The Problem of Funding Off-label Deep Brain Stimulation: Bait-and-Switch Tactics and the Need for Policy Reform.
P. J. Rossi,J. Giordano,M. Okun
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2016.2530
IF: 29.907
JAMA Neurology
Abstract:Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is currently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat Parkinson disease, essential tremor, and dystonia. However, so-called off-label use of DBS may be permissible under research-based or compassionate use guidelines to treat severe, medication-refractory cases of other neurological and psychiatric disorders such as Tourette syndrome and obsessive-compulsive disorder. While affording promising outcomes, DBS surgery and its associated postoperative care is expensive. Mean initial surgical costs are US $65 000 per patient, and battery replacements can add an additional $10 000 to $20 000 in costs during the first 36 months postimplantation (depending on brain target and amount of electricity required).1 These costs can be daunting because governmental and commercial insurance providers are reluctant to subsidize off-label therapies. Coverage depends on preauthorization requests that require exhaustive documentation of a patient’s medical history and peer-to-peer review with an insurance provider’s medical director. Yet, even when medical necessity has been documented and coverage preapproved, third-party payers often refuse to reimburse the costs of off-label DBS, and notification of nonpayment frequently occurs after the procedure has been implemented. Most commonly, payers deny reimbursement by referring to the terms and conditions of the policy: most policies in the United States stipulate that coverage of humanitarian or investigational therapies is provisional and may be covered on a discretionary basis. To further investigate this trend, we conducted a retrospective review of claims data for all DBS procedures performed at our university-based movement disorders center over a 10-year period (January 2005 to December 2014). During this time, 18 DBS lead implantation procedures and 56 implantable pulse generator or battery-replacement procedures were performed on 26 individual patients for non–US Food and Drug Administration–approved indications. Seven patients were treated for Tourette syndrome, 5 were treated for Alzheimer disease, and 14 were treated for obsessivecompulsive disorder. The costs of 7 lead implantations and 16 implantable pulse generator/battery surgeries were covered via dedicated research grants. Of the remaining procedures requiring third-party coverage, 8 of 11 lead implantations (72%) and 25 of 40 implantable pulse generator procedures (62.5%) were not reimbursed, despite preapproval of all cases. A depiction of coverage by diagnosis is shown in Figure, A. A striking finding of our review was that greater than half of nonreimbursed procedures could be attributed to a government insurance provider’s failure to pay (Figure, B). The so-called preapproval and subsequent denial of coverage could be regarded as a bait-and-switch tactic. Physicians (and patients) are baited to believe that coverage will be provided and then when the decision to subsidize switches and payment is denied, physicians must explain to patients and their families that coverage was refused and explain why. This financial uncertainty can impose additional stress on patients that can compromise therapeutic outcomes,2 and physicians may be obliged to draw on limited research funds to help patients cover expenses. This vexing issue imposes undue burdens on patients, families, and physicians. As a result, physicians may be less likely to perform off-label DBS procedures.3 This would incur decreased enrollment in clinical studies and hinder collection of evidence necessary to determine procedural efficacy, thereby further impeding clinical benefits and ongoing research. Because we only provide data from our center, it is difficult to determine the extent to which the findings are generalizable, particularly given that in the United States, third-party payers and their policies can vary from region to region (and even within a state). However, our finding that federal government insurance providers were among those that failed to reimburse preapproved off-label care suggests that our experience may represent a national trend. Furthermore, postures toward cost reduction and benefit restriction are becoming increasingly common on the national stage and are likely to incur more widespread constraints on third-party support for DBS and other neurotechnological interventions. Simply, we do not view the system and model of third-party support as viable. We argue that given calls for the translation of advanced neurotechnologies to clinical practice,4 limiting off-label DBS therapy only to those patients capable of self-subsidizing the procedure and its attendant postsurgical care would be inconsistent with the goals and objectives of federal directives, inequitable, impractical, and somewhat disingenuous. Ideally, insurance preapproval standards and policies for off-label procedures should be more transparent, uniformly honored by third-party payers, and enforced by law. However, we acknowledge that if reforms VIEWPOINT