Commercial Versus Medicaid Insurance and Use of High-Priced Anticancer Treatments.

BACKGROUND: Because the markups on cancer drugs vary by payor, providers' financial incentive to use high-price drugs is differential according to each patient's insurance type. We evaluated the association between patient insurer (commercial vs Medicaid) and the use of high-priced cancer treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We linked cancer registry, administrative claims, and demographic data for individuals diagnosed with cancer in North Carolina from 2004 to 2011, with either commercial or Medicaid insurance. We selected cancers with multiple FDA-approved, guideline-recommended chemotherapy options and large price differences between treatment options: advanced colorectal, lung, and head and neck cancer. The outcome was a receipt of a higher-priced option, and the exposure was insurer: commercial versus Medicaid. We estimated risk ratios (RRs) for the association between insurer and higher-priced treatment using log-binomial models with inverse probability of exposure weights. RESULTS: Of 812 patients, 209 (26%) had Medicaid. The unadjusted risk of receiving higher-priced treatment was 36% (215/603) for commercially insured and 27% (57/209) for Medicaid insured (RR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.02-1.67). After adjustment for confounders the association was attenuated (RR: 1.15, 95% CI: 0.81-1.65). Exploratory subgroup analysis suggested that commercial insurance was associated with increased receipt of higher-priced treatment among patients treated by non-NCI-designated providers (RR: 1.53, 95% CI: 1.14-2.04). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with Medicaid and commercial insurance received high-priced treatments in similar proportion, after accounting for differences in case mix. However, modification by provider characteristics suggests that insurance type may influence treatment selection for some patient groups. Further work is needed to determine the relationship between insurance status and newer, high-price drugs such as immune-oncology agents.

The Inflation Reduction Act: Implications for Medicare spending and access to biologic therapies for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis and asthma.

KEY POINTS: In 2021, Medicare spending on biologics was $926 million in Part B (FFS) and $1.3 billion in Part D (FFS/MA). Between 2017 and 2021, annual Medicare spending on biologics increased by approximately 200%. Between 2023 and 2025, Medicare Part D OOP costs for biologics will decrease by an estimated 50%-60%.

Analyzing Access and Costs of Oral Medications for Overactive Bladder: Uncovering Disparities.

OBJECTIVE: To report out-of-pocket costs associated with overactive bladder (OAB) medications among Medicare beneficiaries and the uninsured. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Prescription Drug Plan Formulary Data (Q1-2022). FDA-approved medications for OAB were identified. We calculated out-of-pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries in each Part D prescription benefit phase, average retail price, total yearly costs and discounted prices through cash-pay discount coupons (GoodRx) or online pharmacies like Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company (MCCPDC). We also report plan utilization management requirements. RESULTS: We analyzed 5721 plan formularies for 18 medications. Mirabegron was the only beta-3 agonist (B3). Only Vesicare oral solution (14.3% of plans) and Mirabegron (0.1%) required prior authorization. Many plans required step therapy for selective generic anticholinergics (ACH) (12.4%-43.3%), while the B3 rarely required step therapy (0.6%). Monthly costs varied by coverage phase and averaged $59 for ACHs in the initial coverage phase ($14 in catastrophic; $72 in coverage gap). The monthly cost for the B3 averaged $47 in the initial coverage phase ($26 in catastrophic; $129 in coverage gap). The total yearly cost for generic ACHs ranged from $494 (oxybutynin IR) to $1452 (darifenacin) and the yearly cost for brand-name ACHs ranged from $1175 (Toviaz ER) to $2198 (Oxytrol). The total yearly cost for the B3 was $1283. CONCLUSION: We evaluated coverage, out-of-pocket costs, total yearly costs, and utilization management for OAB medications to make pricing more transparent. While selective medications may be "covered," coverage does not translate into affordable drug prices.

Medicare Part D Payments for Generic Imatinib From 2017 to 2023.

This cross-sectional study compares pharmacy acquisition costs and point-of-sale prices for generic imatinib under Medicare Part D from 2017 to 2023.

Avenues for Strengthening PCORnet's Capacity to Advance Patient-Centered Economic Outcomes in Patient-Centered Outcomes Research (PCOR).

PCORnet, the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network, provides the ability to conduct prospective and observational pragmatic research by leveraging standardized, curated electronic health records data together with patient and stakeholder engagement. PCORnet is funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) and is composed of 8 Clinical Research Networks that incorporate at total of 79 health system "sites." As the network developed, linkage to commercial health plans, federal insurance claims, disease registries, and other data resources demonstrated the value in extending the networks infrastructure to provide a more complete representation of patient's health and lived experiences. Initially, PCORnet studies avoided direct economic comparative effectiveness as a topic. However, PCORI's authorizing law was amended in 2019 to allow studies to incorporate patient-centered economic outcomes in primary research aims. With PCORI's expanded scope and PCORnet's phase 3 beginning in January 2022, there are opportunities to strengthen the network's ability to support economic patient-centered outcomes research. This commentary will discuss approaches that have been incorporated to date by the network and point to opportunities for the network to incorporate economic variables for analysis, informed by patient and stakeholder perspectives. Topics addressed include: (1) data linkage infrastructure; (2) commercial health plan partnerships; (3) Medicare and Medicaid linkage; (4) health system billing-based benchmarking; (5) area-level measures; (6) individual-level measures; (7) pharmacy benefits and retail pharmacy data; and (8) the importance of transparency and engagement while addressing the biases inherent in linking real-world data sources.

The Association Between Solid Organ Transplant and Recurrence of Acute Diverticulitis: A National Assessment.

OBJECTIVE: Compare rates and severity of recurrent acute diverticulitis in patients with and without solid organ transplant. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Immunocompromised solid organ transplant recipients have been considered higher risk for both recurrence and severity of acute diverticulitis. Current guidelines recommend an individualized approach for colectomy in these patients, but these are based on single-center data. METHODS: We identified patients with acute diverticulitis using the Merative MarketScan commercial claims data from 2014-2020. Patients were classified by history of solid organ transplant. The primary outcome was recurrence of acute diverticulitis with an associated antibiotic prescription ≥60 days from the initial episode. Secondary outcomes included hospitalization, colectomy, and ostomy in patients with recurrence. Analyses used inverse probability weighting to adjust for imbalances in covariates. RESULTS: Of 170,697 patients with evidence of acute diverticulitis, 442 (0.2%) had a history of solid organ transplantation. In the weighted cohort, among people who had not been censored at one year (n=515), 112 (22%; 95% CI 20%-25%) experienced a recurrence within the first year. Solid organ transplantation was not significantly associated with a risk of recurrence (HR 1.19; 95% CI 0.94-1.50). There was also no statistically significant difference in the hospitalization rate for recurrent diverticulitis. Restricting the analysis to hospitalized recurrences, there was no statistically significant difference observed in either length of stay or discharge status. CONCLUSIONS: In this national analysis of commercially-insured patients with acute diverticulitis we found no statistically significant differences in recurrence between those with and without a history of solid organ transplant. We do not support an aggressive colectomy strategy based on concern for increased recurrence rate and severity in a solid organ transplant population.

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.

Cost-Related Barriers and Ensuring Equitable Access to Vaccines in the US.

This Viewpoint discusses policies toward increasing access to effective COVID-19 vaccines, advancing vaccine equity, strengthening reimbursement policies, and increasing federal incentives for insurers and health systems to improve COVID-19 vaccine uptake.

Quality of Medication Cost Conversations and Interest in Future Cost Conversations Among Older Adults.

BACKGROUND: Medication cost conversations occur less frequently than patients prefer, and it is unclear whether patients have positive experiences with them when they do occur. OBJECTIVE: To describe patients' experiences discussing their medication costs with their health care team. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Nationally representative survey fielded in the United States in 2022 (response rate = 48.5%). PATIENTS: 1020 adults over age 65. MEASUREMENTS: Primary measures were adapted from Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers Survey visit survey v4.0 and captured patients' experiences of medication cost conversations. Additional measures captured patients' interest in future cost conversations, the type of clinicians with whom they would be comfortable discussing costs, and sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: Among 1020 respondents who discussed medication prices with their health care team, 39.3% were 75 or older and 78.6% were non-Hispanic White. Forty-three percent of respondents indicated that their prior medication cost conversation was not easy to understand; 3% indicated their health care team was not respectful and 26% indicated their health care team was somewhat respectful during their last conversation; 48% indicated that there was not enough time. Those reporting that their prior discussion was not easy to understand or that their clinician was not definitely respectful were less likely to be interested in future discussions. Only 6% and 10% of respondents indicated being comfortable discussing medication prices with financial counselors or social workers, respectively. Few differences in responses were observed by survey participant characteristics. LIMITATIONS: This cross-sectional survey of prior experiences may be subject to recall bias. CONCLUSION: Among older adults who engaged in prior medication cost conversations, many report that these conversations are not easy to understand and that almost one-third of clinicians were somewhat or not respectful. Efforts to increase the frequency of medication cost conversations should consider parallel interventions to ensure the discussions are effective at informing prescribing decisions and reducing cost-related medication nonadherence.

Buprenorphine Out-of-Pocket Costs and Discontinuation in Privately Insured Adults With Opioid Use Disorder.

This cohort study examined the association between out-of-pocket costs for an initial buprenorphine prescription and its discontinuation among commercially insured US adults with opioid use disorder.

Commercial Health Plan and Enrollee Out-of-Pocket Spending on Accelerated Approval Products in 2019.

This cross-sectional study examines spending by health care plans and enrollees on products with accelerated approval.

Utilization Management Trends in Medicare Part D Oncology Drugs, 2010-2020.

This study examines the exposure of Medicare Part D beneficiaries to utilization management, such as prior authorization, for oral oncology drugs.

Estimating the Impact of the Inflation Reduction Act on the Out-of-Pocket Costs for Medicare Beneficiaries With Advanced Prostate Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Combination systemic therapy for advanced prostate cancer has reduced mortality, but high out-of-pocket costs impose financial barriers for patients. The Inflation Reduction Act's $2,000 out-of-pocket spending cap for Medicare's prescription drug benefit (Part D) can potentially lower out-of-pocket spending for beneficiaries starting in 2025. This study aims to compare out-of-pocket spending for commonly prescribed regimens for advanced prostate cancer before and after implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act. METHODS: Medication regimens constructed to treat metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer consisted of baseline androgen deprivation therapy with traditional chemotherapy, androgen receptor inhibitors, and androgen biosynthesis inhibitors. Using 2023 Medicare Part B prices and the Medicare Part D plan finder, we estimated annual out-of-pocket costs under current law and under the Inflation Reduction Act's redesigned standard Part D benefit. RESULTS: Under current law, out-of-pocket costs for Part D drugs ranged from $464 to $11,336 per year. Under the Inflation Reduction Act, annual out-of-pocket costs for 2 regimens remained unchanged: androgen deprivation therapy with docetaxel and androgen deprivation therapy with abiraterone and prednisone. However, out-of-pocket costs for regimens using branded novel hormonal therapy were significantly lower under the 2025 law with potential savings estimated to be $9,336 (79.2%) for apalutamide, $9,036 (78.7%) for enzalutamide, and $8,480 (76.5%) for docetaxel and darolutamide. CONCLUSIONS: The $2,000 spending cap introduced by the Inflation Reduction Act may significantly decrease out-of-pocket costs and reduce financial toxicity associated with advanced prostate cancer treatment, impacting an estimated 25,000 Medicare beneficiaries.

Coping Mechanisms for Financial Toxicity Among Patients With Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Survey-based Assessment.

PURPOSE: Assessments of financial toxicity among patients with metastatic prostate cancer are lacking. Using patient surveys, we sought to identify coping mechanisms and assess characteristics associated with lower financial toxicity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Surveys were administered to all patients seen at a single center's Advanced Prostate Cancer Clinic over a 3-month period. Surveys included the COST-FACIT (COmprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity) and coping mechanism questionnaires. Patients with metastatic disease (lymph nodes, bone, visceral) were included for analysis. Coping mechanisms were compared between patients experiencing low (COST-FACIT >24) vs high (COST-FACIT ≤24) financial toxicity using Fisher's exact test. Multivariable linear regression was used to evaluate characteristics associated with lower financial toxicity. RESULTS: Overall, 281 patients met inclusion criteria of which 79 reported high financial toxicity. In multivariable analysis, characteristics associated with lower financial toxicity included older age (estimate: 0.36, 95%CI: 0.21-0.52), applying for patient assistance programs (estimate: 4.42, 95%CI: 1.72-7.11), and an annual income of at least $100,000 (estimate: 7.81, 95%CI: 0.97, 14.66). Patients with high financial toxicity were more likely to decrease spending on basic goods (35% vs 2.5%, P < .001) and leisure activities (59% vs 15%, P > .001), as well as use savings (62% vs 17%, P < .001) to pay for their treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In this cross-sectional study, patients with metastatic prostate cancer and high financial toxicity were more likely to decrease spending on basic goods and leisure activities and use savings to pay for care. Understanding the impact of financial toxicity on patients' lives is crucial to inform shared decision-making and interventions designed to mitigate financial toxicity in this population.

The Impact of Medicare Low-income Subsidy on Access to Treatment, Treatment Choice, and Oncologic Outcomes in Patients With Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients eligible for Medicare Part D low-income subsidy have lower cost-sharing for both IV and oral cancer therapies. We evaluated associations between low-income subsidy and treatment choice, treatment initiation, and overall survival in patients with metastatic prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified men aged 66 years and older diagnosed with stage IV prostate cancer between 2010 and 2017 included in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked data set. Using linear probability models, we evaluated the impact of low-income subsidy on type of first supplementary treatment (oral vs IV) among patients who received nonandrogen deprivation therapy supplementary systemic therapy, and initiation of any nonandrogen deprivation therapy supplementary systemic therapy. Overall survival was estimated with Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: Of the 5,929 patients included, 1,766 (30%) had low-income subsidy. On multivariable analysis, those with low-income subsidy were more likely to receive oral as opposed to IV treatments compared to patients without low-income subsidy (probability difference: 17%, 95% CI 12, 22). However, patients with low-income subsidy were less likely to initiate any nonandrogen deprivation therapy supplementary systemic therapy (oral or IV) compared to those without low-income subsidy (probability difference: 7.9%, 95% CI 4.8-11). Additionally, patients with low-income subsidy experienced worse overall survival than those without low-income subsidy (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: While low-income subsidy was associated with increased use of more expensive oral therapies in men with metastatic prostate cancer, barriers to accessing these treatments still exist. These findings stress the importance of continued efforts to improve health care access to low-income individuals.

High Deductible Health Plans and Use of Free Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act.

The Affordable Care Act aimed to increase use of preventive services by eliminating cost-sharing to consumers. However, patients may be unaware of this benefit or they may not seek preventive services if they anticipate that the cost of potential diagnostic or treatment services will be too high, both more likely among those in high deductible health plans. We used nationally representative private health insurance claims (100% sample of IBM® MarketScan®) for the United States from 2006 to 2018, restricting the data to enrollment and claims for non-elderly adults who were enrolled for the full plan year. The cross-sectional sample (185 million person-years) is used to describe trends in preventive service use and costs from 2008 through 2016. The cohort sample (9 million people) focuses on the elimination of cost-sharing for certain high-value preventive services in late 2010, requiring continuous enrollment across 2010 and 2011. We examine whether HDHP enrollment is associated with use of eligible preventive services using semi-parametric difference-in-differences to account for endogenous plan selection. Our preferred model implies that HDHP enrollment was associated with a reduction of the post-ACA change in any use of eligible preventive services by 0.2 percentage points or 12.5%. Cancer screenings were unaffected but HDHP enrollment was associated with smaller increases in wellness visits, immunizations, and screening for chronic conditions and sexually transmitted infections. We also find that the policy was ineffective at reducing out-of-pocket costs for the eligible preventive services, likely due to implementation issues.

Projected Savings for Generic Oncology Drugs Purchased via Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company Versus in Medicare.

PURPOSE: Self-administered oncology drugs contribute disproportionately to Medicare Part D spending; prices often remain high even after generic entry. Outlets for low-cost drugs such as Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company (MCCPDC) offer opportunities for decreased Medicare, Part D, and beneficiary spending. We estimate potential savings if Part D plans obtained prices such as those offered under the MCCPDC for seven generic oncology drugs. METHODS: Using the 2020 Medicare Part D Spending dashboard, Q3-2022 Part D formulary prices, and Q3-2022 MCCPDC prices for seven self-administered generic oncology drugs, we estimated Medicare savings by replacing Q3-2022 Part D unit costs with costs under the MCCPDC plan. RESULTS: We estimate potential savings of $661.8 million (M) US dollars (USD; 78.8%) for the seven oncology drugs studied. Total savings ranged from $228.1M USD (56.1%) to $2,154.5M USD (92.4%) compared with 25th and 75th percentiles of Part D plan unit prices. The median savings replacing Part D plan prices were abiraterone $338.0M USD, anastrozole $1.2M USD, imatinib 100 mg $15.6M USD, imatinib 400 mg $212.0M USD, letrozole $1.9M USD, methotrexate $26.7M USD, raloxifene $63.8M USD, and tamoxifen $2.6M USD. All 30-day prescription drug prices offered by MCCPDC generated cost savings except for three drugs offered at the 25th percentile Part D formulary pricing: anastrozole, letrozole, and tamoxifen. CONCLUSION: Replacing current Part D median formulary prices with MCCPDC pricing could yield significant savings for seven generic oncology drugs. Individual beneficiaries could save nearly $25,200 USD per year for abiraterone or between $17,500 USD and $20,500 USD for imatinib. Notably, Part D cash-pay prices for abiraterone and imatinib under the catastrophic phase of coverage were still more expensive than baseline MCCPDC prices.

Association between low-income subsidies and inequities in orally administered antimyeloma therapy use.

OBJECTIVES: The Medicare Part D low-income subsidy program drastically reduces patient cost sharing and may improve access to and equitable use of high-cost antimyeloma therapy. We compared initiation of and adherence to orally administered antimyeloma therapy between full-subsidy and nonsubsidy enrollees and assessed the association between full subsidies and racial/ethnic inequities in orally administered antimyeloma treatment use. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: We used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data to identify beneficiaries diagnosed with multiple myeloma between 2007 and 2015. Separate Cox proportional hazards models assessed time from diagnosis to treatment initiation and time from therapy initiation to discontinuation. Modified Poisson regression examined therapy initiation in the 30, 60, and 90 days following diagnosis and adherence to and discontinuation of treatment in the 180 days following initiation. RESULTS: Receipt of full subsidies was not associated with earlier initiation of or improved adherence to orally administered antimyeloma therapy. Full-subsidy enrollees were 22% (adjusted HR [aHR], 1.22; 95% CI, 1.08-1.38) more likely to experience earlier treatment discontinuation than nonsubsidy enrollees. Receipt of full subsidies did not appear to reduce racial/ethnic inequities in orally administered antimyeloma therapy use. Black full-subsidy and nonsubsidy enrollees were 14% less likely than their White counterparts to ever initiate treatment (full subsidy: aHR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.73-1.02; nonsubsidy: aHR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Full subsidies alone are insufficient to increase uptake or equitable use of orally administered antimyeloma therapy. Addressing known barriers to care (eg, social determinants of health, implicit bias) could improve access to and use of high-cost antimyeloma therapy.