The Wrong Fight-Prior Authorization.

This essay describes the author's experience with denial of prior authorization for imaging to complete cancer staging.

Race and Gender Differences in Medical Student Perspectives on Social Determinants of Health Education: A Single-Institution Survey Study.

PURPOSE: The field of medicine is becoming increasingly aware of the role that social determinants of health (SDH) play in shaping health and health outcomes. Organized medicine - including prominent physician groups and accreditation bodies - has endorsed SDH education as an integral component of medical school curricula. This study sought to describe medical student perspectives on the current state of SDH in preclinical curricula. METHODS: The authors developed a 9-item survey to assess time being spent on SDH and attitudes toward the current level of SDH content in preclinical curricula. All medical students at both campuses of a large public medical school were invited to participate between December 2019 and February 2020. RESULTS: Of 1010 medical students invited to participate, 515 (51.0%) responded. Of the 515 respondents, 480 (93.2%) reported spending at least 40 hours per week on medical school, and of those, 405 (84.4%) said they spend 0-2 hours on SDH. The majority of all respondents (62.1%; 320/515) felt the current level of focus on SDH is "not enough", while only eleven students (2.1%; 11/515) felt it is "too much". In a multiple logistic model, Black students were over four times as likely as white students (aOR 4.19; 95% CI 1.37-18.38) to feel the current level of focus on SDH is "not enough". Likewise, women were 2.3-times (aOR 2.30; 95% CI 1.52-3.49) as likely as men to feel the level of focus on SDH is "not enough". CONCLUSION: In practice, medical students are spending considerably less time learning SDH than is advised by consensus of expert educators and administrators. Over sixty percent of medical students do not feel the current level of focus on SDH is sufficient. Further study is needed to determine why women and racial minority students are significantly more likely to feel this way.

Cancer survivors exercise at higher intensity in outdoor settings: The GECCOS trial.

PURPOSE: This randomized cross-over group pilot trial assessed feasibility of recruiting survivors from a long-term follow-up clinic to an exercise group and measured whether outdoor or indoor exercise sessions better supported exercise motivation and behaviors in survivors of cancer. METHODS: Sixteen adolescent and young adult survivors of any cancer completed indoor and outdoor exercise sessions in this randomized cross-over pilot trial. Measures of physical activity, motivation, and fatigue were taken 2 weeks before and 2 weeks after indoor sessions and 2 weeks before and 2 weeks after outdoor sessions. Measures of physical activity and fatigue were also taken during each exercise session. RESULTS: Initial recruiting of 19 participants met recruiting goals. Survivors who attended the most sessions lived an average of 8.7 km closer to the clinic. Objectively measured physical activity intensity was 0.63 metabolic equivalents of a task (METs) per minute greater during outdoor exercise sessions as compared to indoor exercise sessions. There were no meaningful differences in long term, habitual physical activity behavior, motivation, or fatigue in the weeks following the outdoor exercise sessions as compared to the indoor exercise sessions. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows the feasibility of recruiting survivors from a long-term follow-up clinic to community-based exercise groups. Although this brief pilot intervention did not show significant effects on habitual physical activity behavior or motivation in adolescent and young adult survivors of cancer, the greater exercise intensity during the outdoor exercise sessions indicate that holding group exercise sessions for survivors outdoors may promote greater intensity during exercise.

Characteristics and Price Increases Among Sole-Source, Off-Patent Drugs in the United States, 2008 to 2018.

Importance: Some sole-source, off-patent drugs in the United States have undergone substantial price hikes in recent years. Despite increased attention by lawmakers, there are limited data to guide policy. Objectives: To describe key attributes of sole-source, off-patent, off-exclusivity drugs; to characterize the prevalence of price increases; and to identify attributes associated with price increases. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, 300 sole-source, off-patent, off-exclusivity drug products met inclusion criteria and were selected for analysis from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2018. Attributes were identified from multiple sources, and yearly wholesale acquisition cost prices were determined from First Databank. Main Outcomes and Measures: The association of drug attributes with the following 2 price change thresholds was measured after adjusting for inflation: 25% or more price increase in a calendar year (wholesale acquisition cost) and 50% or more price increase in a calendar year. The rate of annual price increase over time was also measured. Results: Of the 300 drug products and 2242 observations analyzed, the overall inflation-adjusted mean increase in drug prices was 8.8% (95% CI, 7.8%-9.8%) per year. Ninety-five drugs (31.7%) increased by 25% or more during any calendar year, and 66 drugs (22.0%) increased by 50% or more during any calendar year. An initial price of less than $2 per unit (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.36; 95% CI, 1.69-3.29), antineoplastic and immunomodulatory class (aOR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.31-5.65), dermatologic class (aOR, 2.95; 95% CI, 1.80-4.84), oral route (aOR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.45-2.79), and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval before 1990 (aOR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.14-2.03) were attributes of drugs that were more likely to be associated with a 25% or more price increase in a calendar year after adjusting for by initial price. Similarly, an initial price of less than $2 per unit (aOR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.76-4.09), antineoplastic and immunomodulatory class (aOR, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.54-6.12), oral route of administration (aOR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.11-2.60), and FDA approval before 1990 (aOR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.40-2.94) were attributes of drugs that were more likely to be associated with a 50% or more price increase in a calendar year after adjusting for by initial price. Price increases of 25% or more were most common in 2014, and price increases of 50% or more were most common in 2013. Conclusions and Relevance: Price increases among sole-source, off-patent drugs are common, and policy interest in this practice is warranted. These findings should inform state drug pricing legislation.

Antiparasitic Drugs in the United States-Two Roads to High Prices.

High prescription drug prices contribute significantly to healthcare spending in the United States and compromise patients' access to quality medical care. A number of factors allow drug manufacturers to set much higher prices in the US than in other comparable high-income nations. Price-control depends primarily on the entry and persistence of generic products following the expiration of the market exclusivity period granted to the manufacturer of the brand name drug. Unfortunately, barriers to generic entry are common, allowing off-patent drugs like albendazole to remain relatively expensive despite having been marketed in the US for decades. By contrast, miltefosine became FDA approved more recently and has maintained a high price tag by way of a novel incentive program-the neglected tropical disease (NTD) priority review voucher (PRV) program. The voucher has a high market value and can be sold or transferred well before the drug for which it was awarded becomes available on the market. While both drugs are used to treat parasitic infections that are uncommon in the US, they differ by market and regulatory conditions-each telling an interesting pricing story.