The Impact of Biosimilar Use on Total Cost of Care and Provider Financial Performance in the Medicare Oncology Care Model: A Population-Based Simulation Study.

INTRODUCTION: Payment for oncology care is increasingly moving from fee-for-service to value-based payment (VBP). VBPs are agreements in which providers are held accountable for total cost of care (TCOC) through risk-sharing arrangements with payers that tie reimbursement levels to TCOC benchmarks. Oncology biosimilars may play an important role in managing financial risk in the VBPs like Medicare's Oncology Care Model (OCM), but there has been limited research in this area. The objective of this study is to estimate the impact of biosimilar adoption on TCOC and oncology provider financial performance under the terms of the Medicare OCM. METHODS: We conducted a population-based simulation study using the Medicare Limited Data Set (LDS) and the methodology of Medicare's OCM. The primary outcome was the simulated average change in TCOC per 6-month episode of care attributable to use of biosimilars as an alternative to reference products. The study population consisted of episodes of care in 2020 and using the reference product or corresponding biosimilar for bevacizumab, rituximab, trastuzumab, epoetin alfa, filgrastim, or pegfilgrastim. TCOC was calculated for each episode of care with use of reference products only and compared with TCOC with corresponding biosimilars. The simulation calculated TCOC outcomes in cohorts of 100 episodes sampled from the Medicare LDS study population using a Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations. RESULTS: Among the total of 8281 6-month oncology care episodes identified in the study period (initiating January 2020 to July 2020) in Medicare claims, 1586 (19.2%) episodes met OCM and study criteria and were included. Applying the simulation methods to these observed episodes, biosimilar substitution reduced mean TCOC per episode by $1193 (95% CI $583-1840). The cost reduction from biosimilars represented 2.4% of the average TCOC benchmark and led to a 15% reduction in the risk of providers needing to pay recoupments to Medicare for exceeding TCOC benchmarks. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of our simulation study using observed Medicare claims and OCM criteria, we found that biosimilar substitution for reference products can significantly lower episode TCOC and improve provider financial performance under the terms of the largest value-based payment model implemented to date.

Biomarker Testing Trends in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Who Live in Rural Areas and Urban Clusters in the US.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data on biomarker testing rates in rural populations with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). To assess biomarker testing practices, oncologists in rural areas and urban clusters in the US were surveyed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A web-based survey was administered to oncologists spending ≥40% of their time practicing in rural areas or urban clusters and who had treated ≥2 patients with stage IV mCRC in the prior month. RESULTS: Ninety-nine oncologists completed the quantitative survey and 17 the qualitative interview. Among respondents, 97% reported ordering biomarker tests. Oncologists reported testing for KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, HER2, and mismatch repair deficiency/microsatellite instability in 72%, 65%, 63%, 56%, and 66% of patients with metastatic disease, respectively. Forty-one percent reported performing reflex testing. The most cited testing barriers were lack of insurance coverage, insufficient tissue samples, and long turnaround times. CONCLUSION: Further assessment of rural testing practices is needed.

Practical Strategies for Advanced Practitioners Streamlining the Integration of Oncology Biosimilar Therapies Into Practice.

In oncology practices across the United States, biosimilars-highly similar versions of licensed, innovator (reference) biological medicines-are currently emerging as more affordable therapeutic options. Only after a rigorous product development program, during which a proposed biosimilar is analyzed and compared with its reference biologic to demonstrate comparable clinical efficacy, safety, and tolerability, is biosimilarity supported and licensure granted by the US Food and Drug Administration. Coincidentally, many advanced practitioners (APs) are finding themselves at the forefront of introducing monoclonal antibody (mAb) biosimilars in their oncology practice. Advanced practitioners are often tasked with building the confidence of colleagues and patients who may be unfamiliar with biosimilars, skeptical about integrating them, or have yet to consider mAb biosimilars as a viable and more sustainable cancer treatment option. With this responsibility comes a number of challenges that require APs to become knowledgeable about biosimilars and approaches to their implementation. This review aims to highlight the practical implications of streamlining the integration of biosimilar therapies in an oncology practice.

Real-world use and acceptance of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies of rituximab in oncology practice in the USA.

Aim: To describe treatment patterns and patient and provider characteristics associated with the recently introduced biosimilar rituximab-pvvr. Methods: This retrospective analysis included adult patients with one or more claims for rituximab-pvvr, with an index date of 23 January 2020 and a study period covering 1 January 2019-31 July 2020. Results: Of 249 patients included, the most common rituximab-pvvr indications were non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (77.5%) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (11.2%). Some patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (42.5%) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (39.3%) switched to rituximab-pvvr from the reference product or another rituximab biosimilar. Most patients were aged ≥65 years (63.5%) and were male (54.6%). Most (59.0%) rituximab-pvvr prescribers practiced in the south of the USA. Conclusion: Utilization occurred in approved and extrapolated indications. These preliminary findings suggest switching between reference product and rituximab biosimilars; rituximab-pvvr combination regimens are being adopted in real-world oncology practice.

Lay abstract A biosimilar is a biological medication that is highly similar in structure and function to a biological medication already approved by the US FDA ­ the 'original biologic'. The first biosimilars approved to treat certain blood cancers have become available in the USA. This study examined how a recently introduced rituximab biosimilar was being utilized, looking at patient and physician characteristics from a medical and prescription insurance claims database. This study did not examine the safety or effectiveness of this medication. While initial data are limited, the biosimilar, rituximab-pvvr, appears to be utilized to treat the same types of cancer as the original biologic, rituximab. The biosimilar was most frequently prescribed for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Sowing confusion in the field: the interchangeable use of biosimilar terminology.

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCI Act) created an abbreviated licensure pathway in the United States that allows for the development and approval of biologic products shown to be biosimilar to or interchangeable with a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-licensed reference product. FDA released the draft guidance for industry on Demonstrating Interchangeability with a Reference Product (hereafter referred to as the Draft Interchangeability Guidance) in January 2017. Despite FDA's efforts, there continues to be a great deal of confusion and misinformation surrounding the topic of interchangeability. Here we discuss interchangeability, as well as substitution of biological products, with a focus on the US. Additionally, the separate topic of physician-mediated switching is covered and distinguished from interchangeability and substitution.