Physician Payments from Pharmaceutical Companies Related to Cancer Drugs.

BACKGROUND: Drug manufacturers claim that the purpose of financial payments to physicians is to facilitate education about new drugs. This claim suggests 2 testable hypotheses: payments should not be associated with drug revenue and payments for each drug should decline over time as physicians become educated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used open payments data on industry payments. We included payments for cancer drugs without generic/biosimilar competitors and used federal data sources to measure Medicare spending (a proxy for overall drug revenue) and a number of prescribers. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) to model the drug-level association between industry payments and Medicare spending. Separately, we used GEE to estimate the change in payments with respect to the duration of time since initial FDA approval. RESULTS: The sample included 89 drugs and 361 drug-year observations. The total value of industry payments for oncology drugs increased, from $53 333 854 in 2014 to $90 343 731 in 2018. There was no association between log-transformed mean, per-physician industry payments, and per-physician Medicare spending (estimate -0.001, 95%CI, -0.005 to 0.004). Payments for individual drugs decreased over time; estimated payments in the subsequent year for a drug with mean, per-physician payments of $1000 in the index year was: $681* for drugs 0-4 years since approval, $825 for 5-9 years, and $679* for ≥10 years (*P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Although industry-sponsored education may also serve marketing purposes, the absence of association between industry payments and Medicare spending and the decline in payments subsequent to approval are consistent with claims that industry payments function to facilitate physician education.

The Prescription Drug User Fee Act: Much More Than User Fees.

BACKGROUND: The Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) is due for reauthorization in 2022. Beyond creating the user fee program which now generates a majority of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Human Drugs Program budget, PDUFA has made numerous additional changes to FDA policy during its 29-year history. FDA's budgetary dependence on user fees may advantage the industry in negotiating favorable policy changes through PDUFA. METHODS: The full texts of all prior PDUFA reauthorization bills and all submitted public comments and meeting minutes for the 2022 reauthorization were reviewed. Provisions affecting FDA regulatory authority and processes were identified. FINDINGS: PDUFA legislation has instituted a broad range of changes to FDA policy, including evidentiary standards for drug approval, accelerated pathways for approval, industry involvement in FDA decision-making, rules regarding industry information dissemination to providers, and market entry of generic drugs. Negotiations over the 2022 reauthorization suggest that industry priorities include increased application of real-world evidence, regulatory certainty, and increased communication between FDA and industry during the drug application process. CONCLUSIONS: The need for PDUFA reauthorization every 5 years has created a recurring legislative vehicle through which far-ranging changes to FDA have been enacted, reshaping the agency's interactions and relationship with the regulated industry. The majority of policy changes enacted through PDUFA legislation have favored industry through decreasing regulatory standards, shortening approval times, and increasing industry involvement in FDA decision-making. FDA's budgetary dependence on the industry, the urgency of each PDUFA reauthorization's passage to maintain uninterrupted funding, and the industry's required participation in PDUFA negotiations may advantage the industry.

Compulsory Licensing of Pharmaceuticals in High-Income Countries: A Comparative Analysis.

Policy Points Pharmaceutical trade organizations and media outlets in the United States regularly point to compulsory licensing-or even its threat-as the mechanism that peer countries use to control the price of prescription drugs. Our comparative analysis shows that compulsory licensing is not frequently employed in high-income countries outside the United States as a direct response to drug prices. When its use is threatened, a license is rarely issued and even less often does it lead to a price discount. Accordingly, compulsory licensing is unlikely to contribute to price discrepancies between the United States and other developed nations. In fact, of the 21 compulsory licensing petitions we identified outside the United States, over one-third were made by pharmaceutical companies themselves and only three were threatened by a government authority. CONTEXT: Compulsory licensing is a practice whereby national authorities can license a third party to produce a patented product, such as a pharmaceutical drug, effectively enabling the production of a generic before the original patent expires. The policy was designed-and has historically been used-to improve access to essential medicines in low-income countries and during public health crises. Although it was not intended to impact drug prices directly, the threat of compulsory licensing may indeed contribute to lower drug prices in high-income countries outside the United States. Our study sought to determine the plausibility of this claim. METHODS: We compiled a comprehensive database of compulsory licensing episodes in the United States and 17 comparator nations over the 20 years following the 2001 Doha Declaration, and we recorded the motivation and outcome of each instance. Our search began with publicly available reports compiled by organizations specializing in pharmaceutical intellectual property, expanded to a query of legal proceedings in Westlaw, and concluded with a comprehensive literature review on PubMed. FINDINGS: This strategy yielded 45 unique episodes of compulsory licensing, 24 in the United States and 21 outside. A minority (24%) of petitions outside the United States were motivated by high prices, and in all countries, only three cases were clearly associated with a price discount. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence to suggest that compulsory licensing is either frequently threatened or successfully implemented by countries outside the United States to secure price discounts for the most expensive pharmaceuticals, those that are newly patented and just entering the market.

Industry Payments to Physicians Are Kickbacks. How Should Stakeholders Respond?

Payments from the pharmaceutical industry to US physicians are common. In determining which payments rise to the level of an illegal kickback under the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS), the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General (OIG) has stated in nonbinding guidance that influencing or "swaying" physician prescribing is key. OIG has highlighted as a compliance standard the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America Code on Interactions with Health Professions, which stipulates that permissible payments are those that do not interfere with prescribing. However, recent evidence has shown that most payments influence physician prescribing, driving higher prescription drug costs by increasing use of brand-name and low-value drugs. This evidence implies that many payments that are currently commonplace could be subject to prosecution under AKS. Given that these payments increase costs to patients and the health care system, there is a public interest in curtailing them. This article proposes a range of actions available to stakeholders-including industry, providers, regulators, and payers-to mitigate the cost-increasing effect of industry payments to physicians.

Personal Payments from Pharmaceutical Companies to Authors of Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Oncologists who author clinical practice guidelines frequently have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. It is unknown whether participation on clinical practice guideline committees is associated with differences in the amounts of industry money received. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a nested case-control study from August 2013 to December 2018. We manually abstracted membership records of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines committees for the 20 most common cancers and linked to Open Payments. The study sample included medical oncologists selected to join an NCCN Guidelines committee ("joiners") during the study period. Joiners were matched 1:2 to medical oncologists who had no participation on NCCN committees (controls) by gender, NCCN institution, and medical school graduation year. We performed difference-in-differences (DiD) estimation to assess whether selection to an NCCN committee was associated with the dollar value of payments received from industry, using generalized estimating equations to address correlation between matched pairs and between repeated observations of the same pair. RESULTS: During the study period, 54 physicians joined an NCCN Guidelines committee. These physicians received more payments than matched controls in the year prior to joining ($11,259 vs. $3,427; p = .02); this difference did not increase in the year after joining (DiD = $731; p = .45). CONCLUSION: Medical oncologists selected to NCCN Guidelines committees had greater financial ties to industry than their peers. The potential influence of industry in oncology clinical practice guidelines may be reduced through the selection of committee members with fewer ties to industry. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Oncologists who author clinical practice guidelines frequently have financial conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. This creates concern about the potential for industry influence on guidelines. However, it is unknown whether oncologists who author guidelines have greater industry relationships than their peers. This study compared medical oncologists who were newly selected to join a National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines panel with medical oncologists at the same institutions and at similar career stages. At the time they joined, oncologists joining NCCN Guidelines panels had received more than three times the dollar value of industry payments than their peers. The potential for industry influence may be reduced by the selection of less-conflicted panel members.

Increasing Financial Payments From Industry to Medical Oncologists in the United States, 2014-2017.

BACKGROUND: Personal payments from the pharmaceutical industry to US physicians are common and are associated with changes in physicians' clinical practice and interpretation of clinical trial results. We assessed temporal trends in industry payments to oncologists, with particular emphasis on payments to authors of oncology clinical practice guideline and on payments related to immunotherapy drugs. METHODS: We included US physicians with active National Plan and Provider Enumeration System records and demographic data available in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician Compare system who had a specialty type of medical oncology or general internal medicine. Medical oncologists serving on NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) Panels were identified manually. Industry payments, and the subset associated with PD-1/PD-L1 drugs, were identified in Open Payments, the federal repository of all transactions of financial value from industry to physicians and teaching hospitals, from 2014 to 2017. RESULTS: There were 13,087 medical oncologists and 85,640 internists who received payments. The mean, annual, per-physician value of payments to oncologists increased from $3,811 in 2014 to $5,854 in 2017, and from $444 to $450 for internists; the median payment increased from $152 to $199 for oncologists and remained at $0 for internists. Oncologists who served on NCCN Guidelines Panels received a greater value in payments and experienced a greater relative increase: mean payments increased from $10,820 in 2014 to $18,977 in 2017, and median payments increased from $500 to $1,366. Among companies marketing PD-1/PD-L1 drugs, mean annual per-oncologist payments associated with PD-1/PD-L1 drugs increased from $28 to $773. Total per-oncologist payments from companies marketing PD-1/PD-L1 drugs experienced a 165% increase from 2014 to 2017, compared with a 31% increase among similar companies not marketing PD-1/PD-L1 drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmaceutical industry payments increased for US oncologists from 2014 to 2017 more than for general internists. The increase was greater among oncologists contributing to clinical practice guidelines and among pharmaceutical companies marketing PD-1/PD-L1 drugs. The increasing flow of money from industry to US oncologists supports ongoing concern regarding commercial interests in guideline development and clinical decision-making.

Impact of provider volume on front-line chemotherapy guideline compliance and overall survival in elderly patients with advanced ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: We sought to evaluate whether provider volume or other factors are associated with chemotherapy guideline compliance in elderly patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). METHODS: We queried the SEER-Medicare database for patients ≥66 years, diagnosed with FIGO stage II-IV EOC from 2004 to 2013 who underwent surgery and received chemotherapy within 7 months of diagnosis. We compared NCCN guideline compliance (6 cycles of platinum-based doublet) and chemotherapy-related toxicities across provider volume tertiles. Factors associated with guideline compliance and chemotherapy-related toxicities were assessed using logistic regression. Overall survival (OS) was compared across volume tertiles and Cox proportional-hazards model was created to adjust for case-mix. RESULTS: 1924 patients met inclusion criteria. The overall rate of guideline compliance was 70.3% with a significant association between provider volume and compliance (64.5% for low-volume, 72.2% for medium-volume, 71.7% for high-volume, p = .02). In the multivariate model, treatment by low-volume providers and patient age ≥ 80 years were independently associated with worse chemotherapy-guideline compliance. In the survival analysis, there was a significant difference in median OS across provider volume tertiles with median survival of 32.8 months (95%CI 29.6, 36.4) low-volume, 41.9 months (95%CI 37.5, 46.7) medium-volume, 42.1 months (95%CI 38.8, 44.2) high-volume providers, respectively (p < .01). After adjusting for case-mix, low-volume providers were independently associated with higher rates of mortality (aHR 1.25, 95%CI: 1.08, 1.43). CONCLUSIONS: In a modern cohort of elderly Medicare patients with advanced EOC, we found higher rates of non-compliant care and worse survival associated with treatment by low-volume Medicare providers. Urgent efforts are needed to address this volume-outcomes disparity.

Trends in Female Representation on NCCN Guideline Panels.

BACKGROUND: NCCN produces highly influential disease-specific oncology clinical practice guidelines. Because the number of women in academic oncology has increased, we assessed whether the composition of NCCN Guidelines Panels reflected this trend. METHODS: Using historical guidelines requested from NCCN, we investigated time trends for female representation on 21 NCCN Guidelines Panels and analyzed the trends for female-predominant cancers (breast, ovarian, uterine, and cervical) compared with all cancers. RESULTS: From 2013 to 2019, there was an increase from 123 women of 541 total panelists (22.7%) to 175 women of 542 panelists (32.3%). Within the 4 female-predominant cancers, the increase was more rapid: from 30 of 101 total panelists (29.7%) to 66 of 118 panelists (56.4%). Excluding female-predominant cancers, increases were minimal. CONCLUSIONS: There could be multiple explanations for these differing trends, including the possibility of more rapid increases in the underlying pool of female physician-scientists in female-predominant specialties or more efforts to increase the representation of women in decisions about the standard of care in cancers predominantly affecting women.

Association Between Clinical Value and Financial Cost of Cancer Treatments: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The cost of cancer treatment has increased significantly in recent decades, but it is unclear whether these costs have been associated with commensurate improvement in clinical value. This study aimed to assess the association between the cost of cancer treatment and 4 of the 5 NCCN Evidence Blocks (EB) measures of clinical value: efficacy of regimen/agent, safety of regimen/agent, quality of evidence, and consistency of evidence. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional, observational study. We obtained NCCN EB ratings for all recommended, first-line, and/or maintenance treatments for the 30 most prevalent cancers in the United States and calculated direct pharmacologic treatment costs (drug acquisition, administration fees, guideline-concordant supportive care medications) using Medicare reimbursement rates in January 2019. We used generalized estimating equations to estimate the association between NCCN EB measures and treatment cost with clustering at the level of the treatment indication. RESULTS: A total of 1,386 treatments were included. Among time-unlimited treatments (those administered on an ongoing basis without a predetermined stopping point), monthly cost was positively associated with efficacy ($3,036; 95% CI, $1,782 to $4,289) and quality of evidence ($1,509; 95% CI, $171 to $2,847) but negatively associated with safety (-$1,470; 95% CI, -$2,790 to -$151) and consistency of evidence (-$2,003; 95% CI, -$3,420 to -$586). Among time-limited treatments (those administered for a predetermined interval or number of cycles), no NCCN EB measure was significantly associated with treatment cost. CONCLUSIONS: An association between NCCN EB measures and treatment cost was inconsistent, and the magnitude of the association was small compared with the degree of cost variation among treatments with the same EB scores. The clinical value of cancer treatments does not seem to be a primary determinant of treatment cost.

Survivorship care plans in research and practice.

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommends the use of survivorship care plans (SCPs) for all cancer survivors. Developing useful SCPs requires understanding what survivors and their providers need and how SCPs can be implemented in practice. Published studies investigating the perspectives of stakeholders (survivors, primary care providers, and oncology providers) were reviewed regarding the content and use of SCPs. All National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers were surveyed concerning the extent to which SCPs for survivors of breast and colorectal cancers are in use, their concordance with the IOM's recommendation, and details about SCP delivery. Survivors and primary care providers typically lack the information the IOM suggested should be included in SCPs. Oncology providers view SCPs favorably but express concerns about the feasibility of their implementation. Fewer than one-half (43%) of NCI-designated cancer centers deliver SCPs to their breast or colorectal cancer survivors. Of those that do, none deliver SCPs that include all components recommended by the IOM. Survivors' and providers' opinions about the use of SCPs are favorable, but there are barriers to implementation. SCPs are not widely used in NCI-designated cancer centers. Variation in practice is substantial, and many components recommended by the IOM framework are rarely included. \

Medication overuse in oncology: current trends and future implications for patients and society.

The high cost of cancer care worldwide is largely attributable to rising drugs prices. Despite their high costs and potential toxic effects, anticancer treatments could be subject to overuse, which is defined as the provision of medical services that are more likely to harm than to benefit a patient. We found 30 studies documenting medication overuse in cancer, which included 16 examples of supportive medication overuse and 17 examples of antineoplastic medication overuse in oncology. Few specific agents have been assessed, and no studies investigated overuse of the most toxic or expensive medications currently used in cancer treatment. Although financial, psychological, or physical harms of medication overuse in cancer could be substantial, there is little published evidence addressing these harms, so their magnitude is unclear. Further research is needed to better quantify medication overuse, understand its implications, and help protect patients and the health-care system from overuse.

The Cost of Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula Versus the Cost of Pasireotide: Results from a Prospective Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the costs of clinically significant postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) and to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of routine pasireotide use. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: We recently completed a prospective randomized trial that demonstrated an 11.7% absolute risk reduction of clinically significant POPF with use of perioperative pasireotide in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy or distal pancreatectomy [POPF: pasireotide (n = 152), 9% vs placebo (n = 148), 21%; P = 0.006]. METHODS: An institutional modeling system was utilized to obtain total direct cost estimates from the 300 patients included in the trial. This system identified direct costs of hospitalization, physician fees, laboratory tests, invasive procedures, outpatient encounters, and readmissions. Total direct costs were calculated from the index admission to 90 days after resection. Costs were converted to Medicare proportional dollars (MP$). RESULTS: Clinically significant POPF occurred in 45 of the 300 randomized patients (15%). The mean total cost for all patients was MP$23,400 (MP$8,000 - MP$202,500). The mean cost for those who developed clinically significant POPF was MP$39,700 (MP$13,800 - MP$202,500) versus MP$20,500 (MP$8,000 - MP$62,900) for those who did not (P = 0.001). The mean cost of pasireotide within the treatment group (n = 152) was MP$3,300 (MP$300 - MP$3,800). The mean cost was lower in the pasireotide (n = 152) group than the placebo (n = 148) group; however, this did not reach statistical significance (pasireotide, MP$22,800 vs placebo, MP$23,900: P = 0.571). CONCLUSIONS: The development of POPF nearly doubled the total cost of pancreatic resection. In this randomized trial, the routine use of pasireotide significantly reduced the occurrence of POPF without increasing the overall cost of care.

Race, Ethnicity, Health Insurance, and Mortality in Older Survivors of Critical Illness.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether minority race or ethnicity is associated with mortality and mediated by health insurance coverage among older (≥ 65 yr old) survivors of critical illness. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Two New York City academic medical centers. PATIENTS: A total of 1,947 consecutive white (1,107), black (361), and Hispanic (479) older adults who had their first medical-ICU admission from 2006 through 2009 and survived to hospital discharge. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We obtained demographic, insurance, and clinical data from electronic health records, determined each patient's neighborhood-level socioeconomic data from 2010 U.S. Census tract data, and determined death dates using the Social Security Death Index. Subjects had a mean (SD) age of 79 years (8.6 yr) and median (interquartile range) follow-up time of 1.6 years (0.4-3.0 yr). Blacks and Hispanics had similar mortality rates compared with whites (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.76-1.11 and adjusted hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.76-1.12, respectively). Compared to those with commercial insurance and Medicare, higher mortality rates were observed for those with Medicare only (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.03-1.98) and Medicaid (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.10-1.52). Medicaid recipients who were the oldest ICU survivors (> 82 yr), survivors of mechanical ventilation, and discharged to skilled-care facilities had the highest mortality rates (p-for-interaction: 0.08, 0.03, and 0.17, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Mortality after critical illness among older adults varies by insurance coverage but not by race or ethnicity. Those with federal or state insurance coverage only had higher mortality rates than those with additional commercial insurance.

Comorbidities, smoking status, and life expectancy among individuals eligible for lung cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening recommendations are based on results from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). The authors determined how the screening-eligible US population differs from NLST participants in terms of characteristics that affect their ability to benefit from screening. METHODS: The authors identified respondents to the 2012 Health and Retirement Study (HRS), a national survey of individuals aged ≥50 years who are eligible for screening based on US Preventive Services Task Force and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services criteria. Comorbidities, life expectancy, smoking history, and other characteristics were compared between the screening-eligible population and NLST participants. RESULTS: The authors estimated that in 2013, 8.4 million individuals (95% confidence interval, 7.9-8.9 million individuals) would have met the eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening established by the US Preventive Services Task Force. Compared with NLST participants, HRS screening-eligible respondents were older, more likely to be current smokers, and more likely to have been diagnosed with comorbidities. The 5-year survival rate was 87% in the HRS screening-eligible individuals versus 93% in the NLST participants (P<.001, based on a 2-sided test). Life expectancy was 18.7 years in the HRS screening-eligible individuals versus 21.2 years in the NLST participants. CONCLUSIONS: The US population eligible for lung cancer screening is probably less likely to benefit from early detection than NLST participants because they face a high risk of death from competing causes. The results of the current study highlight the need for smoking cessation interventions targeting those patients eligible for screening and tools to help clinicians determine the potential benefits of screening in individual patients.

Provider Differences in Use of Implanted Ports in Older Adults With Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Identifying unwarranted variation in health care can highlight opportunities to reduce harm. One often discretionary process in oncology is use of implanted ports to administer intravenous chemotherapy. While there are benefits, ports carry risks. This study's objective was to assess provider-driven variation in port use among cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective assessment using population-based SEER-Medicare data to assess differences in port use across health care providers of older adults with cancer. Participants included over 18,000 patients ages 66 and older diagnosed with breast, colorectal, lung, or pancreatic cancer in 2005-2007, treated by approximately 2900 providers. We identified port use for patients receiving treatment from hospital outpatient facilities versus physicians' offices. Our main analysis assessed the likelihood of a patient receiving a port given port use by the provider's last patient. For a subset of high-use providers, we examined individual provider-level variation by estimating the risk-adjusted likelihood of insertion. RESULTS: Patients receiving chemotherapy in hospital outpatient facilities were significantly less likely to receive a port than those treated in physicians' offices, with adjusted odds ratios (AOR) varying from 0.50 to 0.75 across cancer sites. Implanting a port was associated with increased likelihood of port insertion in the provider's next patient (AOR varied from 1.71 to 2.25). Significant between-provider variation was found among providers with at least 10 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the idea that there is provider-driven variation in the use of ports for chemotherapy administration. This variation highlights an opportunity to standardize practice and reduce unnecessary use.