Payer Request for an Unpublished Network Meta-Analysis
A medical information specialist at a specialty neurology company receives a portal request from the clinical pharmacist chairing a regional health plan's P&T committee. The plan covers 480,000 members and is reviewing prior authorization criteria for the company's anti-CGRP monoclonal antibody. The pharmacist asks for the company's internal unpublished network meta-analysis comparing the drug with two competitors, including a 12-month number needed to treat and a cost-per-responder estimate. The analysis was prepared for internal formulary planning, has not been peer reviewed, and is not in the approved medical information response library. The P&T meeting is in 10 business days. The commercial account director emails the medical information specialist asking her to 'send the whole deck-it's the only thing that answers their question.' The approved label and two published head-to-head trials are available. The pharmacist also asks for real-world adherence data.
1. How should the specialist respond to the payer's request for the internal meta-analysis?
Read the worked answer
Treat it as an unsolicited request from a payer, which is legitimate to answer through medical information. The default is not to send an internal, unpublished, non-peer-reviewed network meta-analysis. It was built for formulary planning, may contain proprietary assumptions, and has not gone through medical/regulatory review; sending the 'whole deck' could be seen as promotional or misleading. What can be sent: the approved label, the two published head-to-head trials, the standard fair-balanced response, and any approved HEOR publications. If the company decides the meta-analysis can be shared, it must first go through medical, regulatory, and legal review; the methods, limitations, and uncertainty must be disclosed; and it must be provided with the label and published trials. The 10-day deadline does not override review. Process: acknowledge in writing, ask for the exact P&T questions, provide approved materials, offer a medical/HEOR call, and document the request and response. If the pharmacist needs cost-per-responder, say the company does not have an approved response and offer published estimates rather than inventing one.
2. How should she handle the commercial account director's instruction to send the entire deck?
Read the worked answer
The account director's request is a compliance red flag. Commercial staff should not direct medical information content or use medical information as a sales tool. The specialist should not send the deck because the account director asked; she should forward the request to her manager and compliance and explain that medical information responds independently and fairly. If the deck contains commercial strategy, forecasts, or unapproved claims, it is not appropriate for external use. Reasoning: payer requests are high-risk because they can influence formulary decisions; selective use of an internal analysis could be misleading. The response should be the same regardless of sales pressure. Document the commercial request and the independent decision. If the commercial team wants a payer discussion, it should use approved commercial materials through the proper review process, not the medical information channel.
3. If the P&T committee asks for a cost-per-responder estimate and no approved model exists, what can be provided?
Read the worked answer
If no approved cost-per-responder model exists, the specialist should not generate one on demand. She can provide published cost-effectiveness or budget impact studies, clearly labeled as external, plus the label and trial data. She can explain the assumptions and limitations, including differences in trial populations and time horizons. If HEOR has an approved model, it must be shared with full transparency and fair balance; if not, the honest answer is that the company cannot provide a validated estimate. Offering a call with HEOR to discuss published evidence is appropriate. Avoid saying the drug is cost-saving unless the approved model supports it. Document the P&T timeline and what was provided; if the committee asks for an unapproved analysis, escalate rather than improvise.