Justifying insurance coverage for orphan drugs

February 7, 2012

How can insurers justify spending hundreds of thousands of dollars per patient per year on "orphan drugs" – extremely expensive medications for rare conditions that are mostly chronic and life-threatening -- when this money could provide greater overall health benefit if spread out among many other patients? Those spending decisions reflect the "rule of rescue," the value that our society places on saving lives in immediate danger at any expense. But the broad application of the rule of rescue will be increasingly difficult to support as "personalized medicine" produces more drugs genetically targeted to relatively small groups of patients, concludes an article in the Hastings Center Report. For example, rather than a new blockbuster drug that treats millions with hypertension, new targeted therapies will treat only those few thousand with a particular genetic makeup.

"Orphan drug coverage decisions highlight the tension that can arise in health care between doing the most good possible with scarce health care resources and the desire to assist identifiable individuals regardless of cost," write the authors, Emily A. Largent, a candidate in the Ph.D. Program in Health Policy at Harvard University, and Steven D. Pearson, a visiting scientist in the National Institutes of Health Department of Bioethics and president of the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review at Massachusetts General Hospital.

The number of has dramatically increased since the passage of the Orphan Drug Act of 1983, which, in response to patient advocacy and public pressure, has provided an incentive for orphan drug development. In the decade before the act was passed, only 10 new drugs for rare diseases were developed. Twenty-five years later, orphan drugs represented roughly one-third of all newly approved drugs and biologics, the article reports.

The authors propose an ethical framework to guide coverage and reimbursement decisions for expensive orphan drugs based on a critical analysis of the arguments embedded in the rule of rescue.

The first argument is that we have a greater moral impulse to help patients when we can see them as individuals rather than as anonymous members of a group. Advocacy organizations for rare illnesses sometimes publicize patients with photo campaigns and other means. But the authors conclude that "no persuasive rationale exists for using identifiability in resource allocation at the policy level, and, indeed, strong ethical arguments can be made against it." Appeals to identifiability can be unethical, the authors state, because they give an unfair advantage to patients whose condition produces visible signs of illness.

The second argument is that we should give priority to saving people whose lives are endangered. But the authors conclude that this argument cannot justify coverage for orphan drugs without also considering the outcomes: in general, lifesaving orphan therapies and therapies that restore or maintain capacities central to functioning in society should be covered and those that do not achieve these health outcomes should not be covered.

The third argument concerns opportunity costs. Advocates have long presumed that the opportunity costs of expensive orphan drugs are low because the small number of people using them represents a small overall expense to an insurer. But, the authors state, this may no longer be accurate as more orphan drugs enter the research pipeline, a trend that personalized medicine will exacerbate. They call for opportunity costs to be explicitly, and transparently, included in any coverage decision.

"Tomorrow's medical care will feature a growing number of expensive therapies that offer benefit only to small populations," the authors conclude. They add that their "conceptual framework offers an advance over current decision-making practices" about coverage for orphan drugs. Instead of identifiability being a factor in decision-making, "potential health gains must be evaluated in context to determine whether they provide a meaningful benefit beyond what is already available, and the opportunity costs must be weighed to determine whether they are acceptable."

Explore further: Reducing drug funding to Medicare patients will lead many to stop taking their medications

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Can nicotine protect the aging brain?

September 20, 2016

Everyone knows that tobacco products are bad for your health, and even the new e-cigarettes may have harmful toxins. However, according to research at Texas A&M, it turns out the nicotine itself—when given independently ...

Science can shape healthy city planning

September 23, 2016

Previous studies have shown a correlation between the design of cities and growing epidemics of injuries and non-communicable diseases such as heart disease, diabetes and cancer. A three-part series published in The Lancet ...

50-country comparison of child and youth fitness levels

September 21, 2016

An international research team co-led from the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) and the University of North Dakota studied the aerobic fitness levels of children and youth across 50 countries. The results are ...


Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.