Understanding the evolution of coverage policies for prophylaxis treatments of hemophilia A without inhibitors: a payer Delphi panel

BACKGROUND: The landscape for hemophilia A prophylaxis is rapidly expanding from factor VIII replacement therapy to include novel treatments such as nonfactor replacement therapies that may enhance coagulation (e.g., emicizumab) or inhibit anticoagulant pathways (e.g., fitusiran and concizumab). For payers, this expansion presents challenges in balancing well-established treatments with new options that cost more and have lesser known real-world safety and efficacy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate likely coverage practices for hemophilia A prophylaxis therapies among U.S. payers given evolving real-world data on safety and efficacy. METHODS: A 3-round modified Delphi process was conducted with representatives of U.S. commercial health plans who had considerable expertise in managing populations of patients with hemophilia. Round 1 consisted of an online questionnaire; round 2 involved an online discussion about the aggregated results from round 1; and round 3 allowed participants to revise their responses from round 1 based on insights gained during round 2. Questions elicited ratings, rankings, and estimates on access restrictions based on given safety and efficacy information for hemophilia A prophylaxis therapies. Consensus was reached if ≥ 74% of panelists (14 of 19) were within 1 SD of the median group estimate during round 3. RESULTS: 19 Payers participated in the research. Among them, 94% dealt with commercial insurance, 94% with Medicare, and 81% with Medicaid; 79% had spent ≥ 5 years in their current role. Panelists reported limited access restrictions on hemophilia A prophylaxis therapies; the most common restrictions were prior authorization (n = 16, 84%) and quantity level limits (n = 13, 67%). Tiering and step therapy were reported by 7 respondents (39%). Respondents agreed that there was an 80% median likelihood that ≥ 9 additional patients with any safety event (e.g., thrombotic event, death) per year would trigger access restrictions, with the median likelihood of restrictions increasing to 95% for another ≥ 10 patients with safety events per year. Respondents also agreed that > 5 thrombotic events requiring treatment per patient per year would have a 98% median likelihood of leading to access restrictions and that ≥ 5 years of real-world safety and efficacy data would be highly likely (95% median likelihood) to affect coverage decisions. Noncoverage was highly unlikely (ranked fifth or sixth of 6 by 14 respondents), as was no restriction-coverage parity (ranked sixth of 6 by 10 respondents). All else being equal, cost continues to affect access policies, with respondents agreeing that a 13%-30% difference in net cost may lead to preferred formulary treatment for a drug with superior efficacy and noninferior safety, inferior efficacy and noninferior safety, or noninferior efficacy and inferior safety. CONCLUSIONS: Payers prefer treatments with well-understood efficacy, safety, and cost over newer treatments with uncertain long-term effects. Relatively unrestricted access to legacy and new hemophilia A prophylaxis will likely continue unless additional real-world safety concerns or major cost differences emerge.