NON-CLINICAL FACTORS ARE THE KEY BARRIER FOR PATIENT ACCESS TO PENILE PROSTHESIS IN EMPLOYER-SPONSORED HEALTH INSURANCE
Author(s)
Lipshultz L1, Rojanasarot S2, Bhattacharyya S2, Singh J3, Buck P4, Wamble D5, Burnett A6
1Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA, 2Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA, 3New York Medical College, Newburgh, NY, USA, 4RTI Health Solutions, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 5RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA, 6Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
OBJECTIVES : Medicare and many commercial insurers have published medical policies detailing the medical necessity of penile prosthesis (PP) for erectile dysfunction (ED). Despite the widely acknowledged medical necessity, many employers have a specific benefit exclusion for PP, which creates a barrier among men enrolled in employer-sponsored health (ESH) plans. This study explored key stakeholder perceptions of the benefit exclusion for PP in ESH plans. METHODS : Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted. Pre-read information on burden and treatment options of ED was provided to 37 invited participants from 3 stakeholder segments: 13 medical directors (MDs) at commercial insurers, 22 employee benefit managers (EBMs) from self-funded employers, and 2 consulting representatives from health benefit consulting firms. Respondents were asked scripted questions regarding their awareness of employee benefits offered for PP and the processes used to consider changes to the benefits. RESULTS : Eleven participants elected to engage in an individual one-hour interview (3 MDs, 6 EBMs, 2 consulting representatives). All respondents recognized the health burden of ED and the value of PP. MDs agreed on the medical necessity of PP but recognized that benefit exclusion overrides medical policies. Four of 6 EBMs (66%) indicated their plan had a benefit exclusion for PP and they were unaware of such exclusion prior to this study. EBMs were likely to revisit their employee benefits only after an employee contacted human resources complaining about an exclusion. All respondents acknowledged that it appears gender discriminatory to have federally mandated access to breast reconstruction following a mastectomy, but no mandated access to PP for ED following a prostatectomy. CONCLUSIONS : Non-clinical factors determine patient access to PP among men with ESH plans even when key stakeholders agree on the value and medical necessity of PP. Self-funded employers are best positioned to address this benefit exclusion and allow access to this medically necessary treatment.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2020-05, ISPOR 2020, Orlando, FL, USA
Value in Health, Volume 23, Issue 5, S1 (May 2020)
Code
PIH51
Topic
Health Policy & Regulatory
Topic Subcategory
Health Disparities & Equity, Reimbursement & Access Policy
Disease
Medical Devices, Reproductive and Sexual Health, Urinary/Kidney Disorders