Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peyronie's disease (PD) is a fibroproliferative disorder that causes an abnormal curve of the penis resulting in pain, discomfort, and erectile dysfunction with management options including correctional surgery, penile external/internal devices, shock wave therapy (SWT), intralesional Verapamil (IV), and collagenase Clostridium histolyticum injections. AIM: To investigate the insurance coverage of these treatment options. METHODS: The authors performed a cross-sectional analysis of the top US insurance policies for coverage of PD. Companies were chosen based on their market share and enrollment. Their policies were identified through a Web-based search and telephone interviews, and the companies' medical necessity criteria were defined. The online policies were then re-examined for interval change 3 years later. OUTCOMES: There are significant discrepancies for in coverage for the different modalities of Peyronie's treatment. RESULTS: Of the 100 companies examined, only 54% of companies had a policy that directly addressed the treatment coverage for PD. The most covered treatment was CCH injections with 37 companies providing unanimous coverage (n = 37, 100%). Within this category, all companies required a palpable plaque as a requirement. Additionally, external/internal devices were unanimous covered by 18 companies (n = 18, 100%). Surgical treatment was covered by eight companies with six companies denying coverage (n = 8 vs. n = 6, 57.1% vs. 42.9%). IV was covered by two companies. The least covered treatment option was SWT which was universally denied by 19 companies (n = 19, 100%). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Insurance coverage of PD should be aligned with current medical literature to better increase access to care. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by the updated policies of insurance companies and future applicability. Additionally, this study assumes that a written policy will provide coverage and may overestimate the actual extent of coverage. Finally, this study only addressed some of the common treatment options of PD and did not expand on all possible treatment options. CONCLUSION: Differing rates for modalities of treatment may present a barrier for patients to receive individualized and adequate treatment for PD.