Opinion
Video
Inflation Reduction Act: Clinical Challenges
Panelists discuss the specific challenges and barriers clinicians might encounter when utilizing different BTK inhibitors under the regulations of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), including issues related to cost, access, and treatment guidelines.
Video content above is prompted by the following:
Under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), clinicians may face new challenges when navigating treatment options for patients with CLL or MCL, particularly around the selection and use of BTK inhibitors. As ibrutinib becomes more affordable due to IRA pricing caps, health systems and insurers may increasingly favor it over newer, more expensive alternatives. While this can significantly improve access for patients who previously couldn’t afford oral cancer therapies, it may also pressure clinicians to prescribe ibrutinib even in cases where a second-generation BTK inhibitor might be more appropriate due to a better safety profile.
Another barrier could involve the management of side effects associated with increased ibrutinib use. Although many patients tolerate the drug well, others may experience complications such as atrial fibrillation or bleeding. As its use expands under new cost constraints, providers will need to ensure they’re equipped to monitor and manage these risks. This may require renewed emphasis on provider education, cross-disciplinary collaboration with cardiologists, and more rigorous patient follow-up to ensure early intervention when side effects emerge. Additionally, clinicians may need to advocate more frequently for off-label or alternative therapies in cases where ibrutinib is contraindicated, potentially encountering administrative delays or denials from payers.
Despite these barriers, greater accessibility may drive a wave of innovation in treatment strategies. With broader use of BTK inhibitors like ibrutinib, researchers may expand studies on fixed-duration regimens, combination therapies, and lower dosing models that balance efficacy and tolerability. This could reduce both physical and financial toxicity while extending remission durations.
Ultimately, if managed carefully, these changes could improve outcomes, lower overall treatment costs, and spark new standards of care that are both evidence-based and economically sustainable.
Newsletter
Stay ahead of policy, cost, and value—subscribe to AJMC for expert insights at the intersection of clinical care and health economics.
