Skip to main content

Should Insurance Companies Pay for Off-Label Drugs?

Usually, we doctors give you advice.   In this case, I’d like readers to offer an opinion on an issue that patients and I face regularly.

First, let’s acknowledge the huge reservoir of frustration and anger directed against insurance companies concerning their coverage decisions.  I have willingly entered this arena to wage battles for patients.  Despite my vigorous prosecutions of these contests, the outcomes have been variable.  Indeed, these competitions are not for the causal physician combatant.  The doctor must have the mettle, determination, skill and endurance of a Navy SEAL if there is to be any prospect of success.

Some of my prior duels against Big Pharma and Big Insurance are chronicled in the Pharmaceutical Quality category on this blog. 

Considering many insurance company coverage actions and decisions, it is understandable that patients do not believe that these companies prioritize the health of their members. 

Although it is understandable to demonize this industry, insurance companies are businesses, not charitable organizations.  While they deserve opprobrium for many of their practices, they are not always in the wrong.  We cannot expect them to pay for every medical treatment that we doctors recommend or that patients desire. 

For example, should insurance companies be required to cover medicines that are prescribed off-label?  Every prescription drug has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) only for certain specific conditions.  For example, gastroenterologists see many patients with nausea.  We commonly prescribe Zofran (ondansetron), an effective anti-nausea medicine.  The FDA has approved this medicine for nausea resulting from chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation treatment.  Most of the patients for whom I prescribe ondansetron fall outside of this FDA list of indications.  I am prescribing the medicine off-label, albeit for the same symptom of nausea.  In this instance, insurance companies have generally covered the drug.


Should off-label prescriptions be covered?

There are other instances where the off-label use is for an entirely different purpose.  For instance, gastroenterologists commonly prescribe a drug that is FDA-approved to lower cholesterol to patients with certain types of diarrhea.  Often, insurance companies will not cover this off-label use for a medical complaint entirely distinct from the drug’s approved role, even though this off-label use is considered to be routine use. 

These can be difficult issues that may have medical-ethical dimensions. We have all heard of agonizing situations when an insurance company declines to pay for an experimental medicine for a patient who is desperate to receive it.  And to make it more complex, there may be a dispute within the medical community if the treatment is experimental or is actually an established therapy. 

Should a drug that is effective for a medical condition but is not FDA-approved for it be covered by insurance companies?  If so, would we all be willing to pay much higher premiums to accommodate this greatly expanded list of off-label treatments?

What do readers think about all of this?  Should any drug prescribed by your doctor be covered?  If not, when are insurance companies justified to refuse? 

 

Comments

  1. Plain and simple....doctors know more than insurance companies! We pay insurance companies so we can see doctors that know more than insurance companies! If "off label" meds may work for the issue, then the insurance company should pay for them!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. As a family doctor, I have been frustrated by the lack of coverage for meds that are off label but fairly standard practice. Most of the time these are covered. The use of Colestid for post cholecystectomy diarrhea that you allude to is a good example. On occasion an insurance company may actually have a good idea. Once a patient came to me on daily stadol injections and I reluctantly continued them for a time. The insurance company decided they would not pay for it anymore and to my surprise and delight the patient managed her pain with Tylenol from then on. More often though we are frustrated by lack of coverage or inadequate coverage of key meds like inhalers or immune modulators.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Stop Medical Malpractice: The White Coat Wall of Silence

Photo Credit Leisure Guy, one of my most faithful commenters, opines that I am omitting an important aspect of the tort reform argument. He has implored me repeatedly to read a particular book that I suspect buttresses his views, but this worthy pursuit is simply not near the top of my priority pyramid. Since he’s retired, he enjoys the luxury of burrowing deeply into the base of his priority pyramid. With 4 tuitions to go, retirement is a distant mirage for me. I’m can be a ‘leisure guy’, but only in my dreams. I have written throughout this blog and elsewhere that there are too many frivolous lawsuits against physicians. I have admitted that caps on non-economic damages are not ideal, because they deny some worthy plaintiffs of complete compensation, but I support them because I believe they serve the greater good. I have ranted that there is no effective filter to screen out physicians who should never be invited to the litigation party in the first place. I believe that the...

When Should Doctors Retire?

I am asked with some regularity whether I am aiming to retire in the near term.  Years ago, I never received such inquiries.  Why now?   Might it be because my coiffure and goatee – although finely-manicured – has long entered the gray area?  Could it be because many other even younger physicians have given up their stethoscopes for lives of leisure? (Hopefully, my inquiring patients are not suspecting me of professional performance lapses!) Interestingly, a nurse in my office recently approached me and asked me sotto voce that she heard I was retiring.    “Interesting,” I remarked.   Since I was unaware of this retirement news, I asked her when would be my last day at work.   I have no idea where this erroneous rumor originated from.   I requested that my nurse-friend contact her flawed intel source and set him or her straight.   Retirement might seem tempting to me as I have so many other interests.   Indeed, reading and ...

Prostate Cancer Screening: Stop The PSA Train!

About 10 years ago, my dad was to see his general internist. I have always refrained from giving medical advice to my family, for all of the reasons why doctors should not treat or advise their relatives. But, on this occasion, I did give Dad some unsolicited advice, particularly as I knew that his physician fired the diagnostic testing trigger readily. “Dad, please make sure that he doesn’t check the PSA (prostate specific antigen) test.” Dad indicated that he would convey my concern to his doctor, who ran the test on him anyway. Apparently, he includes the PSA test as a matter of routine on all men over a certain age. Twenty-five years ago as a curious, but skeptical medical student, I learned about prostate cancer. I learned that every man will develop it if he lives long enough. I learned that most cases of prostate cancer remain silent and never interfere with the individual’s life. I learned that the treatment for these cancers involves either major surgery or radiation, both of ...