RESUMEN
Objectives: To estimate the proportion and correlates of self-reported financial difficulty among patients with multiple myeloma (MM) or chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Setting: 23 U.S. community and minority oncology practice sites affiliated with the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP). Participants: 521 patients (≥18 years) with MM or CLL were consented and 416 responded to a survey (completion rate=79.8%). Respondents had a MM diagnosis (74.0%), an associate degree or higher (53.4%), were White (89.2%), insured (100%) and treated with clinician-administered drugs (68.0%). Interventions: Observational, prospective, protocol-based survey administered in 2019-2020. Primary and secondary outcome measures: Financial difficulty was assessed using a single-item standard measure, the EORTC QLQC30: "Has your physical condition or medical treatment caused you financial difficulties in the past year?" and using an 'any-or-none' composite measure of 22 items assessing financial difficulty, worries and the use of cost-coping strategies. Multivariable logistic regression models assessed the association between financial difficulty, diagnosis, and socioeconomic and treatment characteristics. Results: 16.8% reported experiencing financial difficulty using the single-item measure and 60.3% using the composite measure. Most frequently endorsed items in the composite measure were financial worry about having to pay large medical bills related to cancer and difficulty paying medical bills. Financial difficulty using the single-item measure was associated with having MM versus CLL (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.34; 95% CI, 0.13-0.84; P=.02), having insurance other than Medicare (aOR, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.37-4.66; P=.003), being non-White (aOR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.04-4.72; P=.04), and having a high school education or below (aOR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.21-0.64; P=.001). Financial difficulty using the composite measure was associated with having a high school education or below (aOR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.41-0.94; P=.03). Conclusions: U.S. patients with blood cancer report financial difficulty, especially those with low socio-economic status. Evidence-based and targeted interventions are needed.
RESUMEN
The affordability of publicly funded medicines has been a longstanding concern. In 2023, the Biden administration took several steps on this front, including incorporation of a price constraint in an agreement between the US Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to develop a new COVID-19 monoclonal antibody. The agreement included a 'Most Favored Nation' (MFN) clause in which Regeneron agreed that the US commercial list price of certain products developed using BARDA funding would not exceed their retail price in comparable global markets. The Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response (ASPR) included similar language in subsequent agreements, with a promise that this would become a new standard. Even beyond the preparedness context, government funders and purchasers might consider incorporating similar clauses in future contracts, especially given that the Regeneron agreement and its progeny have been praised as 'groundbreaking.' Yet a closer look reveals cause for skepticism. Regeneron's MFN clause includes several loopholes related to covered purchasers and reference countries, prices, and conditions. We describe agreement terms that can make the difference between legally meaningful price constraints and mere window dressing. Our critical analysis offers important lessons for future efforts to improve the affordability of medical technology developed with public funds.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Prior studies suggest cost-sharing decreases buprenorphine dispensing. However, these studies used databases that only report prescriptions filled by patients, not those that were "abandoned." Consequently, the studies could not calculate the probability of buprenorphine prescription abandonment or evaluate whether cost-sharing is associated with abandonment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between cost-sharing and buprenorphine prescription abandonment. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of the IQVIA Formulary Impact Analyzer, a pharmacy transaction database representing 63% of U.S. retail pharmacies. The database includes transaction records ("claims") for prescriptions even if they are not filled. PARTICIPANTS: Buprenorphine claims in 2022 among commercially insured and Medicare patients. MAIN MEASURES: We evaluated the association between cost-sharing per 30-day supply and abandonment using logistic regression, controlling for patient characteristics, product type, and buprenorphine use in the prior 180 days. We assessed for effect modification by prior buprenorphine use. KEY RESULTS: Analyses included 2,346,994 and 1,242,596 buprenorphine prescription claims for commercially insured and Medicare patients, respectively. Among these claims, mean (SD) cost-sharing per 30-day supply was $28.1 (46.4) and $8.4 (20.2), and 1.5% and 1.2% were abandoned. Each $10 increase in cost-sharing per 30-day supply was associated with a 0.09 (95% CI: 0.09, 0.10) and 0.09 (95% CI: 0.08, 0.10) percentage-point increase in abandonment among commercially insured and Medicare patients. Among commercially insured and Medicare patients without prior buprenorphine use, respectively, a $10 increase in cost-sharing per 30-day supply was associated with a 0.12 (95% CI: 0.11, 0.14) and 0.13 (95% CI: 0.07, 0.18) percentage-point higher increase in the probability of abandonment compared with patients with > 90 days of prior buprenorphine use. CONCLUSIONS: Among commercially insured and Medicare patients, buprenorphine prescription abandonment is rare and only minimally associated with cost-sharing. Findings suggest elimination of buprenorphine cost-sharing should only be one component of a larger, multi-faceted campaign to increase buprenorphine dispensing.
Asunto(s)
Buprenorfina , Seguro de Costos Compartidos , Buprenorfina/economía , Buprenorfina/uso terapéutico , Humanos , Estudios Transversales , Seguro de Costos Compartidos/economía , Masculino , Femenino , Estados Unidos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Adulto , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides/tratamiento farmacológico , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides/economía , Prescripciones de Medicamentos/economía , Prescripciones de Medicamentos/estadística & datos numéricos , Tratamiento de Sustitución de Opiáceos/economía , Tratamiento de Sustitución de Opiáceos/estadística & datos numéricos , Anciano , Antagonistas de Narcóticos/economía , Antagonistas de Narcóticos/uso terapéutico , Medicare/economía , Analgésicos Opioides/economía , Analgésicos Opioides/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
Importance: Increasing access to naloxone (an opioid antagonist that can reverse overdose) could slow the US opioid epidemic. Prior studies suggest cost sharing may be a barrier to dispensing of naloxone prescriptions, but these studies were limited by their cross-sectional designs and use of databases that do not capture prescriptions that are not filled (abandoned). Objective: To evaluate the association between cost sharing and naloxone prescription abandonment (nondispensing of naloxone prescriptions). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional, regression discontinuity analysis exploited the fact that deductibles typically reset at the beginning of the year in commercial and Medicare plans. The included data were derived from the 2020-2021 IQVIA Formulary Impact Analyzer (a pharmacy transactions database that represents 63% of prescriptions at US pharmacies). The analysis included claims for naloxone nasal spray among commercially insured patients and Medicare patients that occurred during the 60 days before January 1, 2021, through 59 days after January 1, 2021. Exposure: Cost sharing, which is defined as the amount patients would have to pay to fill prescriptions. Main Outcomes and Measures: Local linear regression models were used to assess for abrupt changes in cost sharing and the probability of prescription abandonment on January 1, 2021. To estimate the association between cost sharing and prescription abandonment, a fuzzy regression discontinuity analysis was conducted. Results: These analyses included naloxone claims for 71â¯306 commercially insured patients and 101â¯706 Medicare patients (40â¯019 [56.1%] and 61â¯410 [60.4%], respectively, were female). The commercially insured patients and Medicare patients accounted for 73â¯311 and 106â¯076 naloxone claims, respectively. On January 1, 2021, the mean cost sharing per claim increased by $15.0 (95% CI, $13.8-$16.2) for commercially insured patients and increased by $12.3 (95% CI, $10.9-$13.6) for Medicare patients and the probability of abandonment increased by 4.7 (95% CI, 3.2-6.2) percentage points and 2.8 (95% CI, 1.6-4.1) percentage points, respectively. The results from the fuzzy regression discontinuity analysis suggest a decision by commercial and Medicare plans to increase naloxone cost sharing by $10 would be associated with percentage-point increases of 3.1 (95% CI, 2.2-4.1) and 2.3 (95% CI, 1.4-3.2), respectively, in the probability of abandonment. Conclusions: The elimination of cost sharing might be associated with increased naloxone dispensing to commercially insured and Medicare patients.
Asunto(s)
Seguro de Costos Compartidos , Prescripciones de Medicamentos , Naloxona , Antagonistas de Narcóticos , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides , Adulto , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Transversales , Prescripciones de Medicamentos/estadística & datos numéricos , Prescripciones de Medicamentos/economía , Medicare/economía , Naloxona/economía , Naloxona/uso terapéutico , Antagonistas de Narcóticos/uso terapéutico , Antagonistas de Narcóticos/economía , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides/tratamiento farmacológico , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides/economía , Estados Unidos , Seguro de Salud/economía , Seguro de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Cumplimiento de la Medicación/estadística & datos numéricosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) increased private nonemployer health insurance options, expanded Medicaid eligibility, and provided preexisting health condition protections. We evaluated insurance coverage among long-term adult survivors of childhood cancer pre- and post-ACA implementation. METHODS: Using the multicenter Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, we included participants from 2 cross-sectional surveys: pre-ACA (2007-2009; survivors: n = 7505; siblings: n = 2175) and post-ACA (2017-2019; survivors: n = 4030; siblings: n = 987). A subset completed both surveys (1840 survivors; 646 siblings). Multivariable regression models compared post-ACA insurance coverage and type (private, public, uninsured) between survivors and siblings and identified associated demographic and clinical factors. Multinomial models compared gaining and losing insurance vs staying the same among survivors and siblings who participated in both surveys. RESULTS: The proportion with insurance was higher post-ACA (survivors pre-ACA 89.1% to post-ACA 92.0% [+2.9%]; siblings pre-ACA 90.9% to post-ACA 95.3% [+4.4%]). Post-ACA insurance increase in coverage was higher among those aged 18-25 years (survivors: +15.8% vs +2.3% or less ages 26 years and older; siblings +17.8% vs +4.2% or less ages 26 years and older). Survivors were more likely to have public insurance than siblings post-ACA (18.4% vs 6.9%; odds ratio [OR] = 1.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.1 to 2.6). Survivors with severe chronic conditions (OR = 4.7, 95% CI = 3.0 to 7.3) and those living in Medicaid expansion states (OR = 2.4, 95% CI = 1.7 to 3.4) had increased odds of public insurance coverage post-ACA. Among the subset completing both surveys, low- and mid-income survivors (<$40 000 and <$60â000, respectively) experienced insurance losses and gains in reference to highest household income survivors (≥$100â000), relative to odds of keeping the same insurance status. CONCLUSIONS: Post-ACA, more childhood cancer survivors and siblings had health insurance, although disparities remain in coverage.
Asunto(s)
Supervivientes de Cáncer , Cobertura del Seguro , Seguro de Salud , Neoplasias , Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act , Humanos , Supervivientes de Cáncer/estadística & datos numéricos , Femenino , Masculino , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Cobertura del Seguro/estadística & datos numéricos , Adulto , Seguro de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Neoplasias/terapia , Neoplasias/economía , Neoplasias/epidemiología , Estudios Transversales , Adolescente , Niño , Adulto Joven , Medicaid/estadística & datos numéricos , Hermanos , Pacientes no Asegurados/estadística & datos numéricos , Persona de Mediana EdadRESUMEN
We investigated county-level variation in mRNA COVID-19 vaccine use among Medicare beneficiaries throughout the United States. There was greater use of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines than Moderna vaccines in urban areas for first and booster doses.
Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Medicare , Población Rural , Población Urbana , Humanos , Estados Unidos , COVID-19/prevención & control , Población Urbana/estadística & datos numéricos , Medicare/estadística & datos numéricos , Anciano , Femenino , Masculino , Vacuna BNT162 , SARS-CoV-2Asunto(s)
Comercio , Industria Farmacéutica , Economía Farmacéutica , Política de Salud , Preparaciones Farmacéuticas , Humanos , Comercio/economía , Comercio/legislación & jurisprudencia , Costos de los Medicamentos/legislación & jurisprudencia , Industria Farmacéutica/legislación & jurisprudencia , Industria Farmacéutica/economía , Economía Farmacéutica/legislación & jurisprudencia , Patentes como Asunto/legislación & jurisprudencia , Preparaciones Farmacéuticas/economía , Estados Unidos , United States Food and Drug Administration/economía , United States Food and Drug Administration/legislación & jurisprudencia , Política de Salud/economía , Política de Salud/legislación & jurisprudenciaAsunto(s)
Buprenorfina , Control de Medicamentos y Narcóticos , Antagonistas de Narcóticos , Tratamiento de Sustitución de Opiáceos , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides , Humanos , Buprenorfina/uso terapéutico , Prescripciones de Medicamentos/estadística & datos numéricos , Antagonistas de Narcóticos/uso terapéutico , Tratamiento de Sustitución de Opiáceos/estadística & datos numéricos , Tratamiento de Sustitución de Opiáceos/tendencias , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides/tratamiento farmacológico , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Control de Medicamentos y Narcóticos/legislación & jurisprudencia , Control de Medicamentos y Narcóticos/estadística & datos numéricos , Control de Medicamentos y Narcóticos/tendencias , Política de Salud/legislación & jurisprudenciaRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Disparities in clinical trials (CTs) enrollment perpetuate inequities in treatment access and outcomes, but there is a paucity of Canadian data. The objective of this study was to examine disparities in cancer CT enrollment at a large Canadian comprehensive cancer center. METHODS: Retrospective study of CT enrollment among new patient consultations from 2006 to 2019, with follow-up to 2021 (N = 154,880), with the primary outcome of enrollment as a binary variable. Factors associated with CT enrollment were evaluated using multivariable Bayesian hierarchical logistic regression with random effects for most responsible physician (MRP) and geography, adjusted for patient characteristics (sex, age, language, geography, and primary care provider [PCP]), area-level marginalization (residential instability, material deprivation, dependency, and ethnic concentration), disease (cancer site and stage), and MRP (department, sex, language, and training). A sensitivity analysis of the cumulative incidence of enrollment was conducted to account for differences in disease type and follow-up length. RESULTS: CT enrollment was 11.2% overall, with a 15-year cumulative incidence of 18%. Lower odds of enrollment were observed in patients who were female (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-0.86), ≥65 years (AOR vs. <40, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.56-0.66), non-English speakers (0.72; 95% CI, 0.67-0.77), living ≥250 km away (AOR vs. <15 km, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.62-0.80), and without a PCP. Disease characteristics accounted for the largest proportion of observed variation (20.8%), with significantly greater odds of enrollment in patients with genitourinary cancers and late-stage disease. CONCLUSION: Significant sociodemographic disparities were observed, suggesting the need for targeted strategies to increase diversity in access to cancer CTs in Canada.
Asunto(s)
Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto , Disparidades en Atención de Salud , Neoplasias , Humanos , Femenino , Estudios Retrospectivos , Masculino , Canadá/epidemiología , Persona de Mediana Edad , Neoplasias/terapia , Neoplasias/epidemiología , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto/estadística & datos numéricos , Anciano , Disparidades en Atención de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Adulto , Instituciones Oncológicas/estadística & datos numéricos , Adulto Joven , Selección de Paciente , AdolescenteRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Mental health worsened in adolescents and young adults after the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in March 2020, but whether antidepressant dispensing to this population changed is unknown. METHODS: We identified antidepressant prescriptions dispensed to US individuals aged 12 to 25 years from 2016 to 2022 using the IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription Database, an all-payer national database. The outcome was the monthly antidepressant dispensing rate, defined as the monthly number of individuals with ≥1 dispensed antidepressant prescription per 100 000 people. We fitted linear segmented regression models assessing for level or slope changes during March 2020 and conducted subgroup analyses by sex and age group. RESULTS: Between January 2016 and December 2022, the monthly antidepressant dispensing rate increased 66.3%, from 2575.9 to 4284.8. Before March 2020, this rate increased by 17.0 per month (95% confidence interval: 15.2 to 18.8). The COVID-19 outbreak was not associated with a level change but was associated with a slope increase of 10.8 per month (95% confidence interval: 4.9 to 16.7). The monthly antidepressant dispensing rate increased 63.5% faster from March 2020 onwards compared with beforehand. In subgroup analyses, this rate increased 129.6% and 56.5% faster from March 2020 onwards compared with beforehand among females aged 12 to 17 years and 18 to 25 years, respectively. In contrast, the outbreak was associated with a level decrease among males aged 12 to 17 years and was not associated with a level or slope change among males aged 18 to 25 years. CONCLUSIONS: Antidepressant dispensing to adolescents and young adults was rising before the COVID-19 outbreak and rose 63.5% faster afterward. This change was driven by increased antidepressant dispensing to females and occurred despite decreased dispensing to male adolescents.
Asunto(s)
Antidepresivos , COVID-19 , Femenino , Humanos , Adolescente , Masculino , Adulto Joven , Antidepresivos/uso terapéutico , COVID-19/epidemiología , Análisis por Conglomerados , Bases de Datos Factuales , Brotes de EnfermedadesRESUMEN
Policy Points The 340B Drug Pricing Program accounts for roughly 1 out of every 100 dollars spent in the $4.3 trillion US health care industry. Decisions affecting the program will have wide-ranging consequences throughout the US safety net. Our scoping review provides a roadmap of the questions being asked about the 340B program and an initial synthesis of the answers. The highest-quality evidence indicates that nonprofit, disproportionate share hospitals may be using the 340B program in margin-motivated ways, with inconsistent evidence for increased safety net engagement; however, this finding is not consistent across other hospital types and public health clinics, which face different incentive structures and reporting requirements. CONTEXT: Despite remarkable growth and relevance of the 340B Drug Pricing Program to current health care practice and policy debate, academic literature examining 340B has lagged. The objectives of this scoping review were to summarize i) common research questions published about 340B, ii) what is empirically known about 340B and its implications, and iii) remaining knowledge gaps, all organized in a way that is informative to practitioners, researchers, and decision makers. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of the peer-reviewed, empirical 340B literature (database inception to March 2023). We categorized studies by suitability of their design for internal validity, type of covered entity studied, and motivation-by-scope category. FINDINGS: The final yield included 44 peer-reviewed, empirical studies published between 2003 and 2023. We identified 15 frequently asked research questions in the literature, across 6 categories of inquiry-motivation (margin or mission) and scope (external, covered entity, and care delivery interface). Literature with greatest internal validity leaned toward evidence of margin-motivated behavior at the external environment and covered entity levels, with inconsistent findings supporting mission-motivated behavior at these levels; this was particularly the case among participating disproportionate share hospitals (DSHs). However, included case studies were unanimous in demonstrating positive effects of the 340B program for carrying out a provider's safety net mission. CONCLUSIONS: In our scoping review of the 340B program, the highest-quality evidence indicates nonprofit, DSHs may be using the 340B program in margin-motivated ways, with inconsistent evidence for increased safety net engagement; however, this finding is not consistent across other hospital types and public health clinics, which face different incentive structures and reporting requirements. Future studies should examine heterogeneity by covered entity types (i.e., hospitals vs. public health clinics), characteristics, and time period of 340B enrollment. Our findings provide additional context to current health policy discussion regarding the 340B program.
Asunto(s)
Costos de los Medicamentos , Humanos , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) requires Medicare to negotiate lower prices for some medicines with high Medicare spending. Using historical data from public and proprietary sources to apply the IRA's negotiation criteria retrospectively, we identify all drugs that met the eligibility criteria from 2012 to 2021 to classify drugs that would have had a negotiated price in effect in 2022 and to calculate associated decreases in industry revenues. Our results suggest that the IRA's reduction in overall industry revenue will be modest, will not affect most top-selling drugs and will not likely result in large-scale defunding of research and development. Changes in the net present value of drug-development projects will be concentrated in medicines where Medicare is a notable purchaser and where the ratio between expected revenue and development costs was only marginally positive before the IRA. Policymakers considering narrowing or expanding the scope of Medicare negotiation should carefully consider the tradeoffs across medicines with diverse characteristics.
Asunto(s)
Medicare , Negociación , Estados Unidos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Costos de los Medicamentos , Preparaciones FarmacéuticasRESUMEN
It is unknown how common job lock (i.e., staying at job to maintain health insurance) remains among childhood cancer survivors after Affordable Care Act (ACA) implementation in 2010. We examined prevalence of and factors associated with job lock using a cross-sectional survey from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (3503 survivors; 942 siblings). Survivor, spousal, and any survivor/spouse job lock were more frequently reported by survivors than siblings. Survivor job lock/any job lock was associated with older age, low income, severe chronic conditions, and debt/inability to pay debt. Job lock remains more common among survivors than siblings after ACA implementation.
Asunto(s)
Supervivientes de Cáncer , Neoplasias , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Humanos , Niño , Neoplasias/epidemiología , Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act , Estudios Transversales , Esposos , Sobrevivientes , HermanosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Siblings of children with cancer may experience adverse household economic consequences, but their financial outcomes in adulthood are unknown. METHODS: A total of 880 siblings (aged 18-64 years) of adult-aged childhood cancer survivors were surveyed to estimate the prevalence of financial hardship by three established domains (behavioral, material, and psychological). For individual financial hardship items matching the contemporaneous National Health Interview Survey or Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, siblings were compared with the general population by calculating adjusted prevalence odds ratios (ORs) to sample-weighted responses. Multivariable logistic regression models examined associations between sibling characteristics and each hardship domain and between sibling hardship and survivors' cancer/treatment characteristics. RESULTS: Behavioral, material, and psychological hardship was reported by 24%, 35%, and 28%, respectively. Compared with national survey respondents, siblings were more likely to report worries about medical bills (OR, 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.22), difficulty affording nutritious foods (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.54-2.07), and forgoing needed medical care (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.10-1.73), prescription medications (OR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.99-3.20), and dental care (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.15-1.57) because of cost. Sibling characteristics associated with reporting financial hardship in one or more domains included female sex, older age, chronic health conditions, lower income, not having health insurance, high out-of-pocket medical expenditures, and nonmedical/nonhome debt. No survivor cancer/treatment characteristics were associated with sibling financial hardship. CONCLUSIONS: Adult siblings of childhood cancer survivors were more likely to experience financial hardship compared with the general population. Childhood cancer may adversely affect entire households, with potentially lasting implications.
Asunto(s)
Supervivientes de Cáncer , Neoplasias , Adulto , Humanos , Niño , Femenino , Hermanos , Neoplasias/epidemiología , Neoplasias/terapia , Estrés Financiero/epidemiología , Costo de Enfermedad , Sobrevivientes , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
Gene therapy is a new class of medical treatment that alters part of a patient's genome through the replacement, deletion, or insertion of genetic material. While still in its infancy, gene therapy has demonstrated immense potential to treat and even cure previously intractable diseases. Nevertheless, existing gene therapy prices are high, raising concerns about its affordability for U.S. payers and its availability to patients. We assess the potential financial impact of novel gene therapies by developing and implementing an original simulation model which entails the following steps: identifying the 109 late-stage gene therapy clinical trials underway before January 2020, estimating the prevalence and incidence of their corresponding diseases, applying a model of the increase in quality-adjusted life years for each therapy, and simulating the launch prices and expected spending of all available gene therapies annually. The results of our simulation suggest that annual spending on gene therapies will be approximately $20.4 billion, under conservative assumptions. We decompose the estimated spending by treated age group as a proxy for insurance type, finding that approximately one-half of annual spending will on the use of gene therapies to treat non-Medicare-insured adults and children. We conduct multiple sensitivity analyses regarding our assumptions and model parameters. We conclude by considering the tradeoffs of different payment methods and policies that intend to ensure patient access to the expected benefits of gene therapy.
Asunto(s)
Costos y Análisis de Costo , Terapia Genética , Humanos , Estados Unidos , Terapia Genética/economíaRESUMEN
This study uses data from an all-payer database of prescriptions dispensed in US retail pharmacies to assess trends in buprenorphine initiation and retention during 2016-2022.
Asunto(s)
Buprenorfina , Cumplimiento de la Medicación , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides , Humanos , Analgésicos Opioides/uso terapéutico , Buprenorfina/uso terapéutico , Prescripciones de Medicamentos/estadística & datos numéricos , Naloxona/uso terapéutico , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides/tratamiento farmacológico , Farmacias/estadística & datos numéricos , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Cumplimiento de la Medicación/estadística & datos numéricos , Cooperación del Paciente/estadística & datos numéricosRESUMEN
This cross-sectional study examines out-of-pocket costs for the treatment of invasive breast cancer in employer-insured women younger than 65 years.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama , Femenino , Humanos , Gastos en Salud , Costos y Análisis de CostoRESUMEN
This cohort study compares changes in ivermectin dispensing during the COVID-19 pandemic between the Veterans Administration (VA) and retail pharmacy settings and examines the association of the VA national formulary restriction with ivermectin dispensing.