Chad explains how barriers to access for infused therapies—including site-of-care changes and financial clearance delays—often cause patients to disengage before receiving the first dose. He shares one patient’s story illustrating the need for a strong patient services partner with coordinated systems and digital handoffs.
To learn more, download CareMetx’s latest guide: Don’t Risk Your Launch in the First 90 Days.
Read on for Chad’s insights.
Why Site of Care Is the Hidden Barrier in Neurology’s Bright Pipeline
By Chad Zerangue, Founder, InfuseFlow; Sr. Director, Enterprise Provider Sales, CareMetx
Upwards of 60% of these novel treatments are delivered through infusion. For manufacturers preparing to bring them to market, this raises an urgent consideration: the path from prescription to infusion remains fragmented, with multiple fail points where patients often disengage, never receiving the first dose.
If you’re preparing to launch an infused therapy and want deeper strategic guidance on avoiding early pitfalls and ensuring the best patient and provider experience, download CareMetx's latest guide.
The Referral-to-Infusion Gap
Consider Luisa, a 52-year-old woman living with multiple sclerosis. For years she has relied on a self-injected therapy that generally keeps her symptoms under control, and she has grown comfortable with this care routine. But when her condition begins to worsen, her neurologist points to a newly approved infused therapy that could offer greater relief. He writes the prescription, sends the referral, and explains that she should expect to begin soon. Luisa wants to feel better and is open to the change, but she feels nervous about what it might mean: the cost, travel to an infusion center, possible time away from work. Still, she trusts her doctor and agrees to move forward.
A week later, her neurologist’s office calls to say her insurer denied coverage. Before they will approve the infusion, the plan requires Luisa to try a lower-cost therapy first. The provider files an appeal. During that time, she learns that even with insurance, her share of the cost could reach several thousand dollars. She applies for assistance.
When the appeal is finally approved, Luisa learns her insurance will only cover the infusion if she goes to a designated center. She calls the nearest location, only to be told they do not carry the therapy. The next option is over an hour away.
After weeks of denials, paperwork, and uncertainty, Luisa feels worn down. She calls her neurologist and explains that she has decided not to move forward. Her flare is starting to ease, and she would rather stay with the treatment she knows.
Where Breakdowns Occur
Luisa’s experience is only one example of how the referral-to-infusion process can falter. In practice, the most common breakdowns fall into a few predictable patterns that manufacturers should anticipate:
Referral routing is fragile. Most neurology practices do not infuse in-office, so referrals go through a hub, local center, or independent site, each with its own intake rules and paperwork. If a referral is sent outside the required channel—for example, directly to a site that cannot move forward without payor clearance—the case likely sits stalled.
Financial clearance slows initiation. Infusion centers often wait to schedule until financial clearance is complete, which can include benefit verification, prior authorization, and patient assistance approvals. These steps are interdependent, so a delay in any one of them can disrupt the entire process.
Provider visibility is limited. Once the referral leaves the neurologist’s office, visibility drops sharply. Providers often do not know whether a patient scheduled, attended, or actually received the infusion. Without feedback from the alternate site of care, they cannot intervene if issues arise.
Site readiness is uncertain. Because infused therapies are expensive to purchase and store, many centers carry minimal inventory. Instead, they order product in response to scheduled appointments and projected patient demand. This approach reduces financial risk but depends on accurate forecasting. If demand shifts unexpectedly or a shipment is delayed, patients may arrive to find their therapy unavailable.
What Best-In-Class Support Looks Like
To prevent these disruptions, manufacturers must anticipate where breakdowns are most likely to occur.
One priority is ensuring that referrals move cleanly from the neurologist’s office into the alternate site-of-care system. Digital handoffs that replace faxes and paper intake reduce errors and accelerate scheduling, while also creating the foundation for feedback loops that keep referring providers informed about whether patients scheduled, showed, and received treatment.
Equally important is the timing of financial clearance. In many programs, benefit verification, prior authorization, and patient assistance determinations are handled sequentially. Stronger patient services bring these steps forward and run them in parallel, so by the time the alternate site of care is ready to schedule, the patient’s coverage and financial plan are already clear.
At a strategic level, a strong patient services partner also identifies which neurologists are most likely to prescribe with a temporary j-code, understands the payer mix within those practices, and connects those referrals to infusion centers that can reliably deliver treatment. Just as important is laying the groundwork with payers: temporary J-codes for new therapies must be recognized, reimbursement pathways established, and benefit verification processes aligned.
When these steps are not addressed in advance, bottlenecks in the first months after approval can slow adoption and frustrate both providers and patients. For a closer look at how to navigate the fragile launch window, from temporary J-codes to site-of-care complexity, download CareMetx's latest guide, Don’t Risk Your Launch in the First 90 Days.
Sponsored guest posts are bylined articles that are screened by Drug Channels to ensure a topical relevance to our exclusive audience. The content of Sponsored Posts does not necessarily reflect the views of HMP Omnimedia, LLC, Drug Channels Institute, its parent company, or any of its employees. To find out how you can publish a guest post on Drug Channels, please contact Paula Fein (paula@DrugChannels.net).
No comments:
Post a Comment