When Marie D'Orsaneo's rheumatoid arthritis worsened three years ago, her doctor prescribed Rituxan, an expensive injectable drug that her employer-sponsored health plan had to sign off on first.
In the four weeks D'Orsaneo waited for that approval, the 41-year-old physician's assistant says her health deteriorated so rapidly she had to leave her job, move in with relatives and was eventually hospitalized.
"I couldn't afford to pay for the drug on my own," says D'Orsaneo, who lives in Philadelphia and estimates Rituxan costs about $7,000 per month plus facility costs. "But waiting came with a huge cost of its own."
Fewer and fewer consumers today can count on their prescription drug benefits to cover all the medications they take with no restrictions. Overall prescription drug costs have fallen, thanks to greater use of generics. The exception is specialty drugs, typically biologics, for which there are currently no substitutes. In addition to rheumatoid arthritis, these medications often treat difficult-to-manage conditions including multiple sclerosis, chronic pain, HIV and cancer.
Approximately 57 million Americans rely on specialty drugs, according to the Independent Specialty Pharmacy Coalition. The cost is high — averaging $1,766 per prescription in 2011, according to prescription benefits manager Express Scripts. Traditional drugs cost $53.97 per prescription on average.
The number of patients who could benefit from these more sophisticated therapies will only continue to grow, in some cases by 15 percent annually. "By 2016, seven of the top-selling drugs are going to be specialty drugs," says Adam J. Fein of Pembroke Consulting, whose clients are pharmaceutical manufacturers.
Employers are struggling to contain costs. Many have adopted tiered prescription benefit plans, with specialty drugs in the fourth tier, which has the highest cost-sharing either through co-payments or co-insurance. Plus, only about half of employees have any annual cap on how much co-insurance they'll pay on fourth-tier prescriptions, according to the 2012 Kaiser/HRET Employer Health Benefits Survey.
Also common is requiring prior approval for a particular drug or "step therapy" where a patient must try a number of cheaper drugs before they will cover certain prescriptions. Other prescription plans mandate where pharmacy members must purchase specialty drugs. A new trend limits the quantity of medication dispensed to cover 30 days in order to prove it is effective first, according to a recent survey by drugmaker EMC Serono Inc.
The issue, patient advocates say, is that any cost-savings must be weighed against severe health consequences like D'Orsaneo's. "For rheumatoid arthritis, for instance, waiting for prior authorization or trying an ineffective drug first can mean the loss of a joint. How do you price losing the use of your thumb?" says Seth Ginsberg of the New York-based non-profit Global Healthy Living Foundation.
Several states, including California, New York and New Jersey, are now considering legislation that would ban so-called "fail first" policies, Ginsberg says. "Insurance plans should not come between the patient and the doctor who is right there with them, deciding what the best course of treatment is."
Some relief is in sight. Starting in 2014, the Affordable Care Act will require insurers to restrict out-of-pocket costs, including for prescription drugs. The cap for an individual will be about $6,000 and $12,000 for families.
There are steps a patient can take now to help ease the path to the medication they need. Here are few tips:
- Contact the drug manufacturer directly. Fein recommends doing this before ever reaching out to your health plan because most have a group that assists patients in navigating the insurance approval process as quickly as possible.
You may qualify for the drugmaker's patient assistance program, which can bring down the price dramatically. Seven out of 10 biologic makers, for instance, have programs to offset co-pays, according to a September survey by Zitter Group, a life-sciences research firm.
Drugmaker Amgen's copay offset program for Enbrel, a rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis treatment, for example, saved patients, on average, $180.82 per prescription in copays during the first three quarters of 2012, according to the Zitter Group research. Patients paid no co-pay at all for the first six months on treatment, and $10 per refill for the next six months.
- Charm your doctor's office administrator. Health plans often require prior authorizations to be faxed in triplicate. That's why one of the biggest hurdles to treatment can be the paperwork alone, necessitating a great deal of patience from your doctor's staff. Being polite and persistent goes a long way.
- Work with your doctor to document your health history. Maintaining an on-going record of what therapies you've tried in the past can head off some questions in a prior approval process upfront.
"We've had clients whose insurance companies will make them go back and try medicines they've already failed on years before," says Brittany Allen, a staff attorney for the group Advocacy for Patients with Chronic Illness. "But some allow a look-back period that will grandfather them in."
Doctors can also help find creative solutions. When Pat Killingsworth was diagnosed in 2007 with multiple myeloma, a bone marrow cancer, his doctors at Mayo Clinic prescribed Revlimid, an oral chemotherapy drug. But his health insurer, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, refused to pay, saying the FDA had not approved Revlimid for newly diagnosed patients and insisting he try an older therapy first.
With the help of his doctors and nurses, Killingsworth found a loophole -- he'd previously had radiation therapy -- and his insurance appeal was granted. "It wasn't what the insurance company originally wanted, but they accepted it anyway," Killingsworth, now a patient advocate living in Weeki Wachee, Florida.
- Ask your employer for help. Three in five workers are in a self-insured health plan, according to the Kaiser 2012 survey. That means their employer has assumed the financial risk of enrollees' medical claims, even if a third-party firm administers them.
Going to your employer directly then can sometimes speed up the approval process, Allen says, especially if you have been with the company for several years. Although rare, self-insured employers may also be willing to overrule their health plan in the case of a denial.
- Appeal plan decisions. The worst-case scenario is that a request for a treatment is turned down. Every decision, however, can be appealed, a process that your insurer should provide instructions on in its denial letter. In Allen's experience, about 80 percent of appeals have led to a denial being overturned. Here again, however, maintaining comprehensive medical records is important.
- Pay attention to deadlines. "If you miss one, you don't get another chance," Allen adds.
Want more health news? Don't miss these stories on NBCNews.com
Copyright 2013 Thomson Reuters. Click for restrictions.

This is a prime example of why our health care costs are so high. Pharmaceutical companies are developing and marketing "specialty drugs" that are economically unviable and unaffordable to the end user. To get around this, they lobby Congress to subsidize the cost and to force private health insurance companies to provide coverage. These companies then raise their rates to all of us to cover their losses. This will only get worse under the Affordable Health Care Act that caps cost to an individual at $6000 for a prescription that costs on average $21,122 ($1766*12) a year. That $15,000 plus will be added to everyone's premium.
These specialty drugs are life savers for some, and the only option to treat some pretty unbearable conditions. I don't know why you think congress subsides their costs, I doubt that. I costs close to a billion with a b to bring some of these drugs to market, that is ultimately why they cost so much. The pharmaceuticals need to recover their costs of development. Why do they cost so much? You can thank in part the overly restrictive FDA. The standards for safety have been raised too high. All drugs have side effects and risks. At some point we have to realize that the cost of raising the bar of safety is creating drug costs that are absolutely out of control. We need to accept a little more risk, and make more drugs available over the counter and through better regulated compounding pharmacies.
The cost is high because they can charge it. In capitalism you can charge what ever you want. This has nothing to do with ACA, it has to do with how much profit the drug companies want to take home.
I agree that these drugs are a lifeline and a blessing to the people that benefit from them, but this does not mean that we don't all pay for it in one way or another. In a true free market, only those able to afford the $7000 a month cost would have access to it. Unfortunately, there are not enough people who could benefit from the drug and afford it for the pharmaceutical companies to recoup their research and development costs. Therfore, to make the product economically viable for the company, they lobby to make it more "affordable" to those who can't afford it. Ultimately somebody has to subsidize the cost of these drugs in some form or another. One convenient form is higher premiums for all. This is just one example of why our per capita health costs are so much higher than other developed countries.
UG1 -- We need to accept a bit more risk and lower our standards for acceptance? You mean like Thalidomide? Tight standards by the FDA kept it off the US market many years ago and prevented a large number of babies with terrible birth defects. Google it, the story is dreadful.
Believe it or not, thalidomide has several uses besides what it was mis-used for. One of them is treating leprosy...
"In the four weeks D'Orsaneo waited for that approval, the 41-year-old physician's assistant says her health deteriorated so rapidly she had to leave her job, move in with relatives and was eventually hospitalized."
DEATH PANELS?
"Insurance plans should not come between the patient and the doctor who is right there with them, deciding what the best course of treatment is."
We have "Death Panels" already.......they just cost FAR MORE than universal health care.
Death PanelsI mean "Health Insurance Companies" waste more money trying to avoid proper health care than they would spend if they just went directly to the recommended treatment. They also cause a ton of HARM. I experienced this personally.....I ruptured a disc in my lower back and they insisted on "physical therapy" first, even though the doctor recommended IMMEDIATE SURGERY. If the operation had been done as the doctor said I would still have use of my right leg. Permanent nerve damage caused by the "therapy" resulted in paralysis of the lower half of my right leg. I now have to wear a leg brace just to walk and no longer can perform the field work necessary in my Surveying job. If they had just done the surgery right away they would have saved a lot of money. My life has been severely compromised by their stupidity. I also have permanent pain in my right leg and NOW have to go to a Pain Management clinic. But that's O.K......as long as the CEO got another yacht.Of note is that many specialty drugs are sold in other countries, often under different trade names, at much lower cost. Some patients have found ways to import them in order to make the cost of their therapy more affordable. In some cases, it is the only way they can receive it. I learned not to mention this to any pharma sales reps (they get apoplectic), but I do remind them of the inherent faults in their business model. unbalanced.
If anyone watches television today you will see the flood of commercials put out by drug companies trying to sell the "latest and greatest" drug on the market. Pharmaceutical companies are going directly to the consumers (who most of which are not doctors, instead of to doctors themselves. This results in patients thinking they need X drug, which is often the new brand drug or specialty drug on the market. Self-Insured employers take on the responsibility of their member's claims, often with only a minimal portion of the burden being placed on the member. Requiring a prior-authorization does NOT take 4 weeks, and only would if proper procedures were not followed. I know this as I work with them every day. Often they take hours to a couple of days to approve depending on whether the physician's office submitted the proper paperwork. Furthermore, prior-authorization prevents abuse of drugs and adds an added layer of protection to the patient's health by looking for drug interactions that the "current prescribing doctor" may not be aware of. Employers who implement cost saving mechanisms such as step therapy are not trying to penalize a member, but only to look for more cost effective ways of treating a disease (e.g. there are many generics on the market that can treat certain conditions just as well as the newest brand medication). Lastly, people should take a minute to try and understand the cost their employers face by offering them health insurance benefits. By covering every speciality drug at 100%, it won't be long before the company fails to offer benefits or is bankrupt.