Trends in financial payments from industry to US cancer centers, 2014-2021.

BACKGROUND: Industry payments to US cancer centers are poorly understood. METHODS: US National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated comprehensive cancer centers were identified (n = 51). Industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers from 2014 to 2021 were obtained from Open Payments and National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant funding from NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT). Given our focus on cancer centers, we measured the subset of industry payments related to cancer drugs specifically and the subset of NIH funding from the NCI. RESULTS: Despite a pandemic-related decline in 2020-2021, cancer-related industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers increased from $482 million in 2014 to $972 million in 2021. Over the same period, NCI research grant funding increased from $2 481  million to $2 724  million. The large majority of nonresearch payments were royalties and licensing payments. CONCLUSION: Industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers increased substantially more than NCI funding in recent years but were also more variable. These trends raise concerns regarding the influence and instability of industry payments.

Pharmaceutical industry payments and delivery of non-recommended and low value cancer drugs: population based cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the association between oncologists' receipt of payments from the pharmaceutical industry and delivery of non-recommended or low value interventions among their patients. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: Fee-for-service Medicare claims. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare beneficiaries with a diagnosis of incident cancer (new occurrence of a cancer diagnosis code in proximity to claims for cancer treatment, and no such diagnosis codes during a ≥1 year washout period) during 2014-19, who met additional requirements identifying them as at risk for one of four non-recommended or low value interventions: denosumab for castration sensitive prostate cancer, granulocyte colony stimulating factors (GCSF) for patients at low risk for neutropenic fever, nab-paclitaxel for cancers with no evidence of superiority over paclitaxel, and a branded drug in settings where a generic or biosimilar version was available. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Receipt of the non-recommended or low value drug for which the patient was at risk. The primary association of interest was the assigned oncologist's receipt of any general payments from the manufacturer of the corresponding non-recommended or low value drug (measured in Open Payments) within 365 days before the patient's index cancer date. The two modeling approaches used were general linear model controlling for patients' characteristics and calendar year, and general linear model with physician level indicator variables. RESULTS: Oncologists were in receipt of industry payments for 2962 of 9799 patients (30.2%) at risk for non-recommended denosumab (median $63), 76 747 of 271 485 patients (28.3%) at risk for GCSF (median $60); 18 491 of 86 394 patients (21.4%) at risk for nab-paclitaxel (median $89), and 4170 of 13 386 patients (31.2%) at risk for branded drugs (median $156). The unadjusted proportion of patients who received non-recommended denosumab was 31.4% for those whose oncologist had not received payment and 49.5% for those whose oncologist had (prevalence difference 18.0%); the corresponding values for GCSF were 26.6% v 32.1% (5.5%), for nab-paclitaxel were 7.3% v 15.1% (7.8%), and for branded drugs were 88.3% v 83.5% (-4.8%). Controlling for patients' characteristics and calendar year, payments from industry were associated with increased use of denosumab (17.5% (95% confidence interval 15.3% to 19.7%)), GCSF (5.8% (5.4% to 6.1%)), and nab-paclitaxel (7.6% (7.1% to 8.1%)), but lower use of branded drugs (-4.6% (-5.8% to -3.3%)). In physician level indicator models, payments from industry were associated with increased use of denosumab (7.4% (2.5% to 12.2%)) and nab-paclitaxel (1.7% (0.9% to 2.5%)), but not with GCSF (0.4% (-0.3% to 1.1%)) or branded drugs (1.2% (-6.0 to 8.5%)). CONCLUSIONS: Within some clinical scenarios, industry payments to physicians are associated with non-recommended and low value drugs. These findings raise quality of care concerns about the financial relationships between physicians and industry.

Clinical Trial Participation Among Older Adult Medicare Fee-for-Service Beneficiaries With Cancer.

Importance: Clinical trials play a critical role in the development of novel cancer therapies, and precise estimates of the frequency with which older adult patients with cancer participate in clinical trials are lacking. Objective: To estimate the proportion of older adult Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) beneficiaries with cancer who participate in interventional cancer clinical trials, using a novel population-based methodology. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this retrospective cohort study evaluating clinical trial participation among older adult patients with cancer from January 1, 2014, through June 30, 2020, claims data from Medicare FFS were linked with the ClinicalTrials.gov to determine trial participation through the unique National Clinical Trial (NCT) identifier. The proportion of patients with newly diagnosed or newly recurrent cancer in 2015 participating in an interventional clinical trial and receiving active cancer treatment from January 2014 to June 2020 was estimated. Data analysis was performed from November 18, 2020, to November 1, 2021. Exposures: Patients with cancer aged 65 years or older with Medicare FFS insurance, with and without active cancer treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Enrollment in clinical trials among all patients with cancer 65 years and older and among patients receiving active cancer treatments as defined by the presence of at least 1 NCT identifier corresponding to an interventional cancer clinical trial in Medicare claims. Results: Among 1 150 978 patients (mean [SD] age, 75.7 [8.4] years; 49.9% men and 50.1% women) with newly diagnosed or newly recurrent cancer in 2015, 12 028 (1.0%) patients had a billing claim with an NCT identifier indicating enrollment in an interventional cancer clinical trial between January 2014 and June 2020. In a subset of 429 343 patients with active cancer treatment, 8360 (1.9%) were enrolled in 1 or more interventional trials. Patients enrolled in a trial tended to be younger, male, a race other than Black, and residing in zip codes with high median incomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Findings of this cohort study show that clinical trial enrollment among older adult patients with cancer remains low, with only 1.0% to 1.9% of patients with newly diagnosed or recurrent cancer in 2015 participating in an interventional cancer clinical trial as measured by the presence of NCT identifiers in Medicare claims. These data provide a contemporary estimate of trial enrollment, persistent disparities in trial participation, and only limited progress in trial access over the past 2 decades.

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.

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.

Validation of a Population-Based Data Source to Examine National Cancer Clinical Trial Participation.

Importance: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requires health care organizations to report the National Clinical Trial (NCT) identifier on claims for items and services related to clinical trials that qualify for coverage. This same NCT identifier is used to identify clinical trials in the ClinicalTrials.gov registry. If linked, this information could facilitate population-based analyses of clinical trial participation and outcomes. Objective: To evaluate the validity of a linkage between fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare claims and ClinicalTrials.gov through the NCT identifier for patients with cancer enrolled in clinical trials. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included 2 complementary retrospective analyses for a validation assessment. First, billing data from 3 health care institutions were used to estimate the missingness of the NCT identifier in claims by calculating the proportion of known participants in cancer clinical trials with no NCT identifier on any submitted Medicare claims. Second, the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare data set, which includes a subset of all FFS Medicare beneficiaries for whom health insurance claims are linked with cancer registry data, was used to identify adult patients diagnosed with cancer between 2006 and 2015 with an NCT identifier in claims corresponding to an interventional cancer clinical trial. To estimate the accuracy of the NCT identifier when present, the proportion of NCT identifiers that corresponded to trials that were aligned with the patients' known primary or secondary diagnoses was calculated. Data were analyzed from March 2020 to March 2021. Exposures: An NCT identifier present in Medicare claims. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was participating in a clinical trial relevant to patient's cancer diagnosis. Results: A total of 1 171 816 patients were included in analyses. Across the 3 participating institutions, there were 5061 Medicare patients enrolled in a clinical trial, including 3797 patients (75.0%) with an NCT identifier on at least 1 billing claim that matched the clinical trial on which the patient was participating. Among 1 171 816 SEER-Medicare patients, 29 138 patients (2.5%) had at least 1 claim with a value entered in the NCT identifier field corresponding to 32 950 unique patient-NCT identifier pairs. There were 26 694 pairs (81.0%) with an NCT identifier corresponding to a clinical trial registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, of which 10 170 pairs (38.1%) were interventional cancer clinical trials. Among these, 9805 pairs (96.4%) were considered appropriate. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, this data linkage provided a novel data source to study clinical trial enrollment patterns among Medicare patients with cancer on a population level. The presence of the NCT identifiers in claims for Medicare patients participating in clinical trials is likely to improve over time with increasing adherence with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services mandate.

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.

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.

Real-World Use of Bone-Modifying Agents in Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Bone-modifying agent (BMA) therapy is recommended for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer but not metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). BMA treatment in mCSPC may therefore constitute overuse. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study using linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data, we included patients diagnosed with stage IV prostate adenocarcinoma from 2007 to 2015 who were 66 years of age or older at diagnosis and had received androgen-deprivation or antiandrogen therapy. We excluded patients who had previously received BMAs or had existing osteoporosis, osteopenia, hypercalcemia, or prior bone fracture. The primary outcome was receipt of BMA (zoledronic acid or denosumab) within 180 days of diagnosis (emergence of CRPC within this time frame is unlikely). The secondary outcome was receipt of a BMA within 90 days. Exposures of interest included practice location (physician office vs hospital outpatient) and the specialty (medical oncologist vs urologist) of the treating physician. RESULTS: Our sample included 2627 patients, of whom 52.9% were treated by medical oncologists and 47.1% by urologists; 77.7% and 22.3% received care in physician office and hospital outpatient locations, respectively. Overall, 23.6% received a BMA within 180 days; 18.4% did within 90 days. BMA therapy was more common among patients treated by oncologists (odds ratio = 8.23, 95% confidence interval = 6.41 to 10.57) and in physician office locations (odds ratio = 1.33, 95% confidence interval = 1.06 to 1.69). Utilization has increased: 17.3% of patients received BMAs from 2007 to 2009 (17.3% zoledronic acid, 0% denosumab) and 28.1% from 2012 to 2015 (8.4% zoledronic acid, 20.3% denosumab). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with mCSPC who had no evidence of high osteoporotic fracture risk, more than one-quarter have received BMAs in recent years. This overuse may lead to excess costs and toxicity.

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.

Mapping conflict of interests: scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify all known ties between the medical product industry and the healthcare ecosystem. DESIGN: Scoping review. METHODS: From initial literature searches and expert input, a map was created to show the network of medical product industry ties across parties and activities in the healthcare ecosystem. Through a scoping review, the ties were then verified, cataloged, and characterized, with data abstracted on types of industry ties (financial, non-financial), applicable policies for conflict of interests, and publicly available data sources. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Presence and types of medical product industry ties to activities and parties, presence of policies for conflict of interests, and publicly available data. RESULTS: A map derived through synthesis of 538 articles from 37 countries shows an extensive network of medical product industry ties to activities and parties in the healthcare ecosystem. Key activities include research, healthcare education, guideline development, formulary selection, and clinical care. Parties include non-profit entities, the healthcare profession, the market supply chain, and government. The medical product industry has direct ties to all parties and some activities through multiple pathways; direct ties extend through interrelationships among parties and activities. The most frequently identified parties were within the healthcare profession, with individual professionals described in 422 (78%) of the included studies. More than half (303, 56%) of the publications documented medical product industry ties to research, with clinical care (156, 29%), health professional education (145, 27%), guideline development (33, 6%), and formulary selection (8, 1%) appearing less often. Policies for conflict of interests exist for some financial and a few non-financial ties; publicly available data sources seldom describe or quantify these ties. CONCLUSIONS: An extensive network of medical product industry ties to activities and parties exists in the healthcare ecosystem. Policies for conflict of interests and publicly available data are lacking, suggesting that enhanced oversight and transparency are needed to protect patient care from commercial influence and to ensure public trust.

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.

Evaluation of Drug Trials in High-, Middle-, and Low-Income Countries and Local Commercial Availability of Newly Approved Drugs.

Importance: Clinical research supporting US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug approvals is largely conducted outside the US. Objective: To characterize where drugs were tested for FDA approval and to determine how commonly and quickly these drugs received marketing approval in the countries where they were tested, both overall and by country income level and geographical region. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional analysis of trials supporting FDA approval of novel drugs in 2012 and 2014, sponsored by large drug companies, did not involve human participants. The settings were the countries hosting trials supporting US drug approval. Data sources included Drugs@FDA, ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, and drug regulatory agency websites. Data analysis was completed March through September 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were the proportion of drugs approved for marketing in the countries where they were tested for FDA approval within 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years of FDA approval and the proportion of countries contributing participants to trials supporting FDA approvals receiving market access to the drugs they helped test within 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years of FDA approval. Results: In 2012 and 2014, the FDA approved 34 novel drugs sponsored by large companies, on the basis of a total of 898 trials, 563 of which had location information available. Each drug was tested in a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 25 (18-37) unique countries, including a median (IQR) of 20 (13-25) high-income countries, 6 (4-11) upper-middle-income countries, and 1 (0-2) low-middle-income country. One drug was approved for marketing in all testing countries within 1 year of FDA approval and 15% (5 of 34 drugs) were approved in all testing countries within 5 years of FDA approval. Of the 70 countries contributing research participants for FDA drug approvals, 7% (5 countries) received market access to drugs they helped test within 1 year of FDA approval and 31% (22 countries) did so within 5 years. Access within 1 year occurred in 13% (5 of 39) of high-income countries, 0 of 22 upper-middle-income countries (0%), and 0 of 9 lower-middle-income countries (0%), whereas at 5 years access rates were 46% (18 of 39 countries), 9% (2 of 22 countries), and 22% (2 of 9 countries), respectively. Approvals were faster in high-income countries (median [IQR], 8 [0-11] months) than in upper-middle-income countries (median [IQR], 11 [5-29] months) or lower-middle-income countries (median [IQR], 17 [11-27] months) after FDA approval. Access was lowest in African countries. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that substantial gaps exist between where FDA-approved drugs are tested and where they ultimately become available to patients, raising concerns about the equitable distribution of research benefits at the population level.

Assessment of Outcomes Associated With the Use of Newly Approved Oncology Drugs in Medicare Beneficiaries.

Importance: A lack of generalizability of pivotal cancer clinical trial data to treatment of older adults with Medicare could affect therapeutic decision-making in clinical practice. Objective: To evaluate the differences in survival, duration of therapy, and treatment patterns between clinical trial patients and older adults with Medicare receiving cancer drugs for metastatic solid cancers in usual practice. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study, performed from May 1, 2018, to August 30, 2020, used the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program and Medicare database to examine sequential US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved cancer drug indications (2008-2013) for locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors to assess whether pivotal trials reflect the outcomes of Medicare patients with cancer treated in usual practice. Exposures: Treatment with FDA-approved cancer drugs for metastatic solid cancers in pivotal clinical trials and in the SEER-Medicare database. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall survival, duration of treatment, and dose reductions among trial participants and treated Medicare patients. Results: A total of 11 828 trial participants (mean age, 61.8 years; 6718 [56.8%] male; and 7605 [64.3%] White) and 9178 SEER-Medicare patients (mean age, 72.7 years; 4800 [52.3%] male; and 7437 [81.0% White]) were compared. Twenty-nine indications for 22 cancer drugs were included. Median overall survival among Medicare patients was shorter than among patients in the clinical trial intervention arm for 28 of 29 indications (median difference, -6.3 months; range, -28.7 to 2.7 months). Median duration of therapy among Medicare patients was shorter for 23 of the 27 indications with data available (median difference, -1.9 months; range, -12.4 to 1.4 months). For 9 indications, there was information available regarding dose reductions in the package insert or trial publication. In all but 1 instance, dose reductions or single prescriptions were more common in the Medicare population compared with dose reductions among the clinical trial patients; for example, in the Medicare patients, 600 of 1032 (58.1%) received dose reduction or a single prescription and 172 of 1032 (16.7%) received a single prescription vs 734 of 3416 (21.5%) in the trial intervention arm. The exception was afatinib for non-small cell lung cancer: 34 of 71 (47.9%) received dose reduction or a single prescription and 15 of 71 (21.1%) received a single prescription among the Medicare patients vs 120 of 230 (52.2%) receiving dose reductions among the trial intervention group. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, patients receiving Medicare who were treated with FDA-approved cancer drugs did not live as long as treated clinical trial participants and commonly received treatment modifications. This study suggests that cancer clinical data relevant to newly approved drugs lack generalizability to Medicare beneficiaries with cancer; therefore, these agents should be used with caution.

Changes in Drug List Prices and Amounts Paid by Patients and Insurers.

Importance: High out-of-pocket drug costs can cause patients to skip treatment and worsen outcomes, and high insurer drug payments could increase premiums. Drug wholesale list prices have doubled in recent years. However, because of manufacturer discounts and rebates, the extent to which increases in wholesale list prices are associated with amounts paid by patients and insurers is poorly characterized. Objective: To determine whether increases in wholesale list prices are associated with increases in amounts paid by patients and insurers for branded medications. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional retrospective study analyzing pharmacy claims for patients younger than 65 years in the IBM MarketScan Commercial Database and pricing data from SSR Health, LLC, between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2016. Pharmacy claims analyzed represent claims of employees and dependents participating in employer health benefit programs belonging to large employers. Rebate data were estimated from sales data from publicly traded companies. Analysis focused on the top 5 patent-protected specialty and 9 traditional brand-name medications with the highest total drug expenditures by commercial insurers nationwide in 2014. Data were analyzed from July 2017 to July 2020. Exposures: Calendar year. Main Outcomes and Measures: Changes in inflation-adjusted amounts paid by patients and insurers for branded medications. Results: In this analysis of 14.4 million pharmacy claims made by 1.8 million patients from 2010-2016, median drug wholesale list price increased by 129% (interquartile range [IQR], 78%-133%), while median insurance payments increased by 64% (IQR, 28%-120%) and out-of-pocket costs increased by 53% (IQR, 42%-82%). The mean percentage of wholesale list price accounted for by discounts increased from 17% in 2010 to 21% in 2016, and the mean percentage of wholesale list price accounted for by rebates increased from 22% in 2010 to 24% in 2016. For specialty medications, median patient out-of-pocket costs increased by 85% (IQR, 73%-88%) from 2010 to 2016 after adjustment for inflation and 42% (IQR, 25%-53%) for nonspecialty medications. During that same period, insurer payments increased by 116% for specialty medications (IQR, 100%-127%) and 28% for nonspecialty medications (IQR, 5%-34%). Conclusions and Relevance: This study's findings suggest that drug list prices more than doubled over a 7-year study period. Despite rising manufacturer discounts and rebates, these price increases were associated with large increases in patient out-of-pocket costs and insurer payments.

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.

The Accuracy and Usefulness of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Evidence Blocks Affordability Rating.

BACKGROUND: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines' Evidence Blocks has the broadest scope of the several oncology value assessment frameworks. The Evidence Blocks includes the Affordability criterion, which reflects the financial cost of each treatment on a 1-5 scale. The accuracy of Affordability is unknown. METHODS: We calculated Medicare costs for all first-line and maintenance treatments for the 30 cancers with the highest incidence in the USA that had published NCCN Evidence Blocks as of 31 December 2018. We assessed the accuracy and consistency of Affordability across different treatments and cancer types. Among different treatments for the same indication, we determined the frequency with which the Affordability assessment was consistent with calculated treatment costs. RESULTS: There were a total of 1386 treatments in our sample. Lower Affordability scores were associated with higher costs. There was significant variation in cost at each level of Affordability; for treatments with Affordability = 1 (very expensive), costs ranged from $US4551 to $US43,794 per month for treatments administered over an undefined time period and from $US2865 to $US500,982 per course of therapy for treatments administered over a defined time period. Among treatments for the same indication, Affordability was discrepant with calculated treatment costs in 7.9% of pairwise comparisons, identifying the higher-cost treatment as being more affordable. Discrepancies were reduced when we reassigned Affordability scores based on calculated treatment costs. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence Blocks Affordability generally correlated with treatment costs but contained discrepancies, which may limit its usefulness to clinicians in comparing costs. This study suggests that the Affordability score may be improved by indexing more directly to specified dollar value thresholds.

Assessment of variation in 30-day mortality following cancer surgeries among older adults across US hospitals.

BACKGROUND: While public reporting of surgical outcomes for noncancer conditions is common, cancer surgeries have generally been excluded. This is true despite numerous studies showing outcomes to differ between hospitals based on their characteristics. Our objective was to assess whether three prerequisites for quality assessment and reporting are present for 30-day mortality after cancer surgery: low burden for timely reporting, hospital variation, and potential for public health gains. STUDY DESIGN: We used Fee-for-Service (FFS) Medicare claims to examine the extent of variation in 30-day cancer surgical mortality between 3860 US hospitals. We included 340 489 surgeries for 12 cancer types for FFS Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥66 years, 2011-2013. Hierarchical mixed-effects logistic regression models adjusted for patient and hospital characteristics and with a random hospital effect were fit to obtain hospital-specific risk-standardized mortality rates (RSMRs) and 99% confidence intervals (CI). We calculated a hospital odds ratio to describe the difference in mortality risk for a hospital above vs below average quality and estimated the potential mortality reduction. RESULTS: The median number of cancer surgeries per hospital was 34. The median RSMR overall was 2.41% (99% CI 2.28%, 2.66%). In aggregate and for most cancers, variation between hospitals exceeded that due to differences in patient and hospital characteristics. For individual cancers, relative differences exceeded 20% in mortality risk between patients undergoing surgery at a hospital below vs above average quality, with the potential for an estimated 500 deaths prevented annually given hypothetical improvements. CONCLUSION: Quality measurement and reporting of 30-day mortality for cancer surgery is worthy of consideration.