|
 (Reuters Health) - State-run insurance programs for the poor may be
putting up illegal barriers that prevent people with hepatitis C
from getting a new treatment, a new study suggests.
"We had this idea that there were restrictions in place, but we
didn't anticipate the breadth of these restrictions," said study
author Robert Greenwald of the Center for Health Law and Policy at
Harvard Law School in Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts.
About 3.2 million people in the U.S. are infected with hepatitis C,
but many do not feel ill or know they have the disease, according
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). There are
about 17,000 new infections each year.
Without treatment, the hepatitis C virus can lead to liver failure,
liver cancer or even death.
In 2013, the U.S. approved a new drug known as sofosbuvir, which is
marketed here as Sovaldi by Gilead. Given in combination with other
drugs, sofosbuvir achieves very high cure rates in patients with the
difficult to treat infection.
But sofosbuvir costs about $1,000 per day, which adds up to about
$84,000 for a 12-week course, the researchers write in Annals of
Internal Medicine.
For the new study, Greenwald and his colleagues searched the
Medicaid websites of each state and the District of Columbia in
2014. Medicaid, the state-run health insurance for the poor, is
partly funded by the U.S. government.
Overall, 42 state Medicaid programs put restrictions on payments for
sofosbuvir. About three quarters only allow the drug to be used when
hepatitis C has already caused liver damage known as fibrosis or an
even later stage of damage known as cirrhosis.
The vast majority of states include drug- and alcohol-based
restrictions on payments for the drug, including abstinence and drug
screening.
About two thirds of states restrict who may prescribe the
medication, the researchers write. In a third of states, for
example, it can only be prescribed by a specialist. In the other
third, nonspecialists can prescribe it but they have to consult a
specialist first.
About a quarter of states have restrictions based on the person's
HIV status.
[to top of second column] |
"I think the restrictions have significant personal and public
health implications," Greenwald told Reuters Health.
"I think anybody with a communicable disease or other medical
condition should be taking this extremely seriously, because this
gets to how our country responds to a cure," he added.
What's more, the researchers found many of the restrictions vary by
state and do not correspond with the recommendations of medical
organizations like the Infectious Diseases Society of America and
the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease.
Also, the researchers say, the restrictions may violate a federal
regulation that says state Medicaid programs must provide coverage
for drugs consistent with the labels from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration if the manufacturer has a rebate agreement with HHS.
"What we’re really seeing here is this huge push back and frankly
the insurer ruling the day so that the focus has been really on
cost," Greenwald said.
The researchers caution that they only examined traditional Medicaid
fee-for-service programs, and not managed care organizations, which
may impose additional restrictions not cataloged in their results.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/SQRXAa Annals of Internal Medicine, online
June 29, 2015.
[© 2015 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2015 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 |
