Oncology drug pricing: potential Medicare savings on cancer-directed and supportive care medications through the Mark Cuban cost plus drug model.

Prescription drug costs within oncology remain a challenge for many patients with cancer. The Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company (MCCPDC) launched in 2022, aiming to provide transparently priced medications at reduced costs. In this study, we sought to describe the potential impact of MCCPDC on Medicare Part-D oncology spending related to cancer-directed (n = 7) and supportive care (n = 26) drugs. We extracted data for drug-specific Part-D claims and spending for 2021. Using 90-count purchases from MCCPDC, we found potential Part-D savings of $857.8 million (91% savings) across the 7 cancer-directed drugs and $28.7 million (67% savings) across 21/26 (5/26 did not demonstrate savings) supportive care drugs. Collectively, our findings support that alternative purchasing models like MCCPDC may promote substantial health care savings.

Potential Cost Savings in Medicare Part D Across Gastroenterology: An Assessment of Alternative Drug Sourcing.

INTRODUCTION: Until recently, the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid were restricted from negotiating drug cost. We assessed the potential impact of alternative drug sourcing models on Medicare Part D spending. METHODS: Twenty-seven drugs were extracted from 2021 Medicare Part D claims. Drug-specific/total spending was compared against cost at Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drugs Company, Costco Member Prescription Program, and Veterans Health Administration price point. RESULTS: Potential Part D savings were $798.99 million, $573.84 million, and $1.02 billion (Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drugs Company, Costco Member Prescription Program, and Veterans Health Administration, respectively). DISCUSSION: Disproportionate Part D spending likely reflects less competitive acquisition cost. Provider awareness of medications with advantaged price may promote targeted prescribing with potentially tremendous health care savings.

Data-Sharing Across Otolaryngology: Comparing Journal Policies and Their Adherence to the FAIR Principles.

OBJECTIVE: Data-sharing plays an essential role in advancing scientific understanding. Here, we aim to identify the commonalities and differences in data-sharing policies endorsed by otolaryngology journals and to assess their adherence to the FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) principles. METHODS: Data-sharing policies were searched for among 111 otolaryngology journals, as listed by Scimago Journal & Country Rank. Policy extraction of the top biomedical journals as ranked by Google Scholar metrics were used as a comparison. The FAIR principles for scientific data management and stewardship were used for the extraction framework. This occurred in a blind, masked, and independent fashion. RESULTS: Of the 111 ranked otolaryngology journals, 100 met inclusion criteria. Of those 100 journals, 79 provided data-sharing policies. There was a clear lack of standardization across policies, along with specific gaps in accessibility and reusability which need to be addressed. Seventy-two policies (of 79; 91%) designated that metadata should have globally unique and persistent identifiers. Seventy-one (of 79; 90%) policies specified that metadata should clearly include the identifier of the data they describe. Fifty-six policies (of 79; 71%) outlined that metadata should be richly described with a plurality of accurate and relevant attributes. CONCLUSION: Otolaryngology journals have varying data-sharing policies, and adherence to the FAIR principles appears to be moderate. This calls for increased data transparency, allowing for results to be reproduced, confirmed, and debated.

Clinical trial data-sharing policies among journals, funding agencies, foundations, and other professional organizations: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To identify the similarities and differences in data-sharing policies for clinical trial data that are endorsed by biomedical journals, funding agencies, and other professional organizations. Additionally, to determine the beliefs, and opinions regarding data-sharing policies for clinical trials discussed in articles published in biomedical journals. METHODS: Two searches were conducted, a bibliographic search for published articles that present beliefs, opinions, similarities, and differences regarding policies governing the sharing of clinical trial data. The second search analyzed the gray literature (non-peer-reviewed publications) to identify important data-sharing policies in selected biomedical journals, foundations, funding agencies, and other professional organizations. RESULTS: A total of 471 articles were included after database search and screening, with 45 from the bibliographic search and 426 from the gray literature search. A total of 424 data-sharing policies were included. Fourteen of the 45 published articles from the bibliographic search (31.1%) discussed only advantages specific to data-sharing policies, 27 (27/45; 60%) discussed both advantages and disadvantages, and 4 (4/45; 8.9%) discussed only disadvantages specific. A total of 216 journals (of 270; 80%) specified a data-sharing policy provided by the journal itself. One hundred industry data-sharing policies were included, and 32 (32%) referenced a data-sharing policy on their website. One hundred and thirty-six (42%) organizations (of 327) specified a data-sharing policy. CONCLUSION: We found many similarities listed as advantages to data-sharing and fewer disadvantages were discussed within the literature. Additionally, we found a wide variety of commonalities and differences-such as the lack of standardization between policies, and inadequately addressed details regarding the accessibility of research data-that exist in data-sharing policies endorsed by biomedical journals, funding agencies, and other professional organizations. Our study may not include information on all data sharing policies and our data is limited to the entities' descriptions of each policy.

Perceptions and Opinions Towards Data-Sharing: A Survey of Addiction Journal Editorial Board Members.

Background: We surveyed addiction journal editorial board members to better understand their opinions towards data-sharing. Methods: Survey items consisted of Likert-type (e.g., one to five scale), multiple-choice, and free-response questions. Journal websites were searched for names and email addresses. Emails were distributed using SurveyMonkey. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the responses. Results: We received 178 responses (of 1039; 17.1%). Of these, 174 individuals agreed to participate in our study (97.8%). Most respondents did not know whether their journal had a data-sharing policy. Board members "somewhat agree" that addiction journals should recommend but not require data-sharing for submitted manuscripts [M=4.09 (SD=0.06); 95% CI: 3.97-4.22]. Items with the highest perceived benefit ratings were "secondary data use (e.g., meta-analysis)" [M=3.44 (SD=0.06); 95% CI: 3.31-3.56] and "increased transparency" [M=3.29 (SD=0.07); 95% CI: 3.14-3.43]. Items perceived to be the greatest barrier to data-sharing included "lack of metadata standards" [M=3.21 (SD=0.08); 95% CI: 3.06-3.36], "no incentive" [M=3.43 (SD=0.07); 95% CI: 3.30-3.57], "inadequate resources" [M=3.53 (SD=0.05); 95% CI: 3.42-3.63], and "protection of privacy"[M=3.22 (SD=0.07); 95% CI: 3.07-3.36]. Conclusion: Our results suggest addiction journal editorial board members believe data-sharing has a level of importance within the research community. However, most board members are unaware of their journals' data-sharing policies, and most data-sharing should be recommended but not required. Future efforts aimed at better understanding common reservations and benefits towards data-sharing, as well as avenues to optimize data-sharing while minimizing potential risks, are warranted.