the average monthly cost exceeds $1,200 and may include other factors, such as whether the product treats a rare disease, requires special handling, has a limited distribution network, or requires ongoing clinical assessment and monitoring of response and/or side effects. Over 50% of survey respondents identified 30 therapy categories that are classified under their specialty pharmacy definition.

Current Specialty Pharmacy Management Strategies and Benefit Coverage Over 70% of payers currently utilize prior authorization (PA) under their pharmacy and medical benefits for specialty drugs and are managing PA in-house, rather than using their PBM or SPP. Other commonly utilized strategies focus on managing provider reimbursement, mandating the use of specialty pharmacy for self-administered agents (SAAs), and selecting preferred products. Similar to last year, this year’s survey data finds that 73% of plans cover SAAs, including oral and injected medications, under the pharmacy benefit only. Office-administered agents (OAAs), including infused or healthcare practitioneradministered medications, are covered under the medical benefit by 62% of plans. Less than 30% of plans cover OAAs under both the pharmacy and medical benefit, depending on the place of administration or specific provider.

Drug Spend and Cost Trend The current survey data identifies that plans have significantly improved their capability to capture specialty drug utilization from their pharmacy and medical claims systems, with 98% and 75% reporting that they currently track their drug spend and cost trends under the pharmacy and medical benefit, respectively. Health plans report that the percent of all specialty drug expenditures that are attributed to the pharmacy benefit and the medical benefit are split almost evenly, which is consistent with data reported in the prior 2 years (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Percent of Specialty Pharmacy Costs by Benefit (2008-2010)

Pharmacy Benefit

Medical Benefit

% of Plans

100% 80%

53%

48%

50%

49%

48%

52%

52%

42%

47%

47%

52%

50%

51%

52%

48%

48%

58%

53%

2008 (n=58)

2009 (n=57)

2010 (n=60)

2008 (n=48)

2009 (n=60)

2010 (n=40)

2008 (n=39)

2009 (n=33)

2010 (n=40)

60% 40% 20% 0%

Commercial

MA-PD

Medicaid

(n values represent survey participants who knew and could disclose information)

10


Strategies to Manage Across Pharmacy and Medical Benefits There are a number of therapy categories with drug offerings that are available under both the pharmacy and medical benefit as illustrated in Table 2. Table 2. Therapy Categories with Drugs Available under the Pharmacy and Medical Benefit

Various cancers Hereditary angioedema Lysosomal storage diseases Multiple sclerosis Psoriasis Pulmonary arterial hypertension Rheumatoid arthritis/Crohn’s disease

Payers are developing strategies to manage these drugs across both benefits. Survey results indicate that over 70% of respondents are now requiring their internal pharmacy department to manage all specialty drugs regardless of the benefit. In addition, 76% of health plans are developing clinical criteria for entire drug categories across benefits to eliminate any siloed drug management between the pharmacy and medical benefit.

Member Cost Share - Pharmacy Benefit For specialty drugs covered under the pharmacy benefit, 96% of commercial and MA-PD plans require cost share. Fifty-two percent of commercial plans and 84% of MA-PD plans assess a flat cost share for specialty products. As part of the flat cost share benefit, a separate fourth copay tier for specialty drugs is identified for 39% of commercial plans and 56% of MA-PD plans. The remaining commercial and MA-PD plans assess a tiered cost share, with a lower cost share for preferred drugs and a higher cost share for non-preferred drugs. The most common tier under the commercial benefit for preferred drugs is tier 2 (47%) and tier 3 (68%) for nonpreferred drugs. The most common tiers under the MA-PD benefit for preferred and non-preferred drugs are tier 3 (43%) and tier 4 (58%), respectively. Under the pharmacy benefit, copays (63%) are more frequent than coinsurance (37%) for the most commonly offered commercial plans, while coinsurance (71%) is more frequent than copays (29%) for the most commonly offered MA-PD plans. The percent of commercial plans with coinsurance that are limiting their member’s cost share liability by applying a maximum out-of-pocket (MOOP) per RX is declining: 88% of plans with coinsurance had a MOOP per RX in 2008, while 81% and 64% had a MOOP in 2009 and 2010, respectively. The benefit design data collected in this survey is representative of 67% of the reported total commercial lives and 82% of the reported total MA-PD lives.

Member Cost Share Health plans offer multiple benefit designs, with a variety of member cost-share structures for specialty drugs, including flat cost share, under which all agents are covered at the same cost share amount, and tiered cost share, where specialty agents fall under different tiers based on their formulary status (preferred vs. non-preferred). The cost share can be a fixed dollar copay amount or a coinsurance, where a member pays a percentage of the drug cost, with or without a maximum out-of-pocket (MOOP) amount per prescription.

11


Executive Summary Member Cost Share - Medical Benefit The use of cost share for specialty drugs under the medical benefit has increased over the past 3 years. In 2008, only 30% of commercial plans and 36% of MA-PD plans applied a cost share for specialty drugs covered under the medical benefit. In 2009, 37% of commercial plans and 52% of MA-PD plans required cost share. In 2010, 53% of commercial plans and 60% of MA-PD plans now require cost share for specialty drugs covered under the medical benefit (Figure 4). Consistent with previous years, coinsurance for medical benefit cost share is more common than copays: 83% for commercial plans and 85% for MA-PD plans in 2010.

Reimbursement

specialty pharmacy providers, while health plans are moving away from AWP–based reimbursement and implementing Average Sales Price (ASP)-based reimbursement for medical benefit providers (home health and physicians). The various reimbursement rates across distribution channels could result in a health plan paying different rates for the same drug.

Utilization Management Health plans employ a variety of utilization management strategies for specialty products, such as implementing online automated step edits and quantity limits, selecting preferred products, and developing coverage criteria that may be enforced through the PA process. Therapy categories that are new to the top ten requiring PA include MS (oral), osteoporosis (SC), botulinum toxins, and immune globulin (SC and IV).

Specialty drugs are distributed through multiple providers, and health plans utilize a variety of pricing references to reimburse providers for specialty products. Average Wholesale Price (AWP)-based reimbursement is typically used for retail and

Figure 4. Medical Benefit Cost Share (2008-2010)

No cost share 100% 80%

5%

3%

25%

34%

Q. Describe the most common cost share methodology for specialty drugs covered under the medical benefit for each line of business.

Flat cost share

12%

Tiered cost share 4%

47% 51%

60% 40%

70%

64%

63%

48%

47%

20%

9%

32% 41%

% of Plans

5%

40%

0% 2008 (n=57)

2009 (n=64) Commercial

12

2010 (n=75)

2008 (n=47)

2009 (n=58) MA-PD

2010 (n=65)


Preferred Drugs

Specialty Pharmacy Providers (SPPs)

The majority of participating health plans (88%) have at least one therapy category with preferred drugs. Preferred specialty products are selected most commonly for GH disorders, RA, hepatitis C, MS, and psoriasis. Health plans may utilize a variety of strategies to encourage the use of preferred products, and the type of strategy may vary by therapy category. The most popular strategies are to require a PA and/or deploy an NDC lock-out at the point of sale, followed by using tiered copays and step edits to manage the process.

The complexity of specialty drug distribution, handling, and patient support leads most health plans to adopt a custom specialty pharmacy network that may contain one or more SPPs. Similar to previous years, the majority of plans surveyed (88%) have already either contracted with one or more SPPs or are in the process of contracting with them; 7% of respondents manage the distribution of specialty drugs in-house, and only 5% have no contractual relationship with SPPs.

Oncology Management

This year’s survey data indicate that 43% of health plans contract with one SPP (not including the contractual relationships required for products with limited or exclusive distribution arrangements), reflecting a decrease from previous years. Correspondingly, there has also been year over year growth in the number of health plans contracting with 3 or more SPPs.

Health plans continue to develop strategies to manage oncology medications as many new oral and infused therapies are approved to treat a variety of cancers. From a topline strategy perspective, health plans are most likely to adopt nationally recognized guidelines for clinical pathways, increase their focus on palliative or end of life programs, and work with their community oncologists to develop proprietary clinical pathways. The most popular strategies to specifically manage oral and infused oncology agents involve processes to review the drug for appropriate use based on FDA-approved indication or peerreviewed studies to support off-label use. Survey participants also note an ongoing interest in developing strategies related to genetic testing, product distribution, and clinical management for oral and infused therapies.

Each health plan establishes its own SPP network and rules regarding the use of its contracted SPPs. The use of SPPs to dispense and distribute specialty drugs may be voluntary or mandatory – this may be decided for an entire class of medications or for select drugs. The most common therapy categories required by payers to be distributed through a SPP include GH disorders, hepatitis C, MS (all forms), psoriasis and RA/Crohn’s disease.

Oncology Molecular Diagnostics

For commercial payers, 59% of respondents indicate they have at least one therapy category with mandatory SPP distribution, while 64% of MA-PD plans, and 71% of Medicaid plans have at least one therapy category with mandatory SPP distribution.

Payers are developing strategies to manage molecular diagnostic testing associated with oncology therapies. They typically rely on their Medical Technology and Assessment Committee as well as their P&T and Medical Management department to review these tests and develop applicable medical policies. The majority of plans have not implemented many strategies to manage molecular diagnostics; however, the data indicate that most plans expect to implement some management strategies within the next 12-24 months.

Health plans identified specific areas where they are most satisfied and least satisfied with their SPP. Health plans are most satisfied with their SPP’s ability to manage the drug distribution process, coordinate eligibility and reimbursement, ensure the appropriate dose is dispensed, and provide 24/7 access to a pharmacist or nurse. Health plans are least satisfied with their SPP’s ability to provide predictive modeling, comparative prescribing data on plan physicians, and measurements of outcomes and savings.

At this time, some payers are requiring molecular diagnostic testing before approval of select oncology agents, while others are determining whether a molecular diagnostic test is cost effective before covering, or are requiring a PA for some molecular diagnostics. It is apparent that the methods by which health plans are covering and managing these agents is still evolving.

13


Executive Summary Most SPPs have developed therapy management programs to enhance the value of the services they provide. Although offered to payers, less than 30% of the survey respondents indicate they utilize any of these programs. Therapy management programs are most commonly implemented for hepatitis C, RSV, MS, GH disorders, and RA/Crohn’s disease. Health plans utilize their specialty pharmacies to manage these therapy categories with one or more specific objectives.

Specialty Pharmacy Accreditation Health care purchasers may require that a SPP become accredited by an independent third party organization to validate the pharmacy’s commitment to quality management, patient safety and monitoring, and prescriber and consumer communications.

Health Outcomes Payers indicate they take clinical outcomes into consideration when making formulary decisions about specialty drugs. Outcomes can include information about the benefits, risks, and results of treatments. For hepatitis C, MS, and RA, payers are most interested in outcomes related to reductions in disease progression and severity, health care costs and adverse events, as well as improved adherence and persistency. Payers are most interested in oncology outcomes that demonstrate adherence to clinical guidelines and increased overall survival. Payers typically lack the ability to adequately track and measure most of the desired outcomes. Their expectation of the responsible party varies by outcome measure, as illustrated in Table 3.

Thirty-eight percent of the participating payers state that accreditation is important to their selection of a SPP, with the majority of respondents indicating that URAC Specialty Pharmacy accreditation is the most important type of accreditation. Table 3. Primary Entity Responsible for Demonstrating and Tracking Outcome Measurements

Outcome Measurement

Q. Who should be primarily responsible for demonstrating and tracking outcome measurements that are valuable to your organization?

Pharmaceutical Manufacturer

Independent Internal Health Plan Specialty Pharmacy Academic Research Research Provider

Decrease disease progression and severity

X

X

Prolong life

X

X

Demonstrate pharmacoeconomic value

X

X

Reduce adverse reactions

X

X

Decrease hospitalizations and other health care costs

X

Improve QoL

X

Document comparative effectiveness

X

Follow clinical guidelines

X

Improve adherence and persistency

14

X

X X

X


Specialty Pharmacy Program Goals and Successes Payers may periodically update their specialty pharmacy program goals. Depending upon the organization, the goals may be based on specific issues related to customer service, vendor capabilities, financial management, clinical and utilization management, reporting, or benefit design. The most commonly cited goals are related to their ability to reduce inappropriate utilization, reduce drug acquisition cost, and improve adherence and persistency. Several new goals are identified by this year’s survey respondents that have not been highlighted in previous years: •

Make formulary decisions based on clinical outcomes and comparative effectiveness data

Reduce variations in physician prescribing patterns

Reduce variability between pharmacy and medical benefits

Most Effective Strategies Throughout this digest, it is noted that many strategies are deployed by payers to manage specialty drugs and each year new strategies are identified to meet the changing needs of payers and members. Respondents agree that utilizing their internal pharmacy department to manage specialty drugs, implementing PA to manage utilization according to clinical guidelines under both the pharmacy and medical benefit, and mandating the use of SPPs for SAAs are the most effective strategies to achieve their overall specialty pharmacy management goals.

Future Strategies

Conclusions The intersection of personalized medicine, a robust biopharmaceutical pipeline and economic pressures on health care systems are driving health plans to regularly update their specialty pharmacy management strategies. A number of significant changes have occurred over the past year when compared to previous editions of the EMD Serono Specialty Digest™: •

As a result of new product approvals, additional therapeutic entities have been added to the list of classes that are categorized as specialty by payers

Payers are becoming more aware of the crosscoverage of specialty products under the pharmacy and medical benefit and are developing strategies to link these products together

Payers are updating their clinical and utilization management strategies to stay abreast of newly approved drugs

Payers indicate that health outcomes data on specialty drugs, such as decreases in disease progression, health care costs, and serious adverse reactions are important measures when evaluating coverage and formulary decisions; however, the majority of plans lack the ability to effectively track and measure these outcomes

Payers will continue to apply micro-level strategies to manage the individual cost and utilization of specialty drugs; however, the survey results indicate that health plans will adopt more macro-level strategies focused on targeted therapies, clinical outcomes, comparative effectiveness, and consensus guidelines to meet the medical needs of their members.

Future strategies to manage specialty drugs are geared toward improving overall health care management of patients rather than relying on unit cost reduction strategies, including implementing oncology and other therapy management programs, utilizing outcomes data to make formulary decisions, and creating pay-for-performance incentives for physicians.

15


Survey Results Methodology and Demographics

Methodology and Demographics

The EMD Serono Specialty Digest™, 7th edition, contains objective market data, gathered in January 2011, on the management of specialty pharmaceuticals by health plans in 2010. Data was collected via an online survey from 93 health plans representing over 115 million covered lives. Twelve percent of survey respondents represent national plans, 47% represent regional plans, and 41% represent state-wide plans. The online survey was targeted to health plan pharmacy directors (n=72) and medical directors (n=21) who are primarily responsible for overseeing specialty and injectable drugs and specialty pharmacy-related services in their organization. Questions were specific to commercial, Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug plans (MA-PD), and managed Medicaid lines of business in order to identify the similarities and differences in coverage and management of specialty agents between these benefits. Tables 4, 5, and 6 provide a demographic breakdown of the responding health plans according to line of business by percentage of covered lives, by number of plans, and by region.

41% of survey respondents represent plans with 400,000 or less covered lives, 31% of survey respondents represent plans with 400,001 to 999,999 covered lives, and 28% represent plans with 1 million or more covered lives

Commercial, MA-PD, and Medicaid lines of business are represented by 78, 69, and 59 plans, respectively

38% of survey respondents represent Northeastern plans, 33% represent Midwestern plans, 26% represent Southern plans, and 34% represent Western plans (total greater than 100% due to business in more than one region)

Table 4. Distribution of Covered Lives by Line of Business Across All Participating Plans

Number of Lives Small (400,000 or less) Medium (400,001-999,999) Large (1,000,000 or more) Total number of lives covered

Commercial

MA-PD

10% 13% 77% 70,053,073

20% 11% 69% 16,457,299

Line of Business Medicaid Other* Percent (%) of Plans 44% 9% 20% 29% 36% 62% 14,023,048 15,125,763

Total 6% 15% 79% 115,659,183

(*Other may include indemnity plans, military health care, state and local low income plans, and Medicare Supplemental and non-Medicare retiree programs)

Table 5. Distribution of Number of Plans by Line of Business Across All Participating Plans

Line of Business Number of Lives Small (400,000 or less) Medium (400,001-999,999) Large (1,000,000 or more) Total number of plans Mean lives covered

Commercial

MA-PD

43 15 20 78 898,116

62 3 4 69 238,512

Medicaid Other* Number (#) of Plans 51 26 5 7 3 4 59 37 237,679 408,804

Total Number / Percent 38 / 41% 29 / 31% 26 / 28% 93 1,243,647

(*Other may include indemnity plans, military health care, state and local low income plans, and Medicare Supplemental and non-Medicare retiree programs)

Table 6. Distribution of Number of Plans by Line of Business and Region

Line of Business Region Northeast Midwest South West

Commercial

MA-PD

26 26 18 25

29 21 19 31

Medicaid Other* Number (#) of Plans 24 15 20 12 13 12 23 13

Total Number / Percent 35 / 38% 31 / 33% 24 / 26% 34 / 34%

(*Other may include indemnity plans, military health care, state and local low income plans, and Medicare Supplemental and non-Medicare retiree programs)

16


New to this Issue This digest builds upon information gathered in previous editions, feedback provided by the Editorial Advisory board, and the general audience of readers. New features in the 7th edition digest include:

Medical Pharmacy Management Detailed analysis is presented on specialty pharmacy management strategies that are implemented across pharmacy and medical benefits.

Oncology Molecular Diagnostics Strategies related to the management of molecular diagnostics for oncology are identified and prioritized.

Health Outcomes Payers provided input on the most important outcomes measures impacting a health plan’s coverage and formulary decisions for 4 key therapy categories: hepatitis C, MS, oncology, and RA.

17


Survey Results Classification of Specialty Drugs

Classification of Specialty Drugs

With the rapid growth of specialty drugs into the marketplace for the treatment of complex diseases, payers are developing sophisticated benefit designs and management tools to accompany these drugs. To date there is no “official” definition of specialty drugs, and payers must develop their own definition for the classification of specialty drugs for internal management purposes and to describe to health plan members in their Evidence of Coverage manuals.

In addition to the cost of a drug, payers take into consideration other elements, such as whether the product treats a rare disease, requires special handling, has a limited distribution network, or requires ongoing clinical assessment and monitoring of response and/or side effects.

Figure 5 identifies the most commonly reported factors plans take into consideration when classifying a drug as specialty pharmacy.

Table 7 lists 19 therapy categories that are considered to be specialty pharmacy by over 70% of the respondents out of a possible list of 36 categories. By comparison there were only 16 therapy categories that were classified as specialty pharmacy in 2009 by 70% of the survey respondents.

Eighty percent of respondents note that an average monthly cost of $1,200 or more may qualify a drug to be classified as specialty pharmacy.

Q. On a scale of 1-5, where 1 = no impact at all and 5 = extreme impact, please rate the impact each factor has in determining whether a therapy category is classified as “specialty pharmacy.”

Figure 5. Factors Determining Classification as Specialty Pharmacy

Mean “high cost” = $1,200

High cost

80%

Requires special handling

62%

Limited distribution

49%

Requires ongoing assessment of response

47%

Treats rare disease

46%

Requires monitoring of side effects

42%

Self-administered injectable

41%

Office-administered injection or infusion

38%

Requires patient administration training

37% 0%

20%

40%

60%

% of Plans (sum of rating 4 and 5)

18

80%

100%


Classification of Specialty Drugs

Classification of Specialty Drugs

Drugs/therapy categories that are newly added by at least 50% of respondents include:

In addition to the drugs and therapy categories in Table 7, other therapy categories that are considered to be specialty pharmacy by 25-49% of the plans include:

Botulinum toxins

SC immune globulin

Oral MS agents

Injectable HAE agents

Oral LS disease therapies

Orphan disease therapies

Injectable HIV/AIDS adjuvant therapies

Injectable gout therapies

Infertility therapy

Transplant drugs

HIV/AIDS drugs

Alcohol dependence agents

Vaccines

Although infertility therapy is not listed by all plans, infertility is considered to be part of the specialty pharmacy benefit for plans in states where infertility benefits are mandated. Q. Indicate which therapy categories are classified as specialty pharmacy within your organization.

Table 7. Therapy Categories Classified as Specialty Pharmacy

Therapy Category

Examples

Growth Hormone Disorders

Genotropin, Humatrope, Norditropin, Nutropin, Omnitrope, Saizen, Tev-Tropin

% of Plans 90%

Rheumatoid Arthritis/Crohn’s Disease (SC) Cimzia , Enbrel, Humira, Simponi

88%

Hepatitis C

Infergen, Pegasys, Peg-Intron

87%

Hemophilia Factor

Advate, Helixate FS, Novoseven, Recombinate

85%

Multiple Sclerosis (IM, SC)

Avonex, Betaseron, Copaxone, Extavia, Rebif

84%

Lysosomal Storage Disease Therapies (IV)

Cerezyme, Fabrazyme, Myozyme, Vpriv

83%

Multiple Sclerosis (IV)

Tysabri

83%

Rheumatoid Arthritis/Crohn's Disease (IV)

Actemra, Orencia, Remicade, Rituxan

82%

Asthma

Xolair

80%

Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension (Oral and Inhaled)

Adcirca, Letairis, Revatio, Tracleer, Tyvaso, Ventavis

80%

ESAs

Aranesp, Epogen, Procrit

78%

G-CSF

Neulasta, Neupogen

78%

Oncology (Oral)

Gleevac, Nexavar, Oforta, Revlimid, Sprycel, Sutent, Tarceva, Temodar, Thalmid, Xeloda, Zolinza

77%

Immune Globulin (IV)

Gammar, Gammagard

76%

Multiple Sclerosis (Oral)

Ampyra, Gilenya

76%

Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension (Injectable*)

Flolan, Remodulin

75%

Respiratory Syncytial Virus

Synagis

74%

Immune Globulin (SC)

Hizentra, Vivaglobin

73%

Psoriasis

Amevive, Stelara

73%

(*Injectable requiring health care professional administration)

19


Survey Results Current Specialty Pharmacy Management Strategies

Current Specialty Pharmacy Management Strategies

Specialty drugs have become the standard of care for many complex diseases, including GH disorders, hemophilia, hepatitis C, MS, RA, and various cancers. Unlike traditional oral pharmaceuticals, specialty drugs may be covered under the pharmacy or medical benefit and may be distributed by retail pharmacies, specialty pharmacies, through a physician’s office, or by a home health agency. These characteristics pose unique challenges to health plans related to coverage, patient cost share, provider reimbursement, clinical management, and patient access.

This year’s survey sought to identify what specialty pharmacy management strategies have become standard among health plans.

Figure 6. Currently Implemented Specialty Pharmacy Management Strategies

Figure 6 illustrates the 10 most commonly implemented strategies (out of a list of 20) across commercial, MA-PD and Medicaid plans. In addition to the strategies listed in Figure 6, payers noted in the survey that they are least likely to: •

Create a separate specialty pharmacy benefit

Require use of contracted SPP for some/all OAAs

Move prior authorization to outside vendor

Move OAAs from medical benefit to pharmacy benefit

Q. Indicate which specialty pharmacy management strategies you currently implement.

Commercial

MA-PD

Medicaid 92% 88% 83% 86%

Implement PA under pharmacy benefit Limit specialty products to 30 day supply

75% 80% 82% 74% 71% 79% 78% 75% 74% 74% 71%

Implement PA under medical benefit Select preferred products Move management of PA in house Require the use of contracted SPP for distribution of some or all SAAs

56% 53%

30%

49% 43% 39% 49% 49% 46% 47% 51% 46%

Utilize outcomes data to make formulary decisions Use ASP-based reimbursement for oncologists Use ASP-based reimbursement for non-oncology physicians 0%

20%

40%

60% % of Plans

20

80%

100%


Benefit Coverage of Specialty Drugs As noted previously, specialty drugs may be covered under both pharmacy and medical benefits, which is usually dependent upon the specific provider that is billing the drug or the location of drug administration. Similar to last year, this year’s survey data indicate that 73% of plans cover SAAs, including oral and injected medications, under the pharmacy benefit only (Figure 7). OAAs, including infused or healthcare practitioner-administered medications, are covered under the medical benefit by 62% of plans. Less than 30% of plans cover OAA agents under both the pharmacy and medical benefits depending on the site of administration or specific provider. In addition to SAA and OAA agents, the survey also examined the coverage of agents administered by home health agencies. Similar to previous years, the majority of plans cover these agents under either the medical benefit exclusively or under both the pharmacy and medical benefit.

Figure 7. Coverage of Agents Based on Administration or Provider (2008-2010)

Pharmacy Benefit Only

100%

% of Plans

80% 60%

29%

Q. Describe how SAAs, MD OAAs, and home health specialty drugs are typically covered for your most common benefit structure.

Medical Benefit Only

Both Pharmacy and Medical

Separate Specialty Benefit

5% 14% 5%

5% 15% 7%

3%

1%

3%

3%

6%

25%

24%

29%

35%

30%

76%

73%

71%

73%

62%

56%

1%

2%

6%

6%

15%

11%

2008 (n=69)

2009 (n=85)

2010 (n=93)

2008 (n=69)

2009 (n=85)

2010 (n=93)

5% 42%

13%

40% 58%

49%

42%

20% 0% 2008 (n=69)

2009 (n=85)

2010 (n=93)

Self-Administered Agents (SAAs)

Office-Administered Agents (OAAs)

Home Health Administered Agents

21


Survey Results Figure 8 identifies the benefit coverage of individual specialty therapy categories. Consistent with the concept that oral drugs and SAAs fall under the pharmacy benefit, therapy categories most likely to be covered under the pharmacy benefit include:

Categories most likely to be covered under the medical benefit include: •

RA/Crohn’s disease (IV)

Immune globulin (IV and SC)

MS (oral, SC, IM)

MS (IV)

RA/Crohn’s disease (SC)

LS diseases (IV)

Oncology (oral)

RSV

PAH (oral and inhaled)

PAH (IV)

Hepatitis C

Hemophilia factor

GH disorders

LS diseases (oral)

Figure 8. Therapy Category Coverage under Pharmacy or Medical Benefit

Q. Indicate the benefit under which each therapy category is covered for your most common benefit structure.

Pharmacy Multiple Sclerosis (Oral) Rheumatoid Arthritis/Crohn’s Disease (SC) Oncology (Oral) Multiple Sclerosis (IM, SC) Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension (Oral and Inhaled) Hepatitis C

Medical

97% 93% 92% 91% 90% 88% 82% 76% 55% 52% 46% 40% 36% 34% 33% 32% 31% 29% 25% 25%

Growth Hormone Disorders Lysosomal Storage Disease Therapies (Oral) ESAs G-CSF Psoriasis Immune Globulin (SC) Asthma Hemophilia Factor Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension (Injectable*) Respiratory Syncytial Virus Lysosomal Storage Disease Therapies (IV) Multiple Sclerosis (IV) Immune Globulin (IV) Rheumatoid Arthritis/Crohn's Disease (IV)

0%

3% 7% 8% 9% 10% 13% 18% 24% 45% 48% 54% 60% 64% 66% 67% 68% 69% 71% 75% 75% 20%

40%

60% % of Plans

(*Injectable requiring health care professional administration)

22

80%

100%


Managing Across Pharmacy and Medical Benefits

Managing Across Pharmacy and Medical Benefits

There are a number of therapy categories with drug offerings that are available under both the pharmacy and medical benefit within a health plan including therapies to treat:

Past digests have cited a more siloed approach to managing specialty drugs under the pharmacy and medical benefit; however, there has been a growing trend to develop more uniform processes to review and manage these drugs. Survey results indicate that over 70% of respondents now are requiring their internal pharmacy department to manage these drugs across both benefits. In addition, 76% of health plans are developing clinical criteria for entire drug categories across benefits to eliminate any siloed drug management between the pharmacy and medical benefit (Figure 9).

Various cancers

HAE

LS diseases

MS

Psoriasis

PAH

RA/Crohn’s disease

In addition to the strategies listed in Figure 9, payers note in the survey that they are least likely to:

Figure 9. Strategies to Manage Across Pharmacy and Medical Benefits

Create a separate specialty pharmacy benefit

Create equal cost share across the benefits

Eliminate “buy and bill” and require mandatory use of SPP across benefits

Q. Indicate which strategies your organization has implemented to manage specialty drugs across the pharmacy and medical benefit.

76%

Clinical criteria covers the entire therapy category across benefits

72%

Pharmacy department manages specialty drug PA across benefits 32%

Allow “buy and bill” with same reimbursement rate for SPPs and physicians

29%

Separate specialty drug benefit as part of the pharmacy benefit External vendor manages specialty drug PA across benefits

23%

Eliminate “buy and bill” for physicians with mandatory SPP for some or all drug categories across benefits

22%

Equal cost share for specialty drugs across benefits

17%

Separate specialty drug benefit as part of the medical benefit

14% 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% of Plans

23


Survey Results Specialty Pharmacy Costs and Financial Trends

Specialty Pharmacy Costs and Financial Trends

Although health plans indicate that specialty pharmacy management is a high priority, they have historically had difficulty isolating specialty drug costs within the pharmacy and medical benefit claim databases. The 2010 survey data identify that plans have significantly improved their capability to capture specialty drug cost and utilization data from their pharmacy and medical claim systems from the past two years (Figure 10).

Similarly, in 2008, only 65% of survey respondents were able to track their specialty drug financials under the pharmacy benefit and in 2010, 98% are now able to do so. This year, health plans once again report the percent of specialty drug expenditures that are attributed to the pharmacy benefit and the medical benefit are split almost evenly between the benefits (Figure 3, page 10).

In 2008, only 29% of survey respondents were able to track their specialty drug financials under the medical benefit but in 2010, 75% are now able to track their medical benefit financials for specialty drugs.

Figure 10. Percent of Plans That Track Their Specialty Pharmacy Drug Costs and Trend Rate

Q. Indicate whether you are able to track your specialty pharmacy drug costs and trend under the pharmacy and medical benefit.

Pharmacy Benefit

Medical Benefit 98%

100% 80%

% of Plans

80%

65%

75% 64%

60% 40%

29%

20% 0%

24

2008

2009

2010

(n=65)

(n=85)

(n=93)


Member Cost Share

Member Cost Share

Health plan members typically share some responsibility for the cost of their health care and, therefore, are usually required to pay a portion of the cost for their prescription medications, including specialty drugs. In most plans, the cost share amount is not the same for drugs covered under the pharmacy and medical benefit even though they may be used to treat the same condition. Each health plan specifies the exact extent of cost share under each benefit.

The cost share can be one of two options:

Flat cost share, under which all agents are covered at the same cost share amount

•

Tiered cost share, under which agents fall under different tiers based on their formulary status (preferred vs. non-preferred)

Fixed dollar amount (copay)

2.

Percentage of the drug cost (coinsurance)

With the coinsurance option, a member’s liability may be limited to a maximum out-of-pocket (MOOP) amount per prescription or per calendar year. For purposes of this survey, only a MOOP per prescription is identified.

Health plans offer multiple benefit designs, with a variety of cost-sharing structures for specialty drugs, including: •

1.

Figure 11 identifies the use of copay vs. coinsurance from 2008-2010 under the pharmacy benefit and medical benefit for commercial and MA-PD plans.

Figure 11. Use of Copay and Coinsurance by Benefit (2008-2010)

$ Copay

% Coinsurance

100%

% of Plans

80%

27%

43%

37% 78%

60%

71%

71%

82%

75%

83%

83%

85%

17%

15%

100% 40%

73%

57%

63%

20%

22%

29%

29%

18%

25%

17%

0% 2008

2009

2010

2008

2009

2010

2008

2009

2010

2008

2009

2010

(n=56)

(n=63)

(n=75)

(n=46)

(n=56)

(n=65)

(n=17)

(n=24)

(n=40)

(n=17)

(n=30)

(n=42)

Commercial

MA-PD Pharmacy Benefit

Commercial

MA-PD Medical Benefit

(n values reflect organizations with flat or tiered cost shares under each benefit)

25


Survey Results Tiered Cost Share

Pharmacy Benefit Table 8 lists the most commonly offered cost share benefit structures for specialty drugs covered under commercial and MA-PD pharmacy benefits as well as the mean cost share and ranges. The majority of Medicaid plans (63%) do not require any cost share for their members. For those Medicaid plans that do require cost share, the average cost share is $3.00 per RX. For specialty drugs covered under the pharmacy benefit, 96% of commercial and MA-PD plans require cost share.

Flat Cost Share •

52% of commercial plans and 84% of MA-PD plans assess a flat cost share for all specialty products

The most common flat cost share tier utilized by commercial (39%) and MA-PD (56%) plans is the 4th tier

Commercial Tier 4: 25% of plans assess copay (average $113) and 75% of plans assess coinsurance (average 23%)

MA-PD Tier 4: 9% of plans assess copay (average $50) and 91% of plans assess coinsurance (average 29%)

Table 8. Pharmacy Benefit Cost Share for Specialty Drugs

Pharmacy Benefit Cost Share for Specialty No Cost Share Flat Cost Share Dollar Copay % Coinsurance (w/ no MOOP per RX ) % Coinsurance (w/ MOOP per RX) Tiered Cost Share Preferred Dollar Copay % Coinsurance (w/ no MOOP per RX ) % Coinsurance (w/ MOOP per RX) Non-preferred Dollar Copay % Coinsurance (w/ no MOOP per RX ) % Coinsurance (w/ MOOP per RX) Total All Benefits Dollar Copay % Coinsurance (w/ no MOOP per RX ) % Coinsurance (w/ MOOP per RX) (MOOP = Maximum out-of-pocket)

26

44% of commercial plans and 12% of MA-PD plans assess a tiered cost share

The most common tiers under the commercial benefit for preferred drugs are tier 2 (47%) and tier 3 (68%) for non-preferred drugs

The most common tiers under the MA-PD benefit for preferred and non-preferred drugs are tier 3 (43%) and tier 4 (58%), respectively

Under the pharmacy benefit, copays (63%) are more common than coinsurance (37%) for commercial plans, while coinsurance (71%) is more common than copays (29%) for MA-PD plans. The percent of commercial plans with coinsurance that are limiting their member’s cost share liability by applying a MOOP per RX is declining: 88% of plans with coinsurance had a MOOP per RX in 2008, while 81% and 64% had a MOOP in 2009 and 2010, respectively. Note: The data in this table reflect the percent of plans responding and is not a count of the actual number of members enrolled in these benefits. The benefit design data collected in this survey is representative of 67% of the reported total commercial lives and 82% of the reported total MA-PD lives.

Q. Describe the benefit structure according to your most common benefit structure for all pharmacy benefit specialty drugs in your commercial and MA-PD lines of business.

% of Plans Commercial MA-PD 4% 4% 52% 84% 59% 23% 12% 77% 29% 44% 12%

Mean Cost Share Commercial MA-PD

$61 23% 20%

$46 28%

67% 15% 18%

75% 25%

$35 25% 18%

$52 23%

56% 23% 21%

38% 62%

$58 34% 31%

$90 38%

63% 13% 24%

29% 71%

$48 24% 19%

$48 28%

Range of Cost Share Commercial MA-PD Min $5 10% 5%

Max $250 35% 40%

Min $10 10%

Max $75 40%

Min $20 20% 10% Min $40 20% 15% Min $5 10% 5%

Max $75 33% 30% Max $100 50% 50% Max $250 35% 40%

Min $25 20%

Max $75 25%

Min $60 30%

Max $120 60%

Min $10 10%

Max $75 40%


Member Cost Share

Medical Benefit

Health plans offer different benefit designs for specialty pharmacy products with different cost share methodologies. Although the most common benefits are those that apply either flat copay or coinsurance, or a tiered benefit structure with a lower copay for preferred drugs and a higher copay for non-preferred drugs, health plans offer multiple variations of these benefits to their members. Table 9 identifies the various cost share structures for commercial and MA-PD benefits in 2009 and 2010. The most significant change in commercial pharmacy benefits is a decrease in plans offering a coinsurance with a limited MOOP expenditure and an increase in coinsurance plans without MOOP. MA-PD benefits did not change considerably from 2009 to 2010.

The use of cost share for specialty drugs under the medical benefit has increased over the past 3 years. In 2008, only 30% of commercial plans and 36% of MA-PD plans applied a cost share for specialty drugs covered under the medical benefit. In 2009, 37% of commercial plans and 52% of MA-PD plans required cost share. In 2010, 53% of commercial plans and 60% of MA-PD plans now require cost share for specialty drugs covered under the medical benefit (Figure 4, page 12). Consistent with previous years, coinsurance is more common than copays: 83% for commercial plans and 85% for MA-PD plans in 2010. Table 10 identifies the percent of plans utilizing dollar copays and coinsurance, their corresponding mean cost share, and the range provided by the respondents for specialty drugs covered under the medical benefit.

Table 9. Pharmacy Benefit Variations for Specialty Drugs

Commercial Pharmacy Benefit Variations for Specialty Drugs

MA-PD

2009 (n=63)

2010 (n=75)

2009 (n=56)

2010 (n=65)

All same $ copay

36%

32%

25%

20%

Lower preferred $ copay/Higher non-preferred $ copay

20%

25%

4%

5%

All same % coinsurance with MOOP

26%

16%

N/A

N/A

All same % coinsurance with no MOOP Lower preferred % coinsurance with no MOOP/Higher non-preferred % coinsurance with no MOOP Lower preferred % coinsurance with MOOP/Higher non-preferred % coinsurance with MOOP Preferred $ copay/Non-preferred % coinsurance with no MOOP Preferred $ copay/Non-preferred % coinsurance with MOOP Lower preferred % coinsurance with MOOP/Higher non-preferred % coinsurance with no MOOP

5%

7%

69%

67%

3%

7%

2%

3%

6%

7%

N/A

N/A

N/A

3%

N/A

5%

1%

3%

N/A

N/A

3%

1%

N/A

N/A

Table 10.

Medical Benefit Cost Share for Specialty Drugs

Q. Describe the benefit structure according to your most common benefit structure for all medical benefit specialty drugs in your commercial and MA-PD lines of business.

% of Plans

Medical Benefit Cost Share for Specialty

Commercial

Mean Cost Share

MA-PD

Commercial

Range of Cost Share

MA-PD

No Cost Share

47%

40%

Cost Share

53%

60%

Dollar Copay

17%

15%

$89

$40

% Coinsurance

83%

85%

20%

22%

Commercial Min

MA-PD

Max

Min

Max

$5 $250

$20

$90

10% 40% 10%

40%

27


Survey Results Provider Reimbursement

Provider Reimbursement

Specialty drugs are distributed through a variety of providers, and health plans utilize various pricing methodologies to reimburse these providers.

This year’s survey data reflects a large shift from the use of AWP-based reimbursement to ASP-based reimbursement for all lines of business for medical benefit providers. For example, in Figure 12, the 2010 data found 53% of nononcologists, 55% of oncologists and 28% of home health agencies are reimbursed on an ASP basis. In comparison, the 6th edition EMD Serono Specialty Digest (2009) identified 40% of non-oncologists, 42% of oncologists and 27% of home health agencies were reimbursed on an ASP basis.

There have been several changes in the reimbursement methodologies since the first edition of the specialty digest. Originally, most medical and pharmacy providers were reimbursed based on the Average Wholesale Price (AWP) – typically a discount off AWP; however, some providers were reimbursed at a percentage over the AWP. Over time, payers have been increasing the discount off AWP resulting in a lower reimbursement to all providers for specialty drugs. In 2006, a new pricing methodology, Average Sales Price (ASP), was introduced by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to reimburse medical providers for drugs under Medicare Part B. Private health plans also began to adopt this pricing methodology for their medical providers.

Q. What is the most common reimbursement basis for specialty pharmacy products through the various distribution channels for your commercial line of business?

Figure 12. Provider Reimbursement Methodology (Commercial)

Provider Capitation MD Non-Oncologist (n=49)

12%

Oncologist (n=49)

12%

Home Health Care (n=39)

Figure 13 illustrates the mean and range of ASP-based reimbursement for medical benefit providers within each line of business.

29% 25%

16%

AWP+

AWP-

ASP+

6%

WAC+ 53%

8%

55%

51%

5%

28%

Specialty Pharmacy (n=51)

2%

88%

4% 6%

Retail Pharmacy (n=51)

2%

88%

6% 4%

0%

20%

40%

60% % of Plans

28

80%

100%


Figure 13. Mean and Range of ASP-Based Reimbursement Rate

High

Mean

Low

25% % Over ASP

20%

18.0%

20.0%

18.0%

15% 10% 5%

20.0%

15.0% 10.3% 6.0%

10.0% 6.0%

7.7% 6.0%

8.4% 6.0%

8.7% 6.0%

15.0%

15.0%

15.0%

15.0%

7.9% 6.0%

9.1% 6.0%

8.9% 6.0%

9.8% 6.0%

0% Commercial (n=26)

MA-PD (n=20)

Medicaid (n=11)

Commercial (n=27)

MD Non-Oncologist

MA-PD (n=22)

Medicaid (n=11)

Oncologist

Commercial (n=11)

MA-PD (n=8)

Medicaid (n=5)

Home Health Care

(n values represent survey participants who knew and could disclose information)

The average percentage over ASP for specialty pharmacy products reimbursed through physician offices across all lines of business has not changed significantly between 2009 and 2010, with non-oncology MD reimbursement averaging 9% over ASP and oncologist reimbursement averaging 9% over ASP in 2009. The average percentage over ASP for home health care providers was 8% in 2009; however, the range declined from a high of 20% in 2009 to a high of 15% in 2010. The year-to-year change may be due to a lower number of home health respondents in 2010.

Another change in the reimbursement rate to providers was an adjustment in late 2009 in the calculation of AWP by wholesalers, which resulted in a change in the published AWP price and/or a modification in the AWP discount in payer contracts. Due to the change in AWP calculation, the data for 2010 will not be compared to previous years, nor is it clear that all payers are reporting the revised AWP discount rate. Figure 14 identifies the average discount off AWP reported for each provider by line of business.

Figure 14. Mean and Range of AWP Discount (+/-)

High

Mean

Low

15% 10%

10.0%

10.0%

AWP % (+/-)

5% 0.0%

0% -5% -10% -15% -20%

-12.7% -20.0%

-12.0% -14.6% -20.0%

-22.0%

-12.0%

-13.0%

-16.2% -20.0%

-17.7%

-25%

-25.0%

-30% MD Non-Oncologist

Oncologist

Home Health Care

Retail Pharmacy

Specialty Pharmacy

(Data represents the average from all LOBs for each distribution channel)

29


Survey Results Utilization Management

Utilization Management

Prior Authorization

Medical Benefit:

Health plans employ a variety of utilization management strategies for specialty products covered under the pharmacy benefit, such as implementing online automated step edits and quantity limits, selecting preferred products, and developing coverage criteria that may be enforced through the PA process. Traditional pharmacy benefit management tools may not be available for drugs covered under the medical benefit due to the limited capability of medical claims systems to perform pre-adjudication review; however, more plans are implementing some method of PA or post-service pre-payment review for specialty drugs covered under the medical benefit. Figure 15 lists the drug categories that most commonly require PA under the pharmacy and medical benefit. Therapy categories that are newly ranked as one of the top 7 categories requiring PA for each benefit include: Pharmacy Benefit:

Botulinum toxins

Immune globulin (SC and IV)

Preferred Specialty Products As more drugs become available within a therapeutic category, health plans are increasingly selecting preferred products, thus encouraging utilization of specific products. Consistent with the last few years, 88% of the responding payers designate at least one category with preferred specialty products. Figure 16 identifies drug categories where over 40% of plans have selected preferred products. Although not as common, 35% or less of the respondents indicate they have also selected preferred products in the following categories: •

Hyaluronic acid derivatives (35%)

PAH (28%)

MS (oral)

Oral oncology (24%)

Osteoporosis (SC)

Infertility (22%)

G-CSF (20%)

Hemophilia factor (14%)

Q. Indicate which of the therapeutic classes/products require PA in order to be covered under each benefit.

Figure 15. Prior Authorization by Therapy Category

Pharmacy Benefit 100%

96%

82%

81%

80%

80%

88%

86%

77%

86%

84%

80%

76%

75%

60% 40% 20%

Im

m un e

hn 's Cr o

Bo t

Di se as

S

e( IV ul ) in u m Gl ob To xin ul in s (IV an d PA SC H ) (In jec ta bl e)

RS V

(IV )

a m As th

M RA /

RA /

Cr o

hn 's

Di so rd er s Di se as e( SC ) Ps or ias is M S (O ra l) PA He H pa (O tit ra is la C nd In ha Os led te op ) or os is (S C)

0%

GH

% of Plans

80%

88%

Medical Benefit

30


Q. Indicate whether you have preferred products in each drug class.

Figure 16. Therapeutic Categories with Preferred Products

80%

76% 72% 65%

% of Plans

60%

54%

52% 45%

42%

40%

40%

20%

0% GH Disorders

RA/Crohn’s Disease

MS

Hepatitis C

Health plans may utilize a variety of strategies to encourage the use of preferred products and the type of strategy may vary by therapy category (Figure 17). The most popular

20%

ESAs

Online Step Edit 85% 73%

38%

RA/Crohn’s Disease

33%

Psoriasis

Tiered Copay

30%

22%

72%

37%

Osteoporosis

65%

44%

29%

64%

33% 33%

MS

42%

32%

LMW Heparin

29% 20%

62%

38%

20%

0%

ESAs

strategies are to require PA and/or deploy an NDC lock-out at the point of sale, followed by using tiered copays and step edits to manage the process.

NDC Lock-out or PA

Hepatitis C

LMW Heparin Osteoporosis

Q. What method(s) are used to manage preferred products?

Figure 17. Methods to Manage Preferred Drugs

GH Disorders

Psoriasis

36%

55% 52%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% of Plans

31


Survey Results Oncology

Oncology

Oncology Management Strategies

Oncology Management Strategies

Health plans are continuing to develop strategies to manage oncology medications as many new oral and infused therapies are approved to treat a variety of cancers.

The respondents were asked to identify specific management practices implemented by health plans for infused (Figure 19) and oral (Figure 20) oncology agents.

Figure 18 identifies key topline strategies that payers currently implement, plan to implement in the next 12 months, or have no plans to implement. Over 50% of the survey respondents indicate they currently utilize or plan to adopt nationally recognized guidelines for clinical pathways, increase their focus on palliative or end of life programs, and work with their community oncologists to develop proprietary clinical pathways. Payers seem least likely to adopt a 3rd party vendor’s clinical pathways, outsource oncology care management to vendors, or in-source oncology care management from external vendors.

The most commonly implemented strategies for managing oncology products are related to the PA review process; 60% of plans require PA for most infused oncology drugs and 80% of plans require PA for most oral oncology drugs.

Figure 18. Most Commonly Implemented Topline Strategies Related to the Management of Oncology

Many plans also stipulate requirements for coverage of nonFDA approved uses of oncology agents, with 69% and 73% of the responding health plans requiring peer-reviewed published studies for infused and oral oncology, respectively. Over 70% of health plans require compendia listing to support the request for off-label use for infused and oral oncology agents.

Q. Indicate which strategies your organization has already implemented related to the general management of oncology, expect to implement in the next 12 months, or do not plan to implement.

Currently implement

Plan to implement in next 12 months

Adopt NCCN and/or ASCO guidelines for clinical pathways

25%

Increase focus on use of palliative care/end of life programs

23%

9%

Adopt 3rd party vendor’s clinical pathways Insource oncology care management from external vendor

41%

36% 61% 75%

16%

87%

5% 8%

85%

Outsource oncology care management to vendor 3% 12%

0%

48%

27%

29%

10%

Create pay-for-performance incentives for oncologists for following clinical pathways

20%

40%

60% % of Plans

32

29%

19%

52%

Work with community oncologists to develop proprietary clinical pathways

No plans to implement

80%

100%


Figure 19. Most Commonly Implemented Strategies to Manage Infused Oncology

Currently implement

Q. Indicate which strategies your organization has already implemented related to the management of infused oncology products, expect to implement in the next 12 months, or do not plan to implement.

Plan to implement in next 12 months

Require compendia listing for off-label use

71%

Require peer reviewed published studies to support off-label use

69%

Require PA for infused oncology drugs

No plans to implement

61%

16%

75%

6%

19% 0%

35%

32%

23%

Utilize vendor (SPP or other) to manage PA

41%

15%

33%

Select preferred products for some infused oncology products

25%

15%

44%

Require evidence of meeting genetic testing criteria prior to approving drug therapy where appropriate

21%

10%

60%

Utilize internal RX department to manage infused oncology

19%

10%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% of Plans

Figure 20. Most Commonly Implemented Strategies to Manage Oral Oncology

Currently implement

Q. Indicate which strategies your organization has already implemented related to the management of oral oncology products, expect to implement in the next 12 months, or do not plan to implement.

Plan to implement in next 12 months

No plans to implement

80%

Require PA for oral oncology drugs Require compendia listing for off-label use

74%

Require peer reviewed published studies to support off-label use

73%

6% 14% 7% 5%

61%

Include oral oncology in specialty definition Require evidence of meeting genetic testing criteria prior to approving drug therapy where appropriate

19% 22%

15%

48%

24%

21%

31%

Limit day’s supply of oral agents for 1st fill

42%

25%

33%

Mandate use of SPP for some or all oral oncology drugs

41%

25%

34%

36%

Implement Specialty Pharmacy program to monitor adherence and side effects

25%

32%

Utilize vendor (SPP or other) to manage oral oncology agents

15%

28%

Select preferred products in some oral oncology drug classes

17%

Match oral drug cost share to infused drug cost share 0%

39% 53%

20%

52%

23% 20%

60% 40%

60%

80%

100%

% of Plans

33


Survey Results Oncology Molecular Diagnostics

logyMolecular Diagnostics

This year’s survey explores the methods by which payers have begun to manage molecular diagnotic testing and the therapies associated with these tests for oncology therapy.

rely on their P&T committee or medical management department. In many cases, plans may use more than one committee or department to review molecular diagnostics. Only 3% of the respondents indicate they do not have a review process for oncology-related molecular diagnostic tests.

Figure 21 identifies which departments within a health plan are primarily responsible for reviewing molecular diagnostic testing. The majority of plans utilize their Medical Technology and Assessment Committee to review these tests, while others

Figure 21. Department Responsible for Reviewing Molecular Diagnostic Testing

Q. What department is responsible for reviewing molecular diagnostic testing associated with oncology drugs?

80% 59%

% of Plans

60% 41% 40%

37%

20% 7%

3%

0% Medical Technology and Assessment Committee

P T Committee

Medical Management Department

Other

(Plans may use more than one committee or department to review molecular diagnostics.)

34

None


c

O

Although molecular diagnostics are important tools to identify patients who will achieve optimal clinical outcomes of specific therapies, the methods by which health plans are covering and managing these agents is still evolving.

At this time, the most commonly implemented strategies related to oncology molecular diagnostics include:

Based on the survey results identified in Figure 22, the majority of plans have not implemented many strategies to manage molecular diagnostics; however, the data indicate that most plans expect to implement some management strategies within the next 12 to 24 months.

•

Determining whether a molecular diagnostic test is cost effective before covering (50%)

•

Requiring molecular diagnostic testing before approval of select oncology agents (40%)

•

Requiring a PA for some molecular diagnostics (40%)

Q. Indicate which strategies your organization has already implemented related to the management of molecular diagnostics for oncology, expect to implement in the next 12-24 months, or do not plan to implement.

Figure 22. Molecular Diagnostics Management Strategies for Oncology

No plans to implement

Plan to implement in next 12-24 months

Currently implement Determine whether a molecular diagnostic test for oncology is cost-effective before covering Require molecular diagnostic testing before approval of some or all oncology agents where applicable Require PA for molecular diagnostics for some or all oncology therapies where applicable Include molecular diagnostic tests in clinical pathways as specified by NCCN/ASCO Restrict use of oncology drugs based on results of companion molecular diagnostic tests Educate providers about appropriate use of molecular diagnostic testing and related drug therapies Conduct retrospective claims review to determine appropriate use of testing Cover and reimburse for all oncology molecular diagnostic testing without PA

0%

50%

32%

40%

42%

40%

18%

40%

37%

20%

34%

32%

29%

39%

24%

29%

44%

19% 17%

18%

32%

39% 16% 20%

42% 67%

40% 60% % of Plans

80%

100%

35


Survey Results Specialty Pharmacy Providers (SPPs) The complexity of specialty drug distribution, handling, and patient support leads most health plans to adopt a custom specialty pharmacy network that may contain one or more SPPs. Similar to last year, the majority of plans surveyed (88%) have already either contracted with one or more SPPs or are in the process of contracting with them; 7% of respondents manage the distribution of specialty drugs in-house, and only 5% have no contractual relationship with SPPs.

Number of SPPs Contracted Survey data indicate that 43% of health plans contract with only one SPP (not including the contractual relationships required for products with limited or exclusive distribution arrangements), reflecting a decrease from previous years (Figure 23). Correspondingly, there has also been year over year growth in the number of health plans contracting with 3 or more specialty pharmacies.

Figure 23. Number of SPPs Contracted (2008-2010)

Q. Indicate how many SPPs you are currently contracted for non-limited distribution drugs.

1 SPP exclusively

2 SPPs

3 or more SPPs

100% 20%

19%

35%

31%

45%

50%

2008 (n=64)

2009 (n=74)

28%

% of Plans

80% 60%

29%

40% 20%

43%

0%

36

2010 (n=81)


Voluntary vs. Mandatory Use of SPPs

1

Each health plan establishes its own SPP network and rules regarding the use of its contracted SPPs. The use of SPPs to dispense and distribute specialty drugs may be voluntary or mandatory – this may be decided for an entire class of medications or for select drugs. For specialty drugs covered under the pharmacy benefit, members may be allowed to utilize either the plan’s retail network, mail service pharmacy or the contracted SPP(s) on a voluntary basis, or members may be required to obtain their specialty drugs only through the SPP. For specialty drugs covered under the medical benefit, health plans may allow medical benefit providers (physicians and home health agencies) to maintain their own drug inventory and bill the health plan at their contracted rate as described on page 28 (commonly referred to as “buy and bill”), or they may require the provider to order the drug from the specialty pharmacy and only bill the health plan for their administration and procedure related costs. In this case, the specialty pharmacy bills the health plan and collects any applicable cost share from the patient.

Figure 24 identifies the most common therapy classes that are required by payers to be distributed only through the specialty pharmacy. For commercial payers, 59% of respondents indicate they have at least one therapy category with mandatory SPP distribution, while 64% of MA-PD plans and 71% of Medicaid plans have at least one therapy category with mandatory SPP distribution. For plans that do not require mandatory use of the specialty pharmacy network, the majority indicate they have either chosen not to limit the network, they reside in a state with “any willing provider” legislation which does not allow for a limited network, or their certificate of coverage does not allow a limited network. The “any willing provider” provision of Medicare Part D could be interpreted to preclude a payer from developing a limited specialty pharmacy network. The majority of MA-PD plans that indicate they mandate the use of their SPP network specify they enforce the use of the network through their PA process.

Q. For each line of business, indicate if the use of the Specialty Pharmacy Provider is mandatory for some or all agents within the drug categories listed.

Figure 24. Mandatory Use of SPP by Therapy Category

Commercial (n=68)

MA-PD (n=59)

Medicaid (n=52)

Growth Hormone Disorders

51%

44% 42%

Hepatitis C

50%

41% 40%

Multiple Sclerosis (IM, SC)

47%

39% 38%

Psoriasis

36%

RA/Crohn’s Disease (SC)

47% 38% 46%

336% 37%

Hemophilia Factor

33%

Multiple Sclerosis (Oral)

32% 33% 34%

Oncology (Oral)

44%

37% 41% 41% 38%

34% 32% 31%

Multiple Sclerosis (IV) 0%

20%

40%

60%

% of Plans

37


Survey Results Services Provided by SPPs

P

SPPs offer a broad range of services to meet the clinical, billing, distribution, and service requirements of specialty drugs. Respondents were asked to identify the most important services provided by their specialty pharmacy and to rank their level of satisfaction with their contracted SPP’s performance related to these services. Figure 25 lists the top 10 most important services out of a list of 26 possible services.

Health plans are most satisfied with their SPP’s ability to:

The services identified as most important are:

In addition to the strategies listed in Figure 25, payers note in the survey that they are least satisfied with their SPP’s services related to:

Distribution direct to patient and/or MD

Ensuring appropriate dose of medication

Preventing drug waste, abuse, and misuse

Figure 25. Importance of SPP Services and Health Plan Satisfaction

Distribute drug direct to patients and/or MD

Coordinate reimbursement and eligibility

Provide 24/7 access to RN or pharmacist

Ensure appropriate dose

Predictive modeling

Comparative prescribing data on plan MDs

Measurement of outcomes and savings

Q. On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 = not at all important and 5 = extremely important, please rate the importance of each service provided to your organization by your SPP. On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 = not at all satisfied and 5 = extremely satisfied, please rate your satisfaction with each service provided to your organization by your SPP.

Satisfaction

Importance Mean = 3.81

Mean = 4.24 4.14

Distribution direct to patient’s home or business 3.80

Ensure appropriate dose of medication

4.57

3.53

Prevent drug waste, abuse and misuse

4.49 4.07

Distribution direct to MD 3.87

Provide 24/7 access to RN or pharmacist 3.61

Implement adherence and persistence programs Reimbursement and eligibility coordination

4.13

4.05

3.71

3.98 3.73 3.88

Dedicated account manager Proactive refill management 1

2

3 Rating

38

4.47

4.09 3.98 4.06

3.64

Provide disease specific patient education

4.63

4

5


SPP Therapy Management Programs

P

Most SPPs have developed therapy management programs to enhance the value of the services they provide. Although offered to payers, less than 30% of the survey respondents indicate they utilize any of these programs (Figure 26).

For example, hepatitis C, GH disorders and RA/Crohn’s disease programs are utilized to improve adherence, optimize dose, decrease inappropriate use, and reduce product waste.

For these respondents, therapy management programs are most commonly implemented for hepatitis C, RSV, MS, GH disorders, and RA/Crohn’s disease. Health plans that utilize their specialty pharmacies to manage these therapy categories do so with one or more specific objectives (Table 11). Figure 26. Most Commonly Utilized Therapy Management Programs Offered by SPPs

30%

RSV programs are managed to decrease health care costs, improve adherence, optimize dose, and decrease inappropriate use; while MS programs are geared to improve quality of life, improve adherence, optimize dose, and reduce product waste.

Q. Indicate which therapy management programs offered by your SPP your organization utilizes.

27% 25%

% of Plans

22% 19%

20%

17% 14%

10% 6%

6%

Infertility

Oncology

0% Hepatitis C

Table 11.

Respiratory Syncytial Virus

Major Program Goals of Specific SPP Drug Therapy Management Programs

Most Commonly Utilized Programs

Multiple Sclerosis

Growth Hormone Disorders

RA/Crohn's Disease

Hemophilia Factor

Q. Identify the major program goals of the specific Drug Therapy Management programs.

Improve Adherence

Optimize Dose

Decrease Inappropriate Use

Reduce Product Waste

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Growth Hormone Disorders

x

x

x

x

RA/Crohn's Disease

x

x

x

x

Decrease Health Care Costs

Improve QoL

Hepatitis C Respiratory Syncytial Virus Multiple Sclerosis

x x

x

39


Survey Results Spotlight on Outcomes As noted throughout this digest, health plans are implementing a variety of tactics to manage the cost of specialty drugs and to ensure appropriate utilization. Increasingly, payers are also focusing on the outcome, or value of a particular course of therapy to the patient, the physician, and the health care system. Outcomes can include information about the benefits, risks, and results of treatments. This year’s survey asked payers to identify the most important outcome measures impacting their health plan’s coverage and formulary decisions for 4 key therapy classes: hepatitis C, MS, oncology, and RA (Figures 27-30) and to indicate whether they are able to effectively track and measure these outcomes. Payers vary in their opinion on what entity should be primarily responsible for demonstrating and tracking outcome measures (Page 14, Figure 3).

Hepatitis C Hepatitis C is an infectious disease that impacts up to 4.1 million people in the US.12 It is often asymptomatic, yet can lead to fibrosis and cirrhosis. Outcome measures that over 50% of payers identify as impacting coverage and formulary decisions for hepatitis C therapies are identified in Figure 27. Figure 27. Outcome Measures for Hepatitis C Impacts coverage and formulary decisions 74%

% of Plans

80%

71%

62%

60% 40%

34%

40%

Organization is able to track 62%

58% 43%

38%

20%

13%

0% Decrease disease progression and severity

Follow health plan guidelines

Decrease hospitalizations and other health care costs

Reduce adverse reactions

Improve adherence and persistency

Multiple Sclerosis Multiple sclerosis is an inflammatory disease that impacts 400,000 people in the US.13 Patients with MS can progress to severe physical and cognitive disability. Outcome measures that over 50% of payers identify as impacting coverage and formulary decisions for MS therapies are identified in Figure 28. Figure 28. Outcome Measures for Multiple Sclerosis Impacts coverage and formulary decisions % of Plans

80%

66%

65%

60%

60% 40%

40%

57% 41%

40%

29%

20% 0%

40

69%

Organization is able to track

13% Decrease disease Decrease progression hospitalizations and and severity other health care costs

Follow health plan guidelines

Reduce adverse reactions

Improve adherence and persistency


Rheumatoid Arthritis Rheumatoid arthritis is an inflammatory disease impacting 1.3 million people in the US.14 RA is a painful and disabling condition, which can lead to significant loss of function and mobility. Outcome measures that over 50% of payers identify as impacting coverage and formulary decisions for RA therapies are identified in Figure 29. Figure 29. Outcome Measures for Rheumatoid Arthritis Impacts coverage and formulary decisions % of Plans

80%

72%

70%

Organization is able to track

62%

60%

57%

440% 0%

40%

54% 441% 1%

333% 3%

228% 8% 114% 4%

20% 0% Decrease disease progression and severity

Follow health plan guidelines

Reduce adverse reactions

Decrease Improve adherence hospitalizations and and persistency other health care costs

Oncology Outcome measures that over 50% of payers identify as impacting coverage and formulary decisions for oncology therapies are identified in Figure 30. Figure 30. Outcome Measures for Oncology Impacts coverage and formulary decisions % of Plans

80%

70%

63%

57%

60% 40%

Organization is able to track 57%

35%

53% 35%

26% 15%

20%

8%

0% Follow health plan guidelines

Improve adherence and persistency

Decrease disease progression and severity

Decrease hospitalizations and other health care costs

Reduce adverse reactions

Although payers responded overwhelmingly to the importance of specific outcome measures to their coverage and formulary decision-making process, they do not appear to have the capability to effectively track most of these outcomes and measure them, with the exception of the ability to track adherence and persistency outcomes. As identified on page 39, specialty pharmacies play a key role in promoting adherence and tracking this information for payers.

12 Ghany MG, Strader DB, Thomas DL, Seeff LB. Diagnosis, Management, and Treatment of Hepatitis C: An Update. Hepatology. 2009;49(4):1335-1374. 13 Kalb R, Reitman N. Overview of Multiple Sclerosis. A Clinical Bulletin from the Professional Resource Center of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. 2010. Available at: http://www.nationalmssociety.org/for-professionals/healthcare-professionals/publications/clinical-bulletins/index.aspx. Accessed 3/8/11. 14 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Arthritis Related Statistics. 2010. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/arthritis/data_statistics/arthritis_related_stats.htm. Accessed 3/8/11.

41


Survey Results Specialty Pharmacy Accreditation Health care purchasers are increasingly requesting that a specialty pharmacy become accredited by an independent third party organization to validate the pharmacy’s commitment to quality management, patient safety and monitoring, and prescriber and consumer communications.

Figure 31: Most Important Type of SPP 3rd Party Accreditation

A number of different third party organizations provide accreditation to specialty pharmacies, including: •

URAC for Quality Management

URAC for Specialty Pharmacy

JCAHO (Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations)

ACHC (Accreditation Commission for Health Care)

JCAHO 11%

None 20% Other 5% URAC Disease Management 7%

URAC Specialty Pharmacy 57%

New to this year’s survey, respondents were asked to rate the importance of 3rd party accreditation in the selection of their SPP. Thirty-eight percent indicate that accreditation is important (sum of 4 and 5 on a 5-point rating scale) in the selection of a specialty pharmacy (Figure 32), with the majority of respondents indicating that URAC Specialty Pharmacy accreditation is the most important type of accreditation (Figure 31).

Q. On a scale of 1-5, where 1 = not at all important and 5 = extremely important, indicate how important it is for your SPP to have a 3rd party accreditation.

Figure 32. Importance of SPP 3rd Party Accreditation

40%

% of Plans

Q. Which accreditation is most important to your organization?

Mean = 3.2

30%

20%

37% 23%

10% 15%

15%

10% 0% 1

2

3 Rating

42

4

5


Specialty Pharmacy Program Goals Payers may periodically update their specialty pharmacy program goals. Depending upon the organization, the goals may be based on specific issues related to customer service, vendor capabilities, financial management, clinical and utilization management, reporting, or benefit design (Figure 33). Similar to previous years, the top 3 goals are to: 1.

Reduce inappropriate utilization

2.

Reduce drug acquisition costs

3.

Improve patient adherence and persistency

Several new goals were identified by this year’s survey respondents that were not seen in previous years: •

Make formulary decisions based on clinical outcomes

Make formulary decisions based on comparative effectiveness data

Reduce variations in physician prescribing patterns

Reduce variability between pharmacy and medical benefits

Figure 33. Specialty Pharmacy Management Goals

Q. On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 = not at all important and 5 = extremely important, please rate the importance of each of the following goals to your organization’s specialty pharmacy management.

Mean = 3.88

Reduce inappropriate utilization Reduce drug acquisition costs Improve patient adherence and persistency Make formulary decisions based on clinical outcomes Improve patient satisfaction Make formulary decisions based on comparative effectiveness data Reduce variations in physician practice patterns Manage oral oncology Increase rebates Reduce variability between pharmacy and medical benefit Manage infused oncology

4.70 4.61 4.14 3.94 3.86 3.81 3.67 3.60 3.51 3.44 3.38 1

2

3

4

5

Rating

43


Survey Results Most Effective Strategies to Manage Specialty Drugs Throughout this digest, many strategies are deployed by payers to manage specialty drugs and each year new strategies are identified to meet the changing needs of payers and members. Figure 34 highlights the top 9 strategies (out of a list of 20) that are cited by the respondents to be the most effective overall at helping their organizations achieve their specialty pharmacy goals. Similar to previous years, the top 3 strategies include: 1.

Require the use of contracted SPPs for SAAs

2.

Move management of PA in house

3.

Implement PA under pharmacy and medical benefits

The most significant change from previous years is the ranked order of the strategies. The mandatory use of SPPs for SAAs has moved up from #5 in 2008 and #4 in 2009 to #1 in 2010.

Figure 34. Most Effective Strategies to Manage Specialty Drugs

Q. Indicate whether you use the following strategies, and on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 = not at all effective and 5 = extremely effective, rate the effectiveness that each of the following programs or services have had in helping your organization achieve its overall specialty pharmacy management goals.

Mean = 4.11

4.48

Require the use of contracted SPP for distribution of some or all SAAs (n=52) Move management of PA in house (n=49)

4.33

Implement PA under pharmacy benefit (n=80)

4.30

Limit specialty products to 30 day supply (n=70)

4.17

Implement PA under medical benefit (n=67)

4.12

Move SAAs from medical benefit to pharmacy benefit (n=48)

4.06 3.97

Select preferred products (n=68) Use ASP-based reimbursement for non-oncology physicians (n=49)

3.82

Use ASP-based reimbursement for oncologists (n=51)

3.77 1

2

3 Rating

44

4

5


Future Changes in Specialty Pharmacy Management

y P

With the introduction of new specialty therapeutics and more overall utilization of specialty drugs across the pharmacy and medical benefit, health plans continue to formulate and refine strategies to enhance specialty pharmacy management. When asked to identify specialty pharmacy management strategies that may be implemented in the next twelve months, respondents appear to be focusing on more sophisticated strategies that are geared toward improving overall health care management of patients, rather than relying on unit cost reduction strategies, such as:

Figure 35 illustrates the 8 most commonly anticipated future changes (out of a list of 20) across commercial, MA-PD and Medicaid plans.

Implementing oncology management programs

Implementing therapy management programs with SPP

Utilizing outcomes data to make formulary decision

Creating pay-for-performance incentives for physicians

One strategy identified by 36% of the respondents that may have an impact on therapy outcomes is increasing the cost share to patients under the commercial benefit. Numerous published studies cited in earlier editions of the EMD Serono Specialty Digest have identified a direct correlation between increased cost share and lower therapy adherence.15-17 15 Starner C, Gleason P, Gunderson B. Oral Oncology Prescription Abandonment Association with High Out-of-Pocket Member Expense. J Manag Care Pharm. 2010;16(2):161-162. 16 Gleason P, Gunderson B, Walters C, et all. Association between tumor necrosis factor (TNF), blocker out-of-pocket (OOP) expense, and member decline to fill rate. J Manag Care Pharm. 2008;14(2):210. 17 Gleason P, Gunderson B. Association of multiple sclerosis medication out-ofpocket expense with decline-to-fill rate. J Manag Care Pharm. 2009;15(2):178-179.

Figure 35. Anticipated Future Changes in Specialty Pharmacy Management within the Next 12 Months

Q. Indicate which specialty pharmacy management strategies you anticipate implementing within the next 12 months.

Commercial

MA-PD

Medicaid 38% 33% 31% 36%

Implement oncology management programs Increase cost share to patients

7%

17% 32% 29% 31% 28%

Implement therapy management program(s) with SPP Utilize outcomes data to make formulary decisions

23% 25% 28% 32% 22% 27%

Create pay-for-performance incentives for some physician specialties Create preferred and non-preferred cost share tiers for SAAs

5%

16%

Use ASP-based reimbursement for non-oncology physicians

17% 19%

Use ASP-based reimbursement for oncologists

19% 19%

0%

10%

20%

26% 24%

30%

40%

50%

% of Plans

45


Survey Results Conclusions

Conclusions

The intersection of personalized medicine, a robust biopharmaceutical pipeline, and economic pressures on health care systems are stimulating health plans to regularly update their specialty pharmacy management strategies.

Medical Benefit

A number of significant changes have occurred over the past year when compared to previous editions of the EMD Serono Specialty Digest™.

Newly Approved Drugs As a result of new product approvals, additional therapeutic entities have been added to the list of classes that are categorized as specialty by payers. These include: •

Immune globulin SC

Oral MS agents

HAE therapies

HIV/AIDS adjuvant therapies

Other orphan disease agents

Pharmacy and Medical Benefit Management Payers are becoming more aware of the cross-coverage of specialty products under the pharmacy and medical benefit and are developing strategies to link these products together: •

Move prior authorization and clinical management of all specialty drugs to the in-house pharmacy department

Develop health plan guidelines across benefits

Benefit Design Benefit designs for specialty drugs covered under the pharmacy benefit as well as the medical benefit are changing. Pharmacy Benefit •

Increase in cost share amount

Reduction in use of maximum-out-of-pocket (MOOP) per RX on coinsurance plans, resulting in higher cost share per RX.

46

Overall increase in use of cost share under the medical benefit

No significant shift of OAAs to pharmacy benefit or mandatory use of SPP

Clinical and Utilization Management Payers are updating their clinical and utilization management strategies to stay abreast of newly approved drugs: •

New drug categories requiring PA

More plans implementing PA

New drug categories with preferred drugs

The Impact of Outcomes Payers indicate that health outcomes data on specialty drugs, such as decreases in disease progression, health care costs and serious adverse reactions are important measures when evaluating coverage and formulary decisions. However, the majority of plans lack the ability to effectively track and measure these outcomes.

Future Specialty Pharmacy Management Strategies Payers will continue to deploy micro-level strategies to manage the individual cost and utilization of specialty drugs; however, the survey results indicate that health plans will adopt more macro-level strategies focused on targeted therapies, clinical outcomes, comparative effectiveness, and consensus guidelines to meet the medical needs of their members.


Notes ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

47


Notes ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

48


©2011 EMD Serono, Inc.

110329-130834


EMD Serono Digest 7th Ed