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.

Industry Payments to Physicians Endorsing Drugs and Devices on a Social Media Platform.

This study evaluates adherence to industry and professional standards among physicians endorsing drugs and devices on a social media platform.

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.

Costs to Medicare of Nonrecommended Bone-Modifying Agent Use for Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Bone-modifying agents (BMAs) do not prevent skeletal-related events among patients with castration-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC), but many patients receive BMAs unnecessarily. The costs to Medicare from overuse have not been assessed. METHODS: We used linked SEER-Medicare data 2011-2015 to measure the frequency and number of doses of zoledronic acid (ZA) and denosumab received during CSPC (between diagnosis and initiation of metastatic, castration resistant prostate cancer therapy). We estimated excess BMA among patients who received BMA therapy for CSPC and did not have an indication for osteoporosis fracture prevention. We used the Medicare fee schedule for drug prices and peer-reviewed sources to estimate adverse event frequencies and costs. RESULTS: Median CSPC duration was 387 days (IQR, 253-573), during which time 42% of patients received ≥one dose of denosumab (mean doses, 7) and 18% received ≥one dose of ZA (mean doses, 7). Thirty-eight percent of those receiving denosumab and 47% of those receiving ZA had a history of osteoporosis, osteopenia, spine or hip fracture, or hypercalcemia. The estimated, annual excess BMA cost to Medicare was $44,105,041 in US dollars (USD), composed of $43,303,078 USD and $45,512 USD in drug costs for denosumab and ZA, respectively, and $682,865 USD and $75,585 USD in adverse event costs, respectively. In one-way sensitivity analysis, the estimate was most sensitive to denosumab dosing frequency (estimate range, $28,469,237 USD-$98,830,351 USD) and duration of CSPC (estimate range, $36,823,311 USD-$99,015,908 USD). CONCLUSION: BMA overuse in CSPC incurs substantial cost to Medicare, largely because of denosumab drug costs. Excess costs may be reduced by greater adherence to guideline-concordant BMA use.

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.

The cancer premium - explaining differences in prices for cancer vs non-cancer drugs with efficacy and epidemiological endpoints in the US, Germany, and Switzerland: a cross sectional study.

Background: High treatment prices of new cancer drugs are a global public health challenge to patients and healthcare systems. Policymakers in the US and Europe are debating reforms to drug pricing. The objective of this study was to assess whether drug efficacy or epidemiological characteristics (prevalence, incidence, mortality) explain the gap in treatment prices between cancer and non-cancer drugs in the US, Germany, and Switzerland. Methods: This cross-sectional study identified all new drugs approved in the US, Germany, and Switzerland between 2011 and 2020. Drug efficacy was extracted from pivotal trials, drug prices from public and commercial databases, and epidemiological characteristics from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2019 study. We used regression models to explain drug prices with drug efficacy and epidemiological characteristics (prevalence, incidence, mortality). Findings: The cohort included 181 drugs, including 68 (37.5%) drugs approved for treatment of cancer. A significant negative correlation was found between incidence/prevalence and treatment prices, and a significant positive correlation was observed between mortality and treatment prices for both, cancer and non-cancer drugs. A significant association between relative drug efficacy and treatment prices of drugs was observed, however, less pronounced for cancer drugs. Our regression estimates indicated that after adjusting for efficacy and epidemiological characteristics, cancer drugs were on average approximately three times more expensive compared to non-cancer drugs in all three countries, indicating a cancer premium; i.e., treatment prices of cancer drugs were on average USD 74,412 (95% CI [62,810; 86,015]) more expensive in the US compared to non-cancer drugs, USD 37,770 (95% CI [26,175; 49,367]) more expensive in Germany, and USD 32,801 (95% CI [27,048; 38,555]) more expensive in Switzerland. Our model explained 72% of the variance in observed prices (R2). Interpretation: Drug pricing reforms should target the cancer premium to improve access of patients to cancer drugs as well as to achieve equity across the different therapeutic areas and sustainability in the health care systems. Funding: This study was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF, grant number PCEGP1_194607) and the Swiss Cancer Research Foundation (Krebsforschung Schweiz).

Real-world use of bone modifying agents in metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Bone modifying agents (BMAs) prevent skeletal related events among patients with metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) involving bone and prevent osteoporotic fractures among patients at high risk. BMA utilization for patients with mCRPC has not been well quantified. METHODS: We used linked SEER registry and Medicare claims data. We included men diagnosed with stage IV prostate adenocarcinoma during 2007-2015, aged > = 66 at diagnosis, with sufficient continuous enrollment in Medicare Parts A, B, and D, who received androgen deprivation therapy. We limited to those who subsequently received a CRPC-defining treatment (CDT). We identified patients with evidence of bone metastasis using claims. Our primary outcome was receipt of a BMA (zoledronic acid or denosumab) within 180 days of initiating CDT. RESULTS: Among 1292 included patients, 1034 (80%) had bone metastasis. BMA use within 180 days of initiating CDT was higher among patients with bone metastases than those without (705/1034 [68%] vs 56/258 [22%]). Among patients without bone metastasis, those with high osteoporotic fracture risk were more likely than those without to receive a BMA (OR = 2.48, 95% CI: 1.17, 5.29); however, only 26% of patients with high fracture risk received a BMA. Among patients who received BMAs, most (62%) first initiated them >90 days before initiating CDT. CONCLUSIONS: Two-thirds of patients with mCRPC and bone metastases received BMAs within 180 days after initiating CDT. A greater proportion of patients without bone metastasis may warrant BMA therapy for osteoporotic fracture prevention. Some patients with bone metastasis may be able to delay BMA initiation until CRPC.

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.

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.

The Cost of Enfortumab Vedotin Wastage Due to Vial Size-A Real-World Analysis.

Enfortumab Vedotin (EV) is FDA-approved for advanced urothelial cancer in patients previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy and a checkpoint inhibitor. We conducted a real-world study to determine the extent of EV wastage in a single institution and assessed the financial impact of EV wastage annually in the United States. Systematic examination of the usage and wastage of all standard-of-care EV treatments administered to urothelial cancer patients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) between 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2020 was performed. Drug wastage was calculated by subtracting the actual administered dose from the total dose in an optimal set of vials. We built a pharmacoeconomic model to assess the financial impact of EV wastage annually in the US using the January 2021 Average Sales Prices from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Sixty-four patients were treated with standard-of-care EV, with a median of 11 doses per patient (range 1-28). Wastage occurred in 46% of administered doses (367/793), with a mean waste per dose of 2.9% (0-18%). The average drug wastage cost per patient was $3127 ($252/dose). The annual cost of EV wastage in the US is estimated to be $15 million based on wastage data from a single center in the US. In summary, EV wastage due to available vial sizes was 2.9%, which falls under acceptable thresholds. While the percentage of EV wastage is relatively low, waste-minimizing practices may reduce the financial toxicity for the individual patient and for society.

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.

The Role of Physician Professional Networks in Physicians' Receipt of Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Industries' Payments.

BACKGROUND: Financial relationships between physicians and the pharmaceutical and medical device industries are common, but the factors associated with physicians receiving payments are unknown. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to evaluate the influence of physicians' professional networks' characteristics on the receipt of payments among physicians. DESIGN: Network analysis of cross-sectional data PARTICIPANTS: US physicians who shared Medicare patients with other physicians in 2015 (N=357,813). EXPOSURE (INTERVENTION): Proportion of a physician's professional network that received industry payments and other network characteristics including number of physician connections, how central the physician is within the network, and the tightness of the referral network in which a physician is located. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Relative risk of receiving industry payments. We used modified Poisson regression to control for confounding by gender, time since graduation, practice size, and practice setting (teaching hospital vs. not). We included dummy variables for specialty and hospital referral region level. KEY RESULTS: The proportion of a physician's peers in their professional network that received payments was strongly associated with receipt of pharmaceutical or device industry payments by the physician (top vs bottom quartile aRR=1.28, 95%CI=1.25-1.31). Physician's centrality within a network had a small positive effect on receiving payment (top vs bottom quartile aRR=1.02, 95%CI=1.01-1.04). Network density also had a small negative association with receipt of payment (top vs bottom quartile aRR=0.97, 95%CI=0.96-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Network characteristics, particularly the receipt of payments among physicians one shares patients with, are associated with whether a physician receives payments. This finding has implications for institutional regulation of industry payments to physicians and demonstrates how institutional policy may impact not only the physicians within the institution but also physicians outside of the institution.

Association between Site-of-Care and the Cost and Modality of Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: Analysis of Medicare Beneficiaries from 2015 to 2017.

Among 84,447 radiotherapy (RT) courses for Medicare beneficiaries age ≥ 65 with prostate cancer treated with external beam RT (EBRT), brachytherapy, or both, 42,608 (51%) were delivered in hospital-affiliated and 41,695 (49%) in freestanding facilities. Freestanding centers were less likely to use EBRT + brachytherapy than EBRT (OR 0.84 [95%CI 0.84-0.84]; p < .001). Treatment was more costly in freestanding centers (mean difference $2,597 [95%CI $2,475-2,719]; p < .001). Adjusting for modality and fractionation, RT in hospital-affiliated centers was more costly (mean difference $773 [95%CI $693-853]; p < .001). Freestanding centers utilized more expensive RT delivery, but factors unrelated to RT modality or fractionation rendered RT more costly at hospital-affiliated centers.

Are Financial Payments From the Pharmaceutical Industry Associated With Physician Prescribing? : A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Financial payments from the drug industry to U.S. physicians are common. Payments may influence physicians' clinical decision making and drug prescribing. PURPOSE: To evaluate whether receipt of payments from the drug industry is associated with physician prescribing practices. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and EconLit were searched without language restrictions. The search had no limiting start date and concluded on 16 September 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Studies that estimated the association between receipt of industry payments (exposure) and prescribing (outcome). DATA EXTRACTION: Pairs of reviewers extracted the primary analysis or analyses from each study and evaluated risk of bias (ROB). DATA SYNTHESIS: Thirty-six studies comprising 101 analyses were included. Most studies (n = 30) identified a positive association between payments and prescribing in all analyses; the remainder (n = 6) had a mix of positive and null findings. No study had only null findings. Of 101 individual analyses, 89 identified a positive association. Payments were associated with increased prescribing of the paying company's drug, increased prescribing costs, and increased prescribing of branded drugs. Nine studies assessed and found evidence of a temporal association; 25 assessed and found evidence of a dose-response relationship. LIMITATION: The design was observational, 21 of 36 studies had serious ROB, and publication bias was possible. CONCLUSION: The association between industry payments and physician prescribing was consistent across all studies that have evaluated this association. Findings regarding a temporal association and dose-response suggest a causal relationship. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.

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.