The least costly pharmacy for cancer supportive care medications over time: the logistic toxicity of playing catch up.

PURPOSE: No single pharmacy in an urban zip code is consistently the least expensive across medications. If medication prices change differently across pharmacies, patients and clinicians will face challenges accessing affordable medications when refilling medications. This is especially pertinent to people with cancer with multiple fills of supportive care medications over time. We evaluated if the lowest-priced pharmacy for a formulation remains the lowest-priced over time. METHODS: We compiled generic medications used to manage nausea/vomiting (14 formulations) and anorexia/cachexia (12 formulations). We extracted discounted prices in October 2021 and again in March 2022 for a typical fill at 8 pharmacies in Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA (zip code 55,414) using GoodRx.com. We examined how prices changed across formulations and pharmacies over time. RESULTS: Data were available for all 208 possible pharmacy-formulation combinations (8 pharmacies × 26 formulations). For 172 (83%) of the 208 pharmacy-formulation combinations, the March 2022 price was within 20% of the October 2021 price. Across pharmacy-formulation combinations, the price change over time ranged from - 76 to + 292%. For 12 (46%) of the 26 formulations, at least one pharmacy with the lowest price in October 2021 no longer was the least costly in March 2022. For one formulation (dronabinol tablets), the least expensive pharmacy became the most expensive, with an absolute and relative price increase of a fill of $22 and 85%. CONCLUSION: For almost half of formulations studied, at least one pharmacy with the lowest price was no longer the least costly a few months later. The lowest price for a formulation (across pharmacies) could also change considerably. Thus, even if a patient accesses the least expensive pharmacy for a medication, they may need to re-check prices across all pharmacies with each subsequent fill to access the lowest prices. In addition to safety concerns, directing medications to and accessing medications at multiple pharmacies can add time and logistic toxicity to patients with cancer, their care partners, prescribers, and pharmacy teams.

RESPONSE TO: COST-SHARING: IMPLICATIONS OF A WELL-INTENDED BENEFITS STRATEGY.

Disclosures: S. Rotolo has no conflicts of interest to disclose. No funding was received for any portion of this work.

A clinician survey of use assessment, documentation, and education about cannabis in persons with cystic fibrosis.

INTRODUCTION: To help open the clinician dialogue regarding cannabis use in persons with cystic fibrosis (CF) in the United States, we aimed to describe current practices of use assessment and documentation processes related to cannabis. METHODS: A cross-sectional, anonymous survey study was distributed via email to CF directors and coordinators and to the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation (CFF) listservs of nurse, pharmacist, dietitian, social worker, and psychology care team members. The survey tool included multiple choice, scaled, and open-ended items, which assessed participants' awareness of current cannabis laws in their state, prescribing practices for medical marijuana, screening and documentation practices, knowledge of and what indications participants believe cannabis and cannabidiol (CBD) could be beneficial. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: There were 282 survey participants, with majority as providers (28%) and social workers (29%), representing all US regions. Participants varied in terms of frequency of evaluating cannabis use, with 15.4% "always," 48.4% "sometimes," and 41% "rarely," or "never" asking about it. Regarding recreational versus medical cannabis use, 55.4% and 62.5% reported documentation of each type in the medical record, respectively. Participants reported appetite, pain, and nausea as the top three advocated indications for use. About 35% and 72% of participants felt "slightly" or "not at all" prepared to answer patient/family questions about cannabis and CBD, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The approach to cannabis use assessment, documentation, and education across CF care centers is variable. There is a need for care team and patient/caregiver education materials about cannabis/CBD and CF.