Seth Ginsberg, co-founder and president of the Global Healthy Living Foundation, explains how "fail-first" policies, or step therapy, affect patients.
Transcript:
What are fail-first policies, and how do they affect patients?
“Fail first” is a term often used to describe a health insurance utilization management strategy called step therapy. Step therapy is a program put into place by a patient’s health insurance provider. It encourages the use of less costly yet effective medications before more costly medications are approved for coverage. In some specific instances, step therapy can be an appropriate way to reduce cost, however when applied to more complex diseases and conditions, it can be unethical, prolong suffering, exacerbate disease, and increase cost.
Most of the time, the problem with step therapy is that it unilaterally applies a one-size fits all policy to individual patients without regard to their specific medical history. A doctor may have prescribed a more expensive, more complex medication—like a biologic—to her patient for specific reasons. For an insurance company to reject the prescription and require a patient to try something different, first, is problematic, to say the least. For example, in many cases, a patient may have already tried the less expensive medication and either not responded to it or experienced an adverse event. But if they are new to their health insurance plan, that history may be disregarded. This puts the health of the person at risk by delaying and/or preventing effective treatment. State legislatures across the country as well as Congress are addressing this issue by reforming the appeals process to bypass a step therapy procedure or accelerate an appeal. Legislation provides specific criteria with which a physician can use justify an appeal and puts in place response time requirements that insurers must comply with when answering appeal submissions from patients and providers.
Fail-first policies intrude on the patient/physician relationship and lead to:
Our organization has been a leader in helping people understand fail-first practices, educating policy makers and regulators about fail-first practices, and keeping the public updated on each state’s approach to fail first. The web site for that information is www.FailFirstHurts.org.
BioRationality: EMA Accepts Waiver of Clinical Efficacy Testing of Biosimilars
April 21st 2025Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, shares his latest citizen's petition to the FDA, calling on the agency to waive clinical efficacy testing in response to the European Medicines Agency's (EMA) efforts towards the same goal.
How AI Can Help Address Cost-Related Nonadherence to Biologic, Biosimilar Treatment
March 9th 2025Despite saving billions, biosimilars still account for only a small share of the biologics market—what's standing in the way of broader adoption and how can artificial intelligence (AI) help change that?
How State Substitution Laws Shape Insulin Biosimilar Adoption
April 15th 2025States with fewer restrictions on biosimilar substitution tend to see higher uptake of interchangeable insulin glargine, showing how even small policy details can significantly influence biosimilar adoption and expand access to more affordable insulin.
Will the FTC Be More PBM-Friendly Under a Second Trump Administration?
February 23rd 2025On this episode of Not So Different, we explore the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) second interim report on pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) with Joe Wisniewski from Turquoise Health, discussing key issues like preferential reimbursement, drug pricing transparency, biosimilars, shifting regulations, and how a second Trump administration could reshape PBM practices.
BioRationality: Commemorating the 15th Anniversary of the BPCIA
April 8th 2025Affirming that analytical characterization is often sufficient for biosimilar approval, minimizing unnecessary clinical testing, and enhancing FDA-led education to counter stakeholder misconceptions are key recommendations put forth in this opinion piece by Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD.