Erratum to: Patient costs of breast cancer endocrine therapy agents under Medicare Part D vs with generic formulations.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s40064-015-0827-8.].

Patient costs of breast cancer endocrine therapy agents under Medicare Part D vs with generic formulations.

PURPOSE: The high expense of newer, more effective adjuvant endocrine therapy agents (aromatase inhibitors [AIs]) for postmenopausal breast cancer contributes to socioeconomic disparities in breast cancer outcomes. This study compares endocrine therapy costs for breast cancer patients during the first five years of Medicare Part D implementation, and when generic alternatives became available. METHODS: The out of pocket patient costs for AIs and tamoxifen under Medicare Part D drug plans were determined for 2006-2011 from the CMS Website for the 50 US states and District of Columbia. RESULTS: Between 2006 and 2010, the mean annual patient drug cost under Medicare Part D in the median state rose 19% for tamoxifen, 113% for anastrozole, 89% for exemestane, and 129% for letrozole, resulting in median annual out of pocket costs in 2010 of $701, $3050, $2804, and $3664 respectively. However, the 2011 availability of generic AI preparations led to median annual costs in 2011 of $804, $872, $1837, and $2217 respectively. Not included in the reported patient costs, the mean monthly drug premiums in the median state increased 58% in 2011 compared to 2007. CONCLUSIONS: The more effective AI agents became considerably more expensive during the first several years of the Medicare Part D program. Cost decreased with the introduction of generic agents, an intervention that was independent of the Part D program. It is unlikely that the Part D program ameliorated existing socioeconomic disparities in survival among breast cancer patients, but the availability of generic agents may do so.

Heightened attention to medical privacy: challenges for unbiased sample recruitment and a possible solution.

Subject recruitment for epidemiologic studies is associated with major challenges due to privacy laws now common in many countries. Privacy policies regarding recruitment methods vary tremendously across institutions, partly because of a paucity of information about what methods are acceptable to potential subjects. The authors report the utility of an opt-out method without prior physician notification for recruiting community-dwelling US women aged 65 years or older with incident breast cancer in 2003. Participants (n = 3,083) and possibly eligible nonparticipants (n = 2,664) were compared using characteristics derived from billing claims. Participation for persons with traceable contact information was 70% initially (2005-2006) and remained over 90% for 3 follow-up surveys (2006-2008). Older subjects and those living in New York State were less likely to participate, but participation did not differ on the basis of socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, underlying health, or type of cancer treatment. Few privacy concerns were raised by potential subjects, and no complaints were lodged. Using opt-out methods without prior physician notification, a population-based cohort of older breast cancer subjects was successfully recruited. This strategy may be applicable to population-based studies of other diseases and is relevant to privacy boards making decisions about recruitment strategies acceptable to the public.

Exploring the surgeon volume outcome relationship among women with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: A relationship between higher surgeon volume and lower mortality has been described for breast cancer, but selection bias has not been rigorously evaluated. We studied potential bias in the surgeon volume-outcome relationship by comparing the relationship of surgeon volume to breast cancer mortality and to mortality from other causes of death. METHODS: We conducted an observational cohort study from tumor registry and Medicare claims data on 12 216 women, 66 years or older, with stage I or II breast cancer, who were operated on by 1856 surgeons. Breast cancer mortality and other-cause mortality were determined from death certificate sources and surgeon volume from Medicare claims. RESULTS: Treatment by a high-volume surgeon was associated with younger patient age, white race, less comorbidity, and residence in a more affluent zip code. Patients treated by low-, medium-, and high-volume surgeons had small differences in breast cancer mortality (17.4, 15.7, and 13.0 deaths per 1000 person-years, respectively; P = .03) but larger differences in non-breast cancer mortality (46.0, 36.8, and 31.7 deaths per 1000 person-years, respectively; P < .001). After adjustment for multiple patient and disease factors, women treated by high-volume surgeons, compared with those treated by low-volume surgeons, were not less likely to die of breast cancer (relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-1.16) but were significantly less likely to die of other causes (relative risk, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: The surgeon volume-outcome relationship for these patients with breast cancer was attributable not to mortality from breast cancer but to other causes of death. The lack of specificity of this relationship raises the possibility of selection bias as an explanatory factor.