ArticleJournal of managed care & specialty pharmacy2026
Use of clinical outcome assessments in specialty drug coverage policies.
Article in Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Patient experience data in formulary decision-making: Payer-reported perceptions and use.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical outcome assessments (COAs) are tools widely used in clinical trials to evaluate treatment efficacy by capturing patient experience. However, little is known about how COAs are used in specialty drug coverage decisions.
objectiveTo describe the frequency, type, and role of COAs in US commercial health plans' specialty drug coverage policies.
methodsWe analyzed coverage data from the Tufts Medical Center Specialty Drug Evidence and Coverage (SPEC) Database, which tracks specialty drug coverage policies from 18 large US commercial health plans. Researchers reviewed each policy to identify disease-specific COAs, excluding tools assessing objective physiological data or clinical algorithms (eg, biomarkers, risk prediction scores). We categorized COAs by (1) type (ie, patient-reported outcomes [PROs], clinician-reported outcomes [ClinROs], etc), (2) time point (initial approval vs reauthorization), and (3) application (ie, supporting diagnosis, documenting baseline, limiting access for initial criteria; or defining meaningful treatment response for reauthorization criteria).
resultsAs of April 2024, SPEC included 13,933 coverage policies for 440 specialty drugs for 386 indications. These policies incorporated COAs for 169 (43.8%) indications. In total, 2,188 (15.7%) policies referenced at least 1 COA, and of these 763 (34.9%) referenced multiple COAs. Because policies can incorporate COAs into both initial and reauthorization criteria, we identified 4,305 total COA references. Inclusion of COAs varied across plans, ranging from 5% to 27.2% of coverage decisions. COAs appeared 2,077 times in initial criteria, most commonly as ClinROs (69.0%) and infrequently as PROs (5.7%). In initial criteria, plans primarily used COAs to limit access (50.5%), whereas in reauthorization criteria, plans used COAs to determine treatment response.
conclusionsCOA inclusion varied across plans, with most using them to limit access. ClinROs were the most frequently used COA type, underscoring the pivotal role of providers on behalf of patients and health plans in shaping treatment access decisions. Plans used PROs relatively infrequently, with some including PROs in their policies more than others, suggesting a missed opportunity to consistently incorporate patients' voices to complement the assessment of treatment outcomes when determining coverage. Future research should explore the rationale behind COA use and its implications for treatment access.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.