Jennifer Graff, PharmD, vice president of comparative effectiveness research at the National Pharmaceutical Council, discusses where payers receive their information and how it is used to make decisions about coverage and reimbursement.
Jennifer Graff, PharmD, vice president of comparative effectiveness research at the National Pharmaceutical Council, discusses where payers receive their information and how it is used to make decisions about coverage and reimbursement.
Transcript (slightly modified)
What forms of evidence are considered optimal in order to make informed decisions related to coverage and reimbursement?
Payers use a wide variety of information to make coverage and reimbursement decisions. They use the best available information to try to determine safety, effectiveness, which treatments work best for which patients, and how a treatment compares to other treatment alternatives. This best available evidence could take many forms and could include FDA information, manufacturer supported information, clinical trials, real-world evidence, and cost-effectiveness. We know this by peeling back the onion to try to understand not only what payers say they do and utilize, but also looking at P&T monographs or looking at medical coverage policies to understand what types of evidence they cite. It’s a wide variety of types of information and often very desperate.
The challenges that many payers have is that what they would optimally like to have may not always work out in the real world. There’re timing issues and they have to make a decision within the first 90 days that a product is available, so all the information about how a treatment works in the real world isn’t often available. They have staff and resource issues to try to evaluate all of the different types of information and there are also issues about what information can be available and when. So, what payers are looking for, really is optimally a wide variety of information. What is used can change from payer to payer, and may not always reflect the real-world.
Could On-Body Delivery of Isatuximab Bring More Competition to Anti-CD38 Myeloma Treatment?
June 6th 2025Results for IRAKLIA show noninferiority for Sanofi's on-body delivery system for isatuximab, compared with IV administration. Patients overwhelmingly preferred the hands-free delivery option.
Read More
Varied Access: The Pharmacogenetic Testing Coverage Divide
February 18th 2025On this episode of Managed Care Cast, we speak with the author of a study published in the February 2025 issue of The American Journal of Managed Care® to uncover significant differences in coverage decisions for pharmacogenetic tests across major US health insurers.
Listen
Zanubrutinib Shows Durable Benefit for High-Risk CLL/SLL at 5 Years in SEQUOIA Trial
June 6th 2025Zanubrutinib showed long-term efficacy in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) and deletion of the 17p chromosome, with progression-free survival similar to patients without high-risk disease characteristics.
Read More
Real-World Data Support Luspatercept vs ESAs for Anemia in Lower-Risk MDS
June 5th 2025Patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) who received luspatercept showed greater hemoglobin gains and transfusion independence compared with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in a real-world analysis.
Read More
At EHA 2025, Hematology Discussions Will Stretch Across Lifespans and Locations
June 5th 2025The 2025 European Hematology Association (EHA) Congress, convening virtually and in Milan, Italy, from June 12 to June 15, 2025, will feature a revamped program structure for the meeting’s 30th anniversary while maintaining ample opportunities to network, debate, and absorb practice-changing findings in hematology and oncology.
Read More