Managing cost of care and healthcare utilization in patients using immunoglobulin agents.

The introduction of human immunoglobulin (Ig) therapies 40 years ago reduced the risk of often life-threatening infections for individuals with one of several immune-related conditions known as primary immunodeficiencies. Since then, the use of Ig has expanded to numerous other conditions. However, even though less than 1% of covered lives under Medicare or commercial insurers require Ig, it is in the top 5 drug categories in terms of annual spending. The cost of Ig is directly related to the type of delivery method used and the site of care. Numerous studies attest to the efficacy and cost savings of shifting Ig to the home setting, as well as shifting patients from intravenous Ig (IVIG) to subcutaneous Ig (SCIG). In addition, surveys find that patients with primary immunodeficiencies prefer home delivery, with patient evaluations also finding a preference for SCIG. Payers have numerous options to ensure Ig is used appropriately for the right patient in the right setting. These include formulary management, site-of-care programs, education for providers and patients on the possibility of switching from IVIG to SCIG, preauthorization policies that restrict the use of Ig to certain specialties for specific indications, implementation of evidence-based coverage criteria, and shifting coverage from the medical to the pharmacy benefit.

Review process for IVIg treatment: Lessons learned from INSIGHTS neuropathy study.

BACKGROUND: This project is an effort to understand how orders for IV immunoglobulin (IVIg) are documented and prescribed by physicians, and subsequently, how they are reviewed by insurance companies for the treatment of immune neuropathies. METHODS: A panel of neuromuscular specialists reviewed case records from 248 IVIg-naive patients whose in-home IVIg infusion treatment was submitted to insurance for authorization. After reviewing a case record, 1 panelist was asked to make a diagnosis and to answer several questions about the treatment. A second panelist reviewed the original record and follow-up records that were obtained for reauthorization of additional treatments and was asked to determine whether the patient had responded to the treatment. RESULTS: Our specialists believed that only 32.2% of 248 patients had an immune neuropathy and were appropriate candidates for IVIg therapy, whereas 46.4% had neuropathies that were not immune mediated. Only 15.3% of cases met electrodiagnostic criteria for a demyelinating neuropathy. Our specialists believed that 36.7% of 128 cases with follow-up records had responded to therapy. In cases in which the initial reviewer had predicted that there would be a response to IVIg, the second reviewer found that 54% had responded. This is compared with a 27% response rate when the first reviewer predicted that there would be no response (p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Our expert review finds that the diagnosis of immune neuropathies made by providers, and subsequently approved for IVIg therapy by payers, is incorrect in a large percentage of cases. If payers include an expert in their review process, it would improve patient selection, appropriate use, and continuation of treatment with this expensive therapeutic agent.