Open AccessPayer Perspectives on Intravenous versus Subcutaneous Administration of Drugs
Author(s) -
Robert S. Epstein
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
clinicoeconomics and outcomes research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.591
H-Index - 27
ISSN - 1178-6981
DOI - 10.2147/ceor.s317687
Subject(s) - formulary , medicine , intensive care medicine , administration (probate law) , pharmacy , stakeholder , drug administration , health care , pharmacology , family medicine , public relations , political science , law , economics , economic growth
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has brought increased attention to vulnerable populations such as older or immunocompromised patients and heightened the focus on alternatives to intravenous (IV) formulations, particularly those that may be administered in a non-clinical setting. Among these alternative formulations are subcutaneous (SC) injections, which comprise an increasing share of commercialized and pipeline therapies. While much has been published about the benefits and limitations of IV versus SC administration to patients and health systems, less attention has been given to payer considerations regarding these routes of administration. Accordingly, this article provides payer perspectives on some of the key differences between IV and SC administration as they relate to management and billing, cost, treatment adherence and safety, and patient preference and quality of life. The benefits and limitations of these drug administration routes to key healthcare stakeholders-namely patients, physicians, and payers-are also discussed. Considerations of relevance are highlighted, including the potential for misalignment of stakeholder interests and countervailing factors that may impact decision-making about IV and SC formulations.