Management of newer medications for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in commercial health plans

Purpose In the United States, many individuals with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) pay for their medications using private health insurance coverage. As in other drug classes, private insurers are actively seeking to influence use and costs, particularly for newer and costlier medications. The approaches that insurers use may have important effects on patients’ access to medications. This article examines approaches (eg, copayments, prior authorization, and step therapy) that commercial health plans are using to manage newer medications used to treat ADHD and changes in approaches since 2003. Methods Data are from a nationally representative survey of commercial health plans in 60 market areas regarding alcohol, drug abuse, and mental health services in 2010. Responses were obtained from 389 plans (89% response rate), reporting on 925 insurance products. For each of 6 branded ADHD medications, respondents were asked whether the plan covered the medication and, if so, on what copayment tier each medication was placed and whether it was subject to prior authorization or step therapy. Measures of management approach were constructed for each medication and for the group of medications. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were used to test for association of the management approach with various health plan characteristics. Findings There was considerable variation across these 6 medications in how tightly they were managed by health plans, with newer medications being subject to more stringent management. The proportion of insurance products relying solely on copayment tiering to manage new ADHD medications appears to have decreased since 2003. Less than half of insurance products (43%) managed these 6 medications solely by use of tier 3 or 4 placement, and most of the remainder (48%) used other restrictions (with or without tier 3 or 4 placement). The average insurance product restricted access to at least 3 of the 6 brand-only medications examined, whether through copayment tier placement or other approaches. More ADHD medications were left unrestricted in health maintenance organization products than in preferred provider organization ones, products with internal or hybrid-internal contracts for behavioral health, those not contracting with pharmacy benefits managers, and those with for-profit ownership. Implications Many plans have supplemented copayment tiering with other approaches, such as prior authorization and step therapy, to influence use and decrease costs. It may be that plans have found copayments to be less effective in redirecting use in this medication class. The effect on clinical outcomes was not examined in this study but should be prioritized using other data sources.