In Some States, Lilly
Oversee Use of Its Drug Zyprexa
Eli Lilly has offered to monitor doctors to make sure they are not
wasting money on mental illness drugs.
(March 23, 2007) -- Many states, looking to rein in the cost of expensive
antipsychotic drugs like
Zyprexa, have turned to an unusual ally for help — the very company that
sells the drug.
At more than $300 for a monthly prescription, Zyprexa, which is used to
treat
schizophrenia and
bipolar disorder, is the single biggest drug cost for state Medicaid
budgets.
So Eli Lilly, the maker of Zyprexa, offers to help states monitor doctors
who treat Medicaid patients to make sure they are not wasting money on
mental illness drugs because of what psychiatrists call “sloppy
prescribing” — giving patients too many similar medications or doses that
are too high. Twenty states use Lilly’s free service.
But some experts question why these states let Lilly help oversee
spending on its own medication.
“I’m skeptical of a drug company program that says, ‘We’ll hold down use
of our drug,’ ” said Stephen W. Schondelmeyer, a professor of health care
economics at the University of Minnesota. He described such programs as
thinly disguised marketing.
Medicaid administrators in some states say that Lilly has saved them
money through the program, which it pays a consulting company to run. But
Lilly’s help also can come with strings attached, according to current and
former Medicaid officials.
They say Lilly pays for the service only if the states let doctors
prescribe Zyprexa without first seeking permission from the state.
Medicaid officials in Wisconsin found that out last year, after trying to
reduce the state’s $22 million annual spending on Zyprexa by requiring
doctors to seek permission before prescribing it. Lilly responded by ending
the program.
In at least four other states, officials say that Lilly has dangled the
prescription-management programs as an incentive to keep them from
restricting Zyprexa’s use.
Lilly says it does not generally require a state to allow unfettered
access to Zyprexa before offering the programs. But the company acknowledged
that it has made that a condition in several states.
And a Lilly spokeswoman, Janice M. Chavers, acknowledged that the company
was not currently operating the program in states that required doctors to
seek permission to prescribe Zyprexa for Medicaid patients. Wisconsin,
Tennessee, Pennsylvania and nine other states have placed Medicaid
restrictions on the drug.
The company declines to say how much it has spent on the monitoring
programs, which are operated by a pharmaceutical research and consulting
company, Comprehensive NeuroScience of White Plains, N.Y.
Similar industry-sponsored monitoring programs have been established to
manage diseases like diabetes, asthma and chronic heart failure. But in
mental health drugs, Lilly’s effort is the biggest.
The Lilly program has operated in two dozen states since it began in
2003. Doctors who veer from guidelines on dosage strengths and combinations
of medications for Medicaid patients are sent “Dear Doctor” letters pointing
out that their prescribing patterns fall outside the norm. Compliance is
voluntary.
The program also tracks whether patients are renewing prescriptions.
Doctors are notified if patients are not, to prevent setbacks in their
condition.
Because many of the nation’s mentally ill are poor, Medicaid programs are
among the largest purchasers of antipsychotic drugs like Zyprexa. Medicaid
agencies spent more than $1.3 billion on the drug in 2005.
But Zyprexa’s cost is only one reason for the caution. Another concern
for states is the drug’s link to weight gain and increased blood sugar,
precursors to diabetes. In 2004, the American Diabetes Association found
that Zyprexa was more likely to cause diabetes than many other antipsychotic
drugs.
Zyprexa can be highly effective. And Lilly says that a clear connection
between the drug and diabetes has never been established.
Separate from the Medicaid monitoring programs, Lilly’s marketing of
Zyprexa is the subject of lawsuits by seven states that claim the company
hid side effects of the drug and
promoted it for
unapproved uses.
Lilly, also under state and federal investigation for its marketing of
Zyprexa, denies the accusations and says it has behaved legally and
appropriately.
Lilly acknowledges that it decided to finance the programs in response to
state efforts to cut costs. In some cases, the states were drawing up lists
of drugs that were preferred and others that require prior approval.
Lilly says it objects to such lists because it believes in open access
for all mental health drugs. For people with serious mental illness, the
company says, doctors need the freedom to use what works best.
“For this population, it’s been shown time and time again that drugs are
not interchangeable,” Jack E. Bailey, a Lilly vice president, said.
On that score, the company has support from many mental health advocates
who argue that open access to medications saves money by reducing hospital
admissions and keeping patients productive. But current or former officials
in Georgia, Kentucky and Tennessee are among those who say Lilly tied the
program to unrestricted access to Zyprexa and the company’s other mental
health drugs.
Lilly’s pitch in 2005 was, “ ‘we’ll fund this program if you put our
product on the preferred-drug list,’ ” said David Beshara, chief pharmacy
officer for Tennessee Medicaid.
Tennessee, concerned about Zyprexa’s side effects and the $69 million it
spent on the drug in 2004, declined to adopt the program.
Mr. Beshara said the potential savings from the program were unclear. And
he cited another concern: the program has been offered in lieu of rebates
that companies often pay to states that place their drugs on preferred
lists.
In Pennsylvania, the former state deputy secretary for medical
assistance, James L. Hardy, said Lilly had offered to pay for a
prescription-monitoring program instead of rebates before the state
developed its preferred-drug list in 2005. He declined to go along.
“I didn’t like that commingling of service and rebates,” Mr. Hardy said.
“I want to manage the benefit, and I want to get the best rebate deal I can.
I don’t want to settle for half a loaf.”
Mr. Hardy said Pennsylvania eventually placed Zyprexa on a list of
restricted drugs.
Some states, notably Michigan and Missouri, have publicized results
showing that the Lilly program helped save money. And they generally praise
the program.
“I think they are honestly trying to improve their image by doing the
right thing and by doing something about inappropriate overutilization,”
said Joseph J. Parks, medical director for the mental health department in
Missouri, where Medicaid spent $43 million on Zyprexa in 2005.
Dr. Parks has served as a paid consultant to Comprehensive NeuroScience.
Officials in Michigan said that they, too, had saved money with the
program. But Ben Hansen, a mental health advocate in that state, has
challenged Lilly’s assurances that the program is run independently of the
company.
Mr. Hansen, who describes the program as “incestuous,” obtained documents
through a Freedom of Information request that showed a Lilly account
executive had asked to take part in planning sessions and offered to have
Lilly representatives brief doctors.
Michigan officials said that the Lilly account executive had not been
involved in policy decisions.
In Oregon, where Lilly set up a program in 2004, the state’s former
mental health director, David A. Pollack, recalls that he came to suspect a
hidden agenda. He said that Comprehensive NeuroScience resisted two
cost-saving techniques.
One was pill-splitting. Because drugs frequently cost about the same at
various strengths, some experts recommend buying higher doses and splitting
the pills. Another proposed technique was to have patients who had been
prescribed two pills a day take only a single higher-dose pill.
“The economics are straightforward,” said Dr. Pollack, a psychiatrist.
But he said that Comprehensive NeuroScience resisted his effort to
incorporate the idea in their letters to doctors. The state paid for its own
letters to doctors recommending the techniques.
Comprehensive NeuroScience contends that it did not oppose Oregon’s use
of the techniques, but says that there is little data on their effectiveness
with mental illness patients.
In Kentucky, where Lilly acknowledges having linked support of the
program to preferred status for Zyprexa, the company’s persistence may pay
off.
In 2003, after Kentucky Medicaid officials restricted Zyprexa’s use, the
company offered about $5 million worth of such management programs in the
state, said Robert Hughes, former chairman of a committee in charge of
reviewing drugs.
“I strongly suspect that it was a way to keep their drug from being
prior-authorized,” recalled Dr. Hughes, a doctor in Murray, Ky.
At the time, Kentucky spurned Lilly’s offer, Dr. Hughes said.
But late last year, the state agreed to accept the program financed by
Lilly. In exchange, Zyprexa would be placed on the preferred list of
medications. The arrangement is awaiting approval by the federal Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Thomas
Badgett, the current Medicaid medical director in Kentucky, predicts that
the Lilly program will help curtail spending.
But Wisconsin has found that it can save more money without Lilly’s help.
Since Wisconsin placed restrictions on Zyprexa and three other antipsychotic
drugs last year, and Lilly ended its program, the state says its spending on
those drugs has declined by $4 million.
Source: StarNewsOnline.com
Last updated: 03/07
Related Information:
back to
top ~ bipolar news index~
send page to a
friend |