Online Tools to Decrease Out-of-Pocket Prescription Costs for Patients: A Practical Guide for Urologists.

INTRODUCTION: Patients who seek urologic care have recently reported a high degree of financial toxicity from prescription medications, including management for nephrolithiasis, urinary incontinence, and urological oncology. Estimating out-of-pocket costs can be challenging for urologists in the US because of variable insurance coverage, local pharmacy distributions, and complicated prescription pricing schemes. This article discusses resources that urologists can adopt into their practice and share with patients to help lower out-of-pocket spending for prescription medications. METHODS: We identify 4 online tools that are designed to direct patients toward more affordable prescription medication options: the Medicare Part D Plan Finder, GoodRx, Amazon, and the Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company. A brief historical overview and summary for patients and clinicians are provided for each online resource. A patient-centered framework is provided to help navigate these 4 available tools in clinic. RESULTS: Among the 4 tools we identify, there are multiples tradeoffs to consider as financial savings and features can vary. First, patients insured by Medicare should explore the Part D Plan Finder each year to compare drug plans. Second, patients who need to urgently refill a prescription at a local pharmacy should visit GoodRx. Third, patients who are prescribed recurrent generic prescriptions for chronic conditions can utilize the Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company. Finally, patients who are prescribed 3 or more chronic medications can benefit from subscribing to Amazon RxPass. CONCLUSIONS: Prescription medications for urologic conditions can be expensive. This article includes 4 online resources that can help patients access medications at their most affordable costs. Urologists can provide this framework to their patients to help support lowering out-of-pocket drug costs.

Association between isolated abnormal coagulation profile on transfusion following major surgery: A NSQIP analysis of individuals without bleeding disorders.

INTRODUCTION: Preoperative coagulation screening for patients without bleeding disorders remains controversial. The combinatorial risk of INR, aPTT, and platelet count (PLT) abnormalities leading to bleeding requiring transfusion is not known in these patients. We examined the association between abnormal coagulation profile and the risk of transfusion following common elective surgery in patients without bleeding disorders. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We utilized the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database from 2004 to 2018 to identify patients without a history of bleeding disorders undergoing common 23 major elective procedures across 10 specialties. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between coagulation profile and bleeding requiring packed red blood cell transfusion intra-/post-operatively. RESULTS: Of the 672,075 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 53.7% presented with normal coagulation profile preoperatively. Overall, 12.2% (n = 82,368) received transfusion. In the setting of normal aPTT/PLT, both Equivocal INR of 1.1-1.5 (aOR 1.41, 95% CI 1.38-1.44) and Abnormal INR of >1.5 (aOR 1.81, 95% CI 1.71-1.93) were significantly associated with an increased risk of transfusion. Equivocal (60-70) and Abnormal (>70) aPTT with normal INR/PLT did not demonstrate a comparable risk of transfusion. We observed a synergistic effect of combinatorial lab abnormalities on the risk of transfusion when both Abnormal INR/aPTT and Low PLT of <100,000 were present (aOR 5.18, 95% CI 3.04-8.84), compared to the effect of Abnormal INR/aPTT and normal/elevated PLT (aOR 1.90, 95% CI 1.48-2.45). DISCUSSION: The preoperative presence of abnormal findings in INR or PLT was significantly associated with the risk of bleeding requiring transfusion during intraoperative and postoperative periods.