Health Care Contact Days Among Older Cancer Survivors.

PURPOSE: Health care contact days-days spent receiving health care outside the home-represent an intuitive, practical, and person-centered measure of time consumed by health care. METHODS: We linked 2019 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey and traditional Medicare claims data for community-dwelling older adults with a history of cancer. We identified contact days (ie, spent in a hospital, emergency department, skilled nursing facility, or inpatient hospice or receiving ambulatory care including an office visit, procedure, treatment, imaging, or test) and described patterns of total and ambulatory contact days. Using weighted Poisson regression models, we identified factors associated with contact days. RESULTS: We included 1,168 older adults representing 4.51 million cancer survivors (median age, 76.4 years, 52.8% women). The median (IQR) time from cancer diagnosis was 65 (27-126) months. In 2019, these adults had mean (standard deviation) total contact days of 28.4 (27.6) and ambulatory contact days of 24.2 (23.6). These included days for tests (8.0 [8.8]), imaging (3.6 [4.1]), visits with any clinicians (12.4 [11.5]), and visits with primary care clinicians (4.4 [4.7]), and nononcology specialists (7.1 [9.4]) specifically. Sixty-four percent of days with a nonvisit ambulatory service (eg, a test) were not on the same day as a clinician visit. Factors associated with more total contact days included younger age, lower income, more chronic conditions, poor self-rated health, and tendency to "go to doctor as soon as feel bad." CONCLUSION: Older adult cancer survivors spent nearly 1 month of the year receiving health care outside the home. This care was largely ambulatory, often delivered by nononcologists, and varied by factors beyond clinical characteristics. These results highlight the need to recognize patient burdens and improve survivorship care delivery, including through care coordination.

Commercial Versus Medicaid Insurance and Use of High-Priced Anticancer Treatments.

BACKGROUND: Because the markups on cancer drugs vary by payor, providers' financial incentive to use high-price drugs is differential according to each patient's insurance type. We evaluated the association between patient insurer (commercial vs Medicaid) and the use of high-priced cancer treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We linked cancer registry, administrative claims, and demographic data for individuals diagnosed with cancer in North Carolina from 2004 to 2011, with either commercial or Medicaid insurance. We selected cancers with multiple FDA-approved, guideline-recommended chemotherapy options and large price differences between treatment options: advanced colorectal, lung, and head and neck cancer. The outcome was a receipt of a higher-priced option, and the exposure was insurer: commercial versus Medicaid. We estimated risk ratios (RRs) for the association between insurer and higher-priced treatment using log-binomial models with inverse probability of exposure weights. RESULTS: Of 812 patients, 209 (26%) had Medicaid. The unadjusted risk of receiving higher-priced treatment was 36% (215/603) for commercially insured and 27% (57/209) for Medicaid insured (RR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.02-1.67). After adjustment for confounders the association was attenuated (RR: 1.15, 95% CI: 0.81-1.65). Exploratory subgroup analysis suggested that commercial insurance was associated with increased receipt of higher-priced treatment among patients treated by non-NCI-designated providers (RR: 1.53, 95% CI: 1.14-2.04). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with Medicaid and commercial insurance received high-priced treatments in similar proportion, after accounting for differences in case mix. However, modification by provider characteristics suggests that insurance type may influence treatment selection for some patient groups. Further work is needed to determine the relationship between insurance status and newer, high-price drugs such as immune-oncology agents.

The Inflation Reduction Act: Implications for Medicare spending and access to biologic therapies for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis and asthma.

KEY POINTS: In 2021, Medicare spending on biologics was $926 million in Part B (FFS) and $1.3 billion in Part D (FFS/MA). Between 2017 and 2021, annual Medicare spending on biologics increased by approximately 200%. Between 2023 and 2025, Medicare Part D OOP costs for biologics will decrease by an estimated 50%-60%.

Consuming Patients' Days: Time Spent on Ambulatory Appointments by People With Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In qualitative work, patients report that seemingly short trips to clinic (eg, a supposed 10-minute blood draw) often turn into "all-day affairs." We sought to quantify the time patients with cancer spend attending ambulatory appointments. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of patients scheduled for oncology-related ambulatory care (eg, labs, imaging, procedures, infusions, and clinician visits) at an academic cancer center over 1 week. The primary exposure was the ambulatory service type(s) (eg, clinician visit only, labs and infusion, etc.). We used Real-Time Location System badge data to calculate clinic times and estimated round-trip travel times and parking times. We calculated and summarized clinic and total (clinic + travel + parking) times for ambulatory service types. RESULTS: We included 435 patients. Across all service day type(s), the median (IQR) clinic time was 119 (78-202) minutes. The estimated median (IQR) round-trip driving distance and travel time was 34 (17-49) miles and 50 (36-68) minutes. The median (IQR) parking time was 14 (12-15) minutes. Overall, the median (IQR) total time was 197 (143-287) minutes. The median total times for specific service type(s) included: 99 minutes for lab-only, 144 minutes for clinician visit only, and 278 minutes for labs, clinician visit, and infusion. CONCLUSION: Patients often spent several hours pursuing ambulatory cancer care on a given day. Accounting for opportunity time costs and the coordination of activities around ambulatory care, these results highlight the substantial time burdens of cancer care, and support the notion that many days with ambulatory health care contact may represent "lost days."

Medicare Part D Payments for Generic Imatinib From 2017 to 2023.

This cross-sectional study compares pharmacy acquisition costs and point-of-sale prices for generic imatinib under Medicare Part D from 2017 to 2023.

Analyzing Access and Costs of Oral Medications for Overactive Bladder: Uncovering Disparities.

OBJECTIVE: To report out-of-pocket costs associated with overactive bladder (OAB) medications among Medicare beneficiaries and the uninsured. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Prescription Drug Plan Formulary Data (Q1-2022). FDA-approved medications for OAB were identified. We calculated out-of-pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries in each Part D prescription benefit phase, average retail price, total yearly costs and discounted prices through cash-pay discount coupons (GoodRx) or online pharmacies like Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company (MCCPDC). We also report plan utilization management requirements. RESULTS: We analyzed 5721 plan formularies for 18 medications. Mirabegron was the only beta-3 agonist (B3). Only Vesicare oral solution (14.3% of plans) and Mirabegron (0.1%) required prior authorization. Many plans required step therapy for selective generic anticholinergics (ACH) (12.4%-43.3%), while the B3 rarely required step therapy (0.6%). Monthly costs varied by coverage phase and averaged $59 for ACHs in the initial coverage phase ($14 in catastrophic; $72 in coverage gap). The monthly cost for the B3 averaged $47 in the initial coverage phase ($26 in catastrophic; $129 in coverage gap). The total yearly cost for generic ACHs ranged from $494 (oxybutynin IR) to $1452 (darifenacin) and the yearly cost for brand-name ACHs ranged from $1175 (Toviaz ER) to $2198 (Oxytrol). The total yearly cost for the B3 was $1283. CONCLUSION: We evaluated coverage, out-of-pocket costs, total yearly costs, and utilization management for OAB medications to make pricing more transparent. While selective medications may be "covered," coverage does not translate into affordable drug prices.

Avenues for Strengthening PCORnet's Capacity to Advance Patient-Centered Economic Outcomes in Patient-Centered Outcomes Research (PCOR).

PCORnet, the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network, provides the ability to conduct prospective and observational pragmatic research by leveraging standardized, curated electronic health records data together with patient and stakeholder engagement. PCORnet is funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) and is composed of 8 Clinical Research Networks that incorporate at total of 79 health system "sites." As the network developed, linkage to commercial health plans, federal insurance claims, disease registries, and other data resources demonstrated the value in extending the networks infrastructure to provide a more complete representation of patient's health and lived experiences. Initially, PCORnet studies avoided direct economic comparative effectiveness as a topic. However, PCORI's authorizing law was amended in 2019 to allow studies to incorporate patient-centered economic outcomes in primary research aims. With PCORI's expanded scope and PCORnet's phase 3 beginning in January 2022, there are opportunities to strengthen the network's ability to support economic patient-centered outcomes research. This commentary will discuss approaches that have been incorporated to date by the network and point to opportunities for the network to incorporate economic variables for analysis, informed by patient and stakeholder perspectives. Topics addressed include: (1) data linkage infrastructure; (2) commercial health plan partnerships; (3) Medicare and Medicaid linkage; (4) health system billing-based benchmarking; (5) area-level measures; (6) individual-level measures; (7) pharmacy benefits and retail pharmacy data; and (8) the importance of transparency and engagement while addressing the biases inherent in linking real-world data sources.

The Association Between Solid Organ Transplant and Recurrence of Acute Diverticulitis: A National Assessment.

OBJECTIVE: Compare rates and severity of recurrent acute diverticulitis in patients with and without solid organ transplant. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Immunocompromised solid organ transplant recipients have been considered higher risk for both recurrence and severity of acute diverticulitis. Current guidelines recommend an individualized approach for colectomy in these patients, but these are based on single-center data. METHODS: We identified patients with acute diverticulitis using the Merative MarketScan commercial claims data from 2014-2020. Patients were classified by history of solid organ transplant. The primary outcome was recurrence of acute diverticulitis with an associated antibiotic prescription ≥60 days from the initial episode. Secondary outcomes included hospitalization, colectomy, and ostomy in patients with recurrence. Analyses used inverse probability weighting to adjust for imbalances in covariates. RESULTS: Of 170,697 patients with evidence of acute diverticulitis, 442 (0.2%) had a history of solid organ transplantation. In the weighted cohort, among people who had not been censored at one year (n=515), 112 (22%; 95% CI 20%-25%) experienced a recurrence within the first year. Solid organ transplantation was not significantly associated with a risk of recurrence (HR 1.19; 95% CI 0.94-1.50). There was also no statistically significant difference in the hospitalization rate for recurrent diverticulitis. Restricting the analysis to hospitalized recurrences, there was no statistically significant difference observed in either length of stay or discharge status. CONCLUSIONS: In this national analysis of commercially-insured patients with acute diverticulitis we found no statistically significant differences in recurrence between those with and without a history of solid organ transplant. We do not support an aggressive colectomy strategy based on concern for increased recurrence rate and severity in a solid organ transplant population.

Pharmaceutical industry payments and delivery of non-recommended and low value cancer drugs: population based cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the association between oncologists' receipt of payments from the pharmaceutical industry and delivery of non-recommended or low value interventions among their patients. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: Fee-for-service Medicare claims. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare beneficiaries with a diagnosis of incident cancer (new occurrence of a cancer diagnosis code in proximity to claims for cancer treatment, and no such diagnosis codes during a ≥1 year washout period) during 2014-19, who met additional requirements identifying them as at risk for one of four non-recommended or low value interventions: denosumab for castration sensitive prostate cancer, granulocyte colony stimulating factors (GCSF) for patients at low risk for neutropenic fever, nab-paclitaxel for cancers with no evidence of superiority over paclitaxel, and a branded drug in settings where a generic or biosimilar version was available. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Receipt of the non-recommended or low value drug for which the patient was at risk. The primary association of interest was the assigned oncologist's receipt of any general payments from the manufacturer of the corresponding non-recommended or low value drug (measured in Open Payments) within 365 days before the patient's index cancer date. The two modeling approaches used were general linear model controlling for patients' characteristics and calendar year, and general linear model with physician level indicator variables. RESULTS: Oncologists were in receipt of industry payments for 2962 of 9799 patients (30.2%) at risk for non-recommended denosumab (median $63), 76 747 of 271 485 patients (28.3%) at risk for GCSF (median $60); 18 491 of 86 394 patients (21.4%) at risk for nab-paclitaxel (median $89), and 4170 of 13 386 patients (31.2%) at risk for branded drugs (median $156). The unadjusted proportion of patients who received non-recommended denosumab was 31.4% for those whose oncologist had not received payment and 49.5% for those whose oncologist had (prevalence difference 18.0%); the corresponding values for GCSF were 26.6% v 32.1% (5.5%), for nab-paclitaxel were 7.3% v 15.1% (7.8%), and for branded drugs were 88.3% v 83.5% (-4.8%). Controlling for patients' characteristics and calendar year, payments from industry were associated with increased use of denosumab (17.5% (95% confidence interval 15.3% to 19.7%)), GCSF (5.8% (5.4% to 6.1%)), and nab-paclitaxel (7.6% (7.1% to 8.1%)), but lower use of branded drugs (-4.6% (-5.8% to -3.3%)). In physician level indicator models, payments from industry were associated with increased use of denosumab (7.4% (2.5% to 12.2%)) and nab-paclitaxel (1.7% (0.9% to 2.5%)), but not with GCSF (0.4% (-0.3% to 1.1%)) or branded drugs (1.2% (-6.0 to 8.5%)). CONCLUSIONS: Within some clinical scenarios, industry payments to physicians are associated with non-recommended and low value drugs. These findings raise quality of care concerns about the financial relationships between physicians and industry.

Cost-Related Barriers and Ensuring Equitable Access to Vaccines in the US.

This Viewpoint discusses policies toward increasing access to effective COVID-19 vaccines, advancing vaccine equity, strengthening reimbursement policies, and increasing federal incentives for insurers and health systems to improve COVID-19 vaccine uptake.

Quality of Medication Cost Conversations and Interest in Future Cost Conversations Among Older Adults.

BACKGROUND: Medication cost conversations occur less frequently than patients prefer, and it is unclear whether patients have positive experiences with them when they do occur. OBJECTIVE: To describe patients' experiences discussing their medication costs with their health care team. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Nationally representative survey fielded in the United States in 2022 (response rate = 48.5%). PATIENTS: 1020 adults over age 65. MEASUREMENTS: Primary measures were adapted from Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers Survey visit survey v4.0 and captured patients' experiences of medication cost conversations. Additional measures captured patients' interest in future cost conversations, the type of clinicians with whom they would be comfortable discussing costs, and sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: Among 1020 respondents who discussed medication prices with their health care team, 39.3% were 75 or older and 78.6% were non-Hispanic White. Forty-three percent of respondents indicated that their prior medication cost conversation was not easy to understand; 3% indicated their health care team was not respectful and 26% indicated their health care team was somewhat respectful during their last conversation; 48% indicated that there was not enough time. Those reporting that their prior discussion was not easy to understand or that their clinician was not definitely respectful were less likely to be interested in future discussions. Only 6% and 10% of respondents indicated being comfortable discussing medication prices with financial counselors or social workers, respectively. Few differences in responses were observed by survey participant characteristics. LIMITATIONS: This cross-sectional survey of prior experiences may be subject to recall bias. CONCLUSION: Among older adults who engaged in prior medication cost conversations, many report that these conversations are not easy to understand and that almost one-third of clinicians were somewhat or not respectful. Efforts to increase the frequency of medication cost conversations should consider parallel interventions to ensure the discussions are effective at informing prescribing decisions and reducing cost-related medication nonadherence.

Trends in U.S. self-reported health and self-care behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic.

IMPORTANCE: The COVID-19 pandemic represents a unique stressor in Americans' daily lives and access to health services. However, it remains unclear how the pandemic impacted perceived health status and engagement in health-related behaviors. OBJECTIVE: To assess changes in self-reported health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to explore trends in health-related behaviors that may underlie the observed health changes. DESIGN: Interrupted time series stratified by age, gender, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, household income, and employment status. SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: All adult respondents to the 2016-2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (N = 2,146,384). EXPOSURE: Survey completion following the U.S. public health emergency declaration (March-December 2020). January 2019 to February 2020 served as our reference period. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Self-reported health outcomes included the number of days per month that respondents spent in poor mental health, physical health, or when poor health prevented their usual activities of daily living. Self-reported health behaviors included the number of hours slept per day, number of days in the past month where alcohol was consumed, participation in any exercise, and current smoking status. RESULTS: The national rate of days spent in poor physical health decreased overall (-1.00 days, 95% CI: -1.10 to -0.90) and for all analyzed subgroups. The rate of poor mental health days or days when poor health prevented usual activities did not change overall but exhibited substantial heterogeneity by subgroup. We also observed overall increases in mean sleep hours per day (+0.09, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.13), the percentage of adults who report any exercise activity (+3.28%, 95% CI 2.48 to 4.09), increased alcohol consumption days (0.27, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.37), and decreased smoking prevalence (-1.11%, 95% CI -1.39 to -0.83). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The COVID-19 pandemic had deleterious but heterogeneous effects on mental health, days when poor health prevented usual activities, and alcohol consumption. In contrast, the pandemic's onset was associated with improvements in physical health, mean hours of sleep per day, exercise participation, and smoking status. These findings highlight the need for targeted outreach and interventions to improve mental health in individuals who may be disproportionately affected by the pandemic.

Health Care Contact Days Experienced by Decedents With Advanced GI Cancer.

PURPOSE: Frequent visits to health care facilities can be time intensive and all-consuming for people with cancer. We measured health care contact days (days with healthcare contact outside the home) among decedents with advanced GI cancer and examined sources of contact days, their associations with demographic and clinical factors, and their temporal patterns over the course of illness. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using a tumor registry and electronic medical record data for decedents with stage IV GI cancer between 2011 and 2019 in a large health care network in MN. We determined contact days from diagnosis to death using chart review. Using multivariable beta regression adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics offset by survival, we calculated adjusted estimates of contact days and determined patient-level factors associated with percentage of contact days. RESULTS: We identified 809 patients eligible for analysis (median [IQR] age at diagnosis, 65 [56-73] years). The median (IQR) overall survival was 175 (56-459) days. Patients spent a median (IQR) of 25.8% (17.4%-39.1%) of these as contact days. Of these days, 83.6% were spent on outpatient visits. In the multivariable analysis, older age, Black race, and never receiving systemic cancer-directed treatment were associated with a higher percentage of contact days. The percentage of contact days was highest in the first month after diagnosis (39.6%) and before death (32.2%), with a more moderate middle phase (U-shaped curve). CONCLUSION: Decedents with advanced GI cancer spend 1 in 4 days alive with health care contact, despite a median survival of under 6 months. This is even higher immediately postdiagnosis and near death. These findings highlight the need to understand sources of variation, benchmark appropriate care, and deliver more efficient care for this vulnerable population with limited time.

Buprenorphine Out-of-Pocket Costs and Discontinuation in Privately Insured Adults With Opioid Use Disorder.

This cohort study examined the association between out-of-pocket costs for an initial buprenorphine prescription and its discontinuation among commercially insured US adults with opioid use disorder.

Utilization Management Trends in Medicare Part D Oncology Drugs, 2010-2020.

This study examines the exposure of Medicare Part D beneficiaries to utilization management, such as prior authorization, for oral oncology drugs.

Coping Mechanisms for Financial Toxicity Among Patients With Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Survey-based Assessment.

PURPOSE: Assessments of financial toxicity among patients with metastatic prostate cancer are lacking. Using patient surveys, we sought to identify coping mechanisms and assess characteristics associated with lower financial toxicity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Surveys were administered to all patients seen at a single center's Advanced Prostate Cancer Clinic over a 3-month period. Surveys included the COST-FACIT (COmprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity) and coping mechanism questionnaires. Patients with metastatic disease (lymph nodes, bone, visceral) were included for analysis. Coping mechanisms were compared between patients experiencing low (COST-FACIT >24) vs high (COST-FACIT ≤24) financial toxicity using Fisher's exact test. Multivariable linear regression was used to evaluate characteristics associated with lower financial toxicity. RESULTS: Overall, 281 patients met inclusion criteria of which 79 reported high financial toxicity. In multivariable analysis, characteristics associated with lower financial toxicity included older age (estimate: 0.36, 95%CI: 0.21-0.52), applying for patient assistance programs (estimate: 4.42, 95%CI: 1.72-7.11), and an annual income of at least $100,000 (estimate: 7.81, 95%CI: 0.97, 14.66). Patients with high financial toxicity were more likely to decrease spending on basic goods (35% vs 2.5%, P < .001) and leisure activities (59% vs 15%, P > .001), as well as use savings (62% vs 17%, P < .001) to pay for their treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In this cross-sectional study, patients with metastatic prostate cancer and high financial toxicity were more likely to decrease spending on basic goods and leisure activities and use savings to pay for care. Understanding the impact of financial toxicity on patients' lives is crucial to inform shared decision-making and interventions designed to mitigate financial toxicity in this population.

Estimating the Impact of the Inflation Reduction Act on the Out-of-Pocket Costs for Medicare Beneficiaries With Advanced Prostate Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Combination systemic therapy for advanced prostate cancer has reduced mortality, but high out-of-pocket costs impose financial barriers for patients. The Inflation Reduction Act's $2,000 out-of-pocket spending cap for Medicare's prescription drug benefit (Part D) can potentially lower out-of-pocket spending for beneficiaries starting in 2025. This study aims to compare out-of-pocket spending for commonly prescribed regimens for advanced prostate cancer before and after implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act. METHODS: Medication regimens constructed to treat metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer consisted of baseline androgen deprivation therapy with traditional chemotherapy, androgen receptor inhibitors, and androgen biosynthesis inhibitors. Using 2023 Medicare Part B prices and the Medicare Part D plan finder, we estimated annual out-of-pocket costs under current law and under the Inflation Reduction Act's redesigned standard Part D benefit. RESULTS: Under current law, out-of-pocket costs for Part D drugs ranged from $464 to $11,336 per year. Under the Inflation Reduction Act, annual out-of-pocket costs for 2 regimens remained unchanged: androgen deprivation therapy with docetaxel and androgen deprivation therapy with abiraterone and prednisone. However, out-of-pocket costs for regimens using branded novel hormonal therapy were significantly lower under the 2025 law with potential savings estimated to be $9,336 (79.2%) for apalutamide, $9,036 (78.7%) for enzalutamide, and $8,480 (76.5%) for docetaxel and darolutamide. CONCLUSIONS: The $2,000 spending cap introduced by the Inflation Reduction Act may significantly decrease out-of-pocket costs and reduce financial toxicity associated with advanced prostate cancer treatment, impacting an estimated 25,000 Medicare beneficiaries.

Commercial Health Plan and Enrollee Out-of-Pocket Spending on Accelerated Approval Products in 2019.

This cross-sectional study examines spending by health care plans and enrollees on products with accelerated approval.