Copay assistance use and prescription abandonment across race, ethnicity, or household income levels for select rheumatoid arthritis and oral oncolytic medicines.

BACKGROUND: Disparities in prescription abandonment may exacerbate health inequities. Whether copay assistance is associated with changes in prescription abandonment across different patient groups is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess disparities in copay assistance use; prescription abandonment across race, ethnicity, or income; and association of copay use with prescription abandonment and whether it differs across race, ethnicity, or household income. METHODS: This pooled, cross-sectional study assessed claims-level prescription data linked to a consumer database containing information on race, ethnicity, and household income for commercially insured patients. The first prescription for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or oral oncolytic medicines from 2016 to 2020 was included. Logistic regression models measured odds of copay assistance use (copay/discount cards or free-trial voucher) and prescription abandonment (prescription not filled within 30 days of health plan approval). Interaction terms for copay assistance use by race, ethnicity, and income were tested. RESULTS: The sample included 67,674 patients prescribed RA medications and 9,560 prescribed oral oncolytic medications. Copay assistance use across race, ethnicity, and income ranged from 28.2% to 31.1% (RA medicines) and 27.2% to 36.7% (oral oncolytic medicines). Among those prescribed RA medicines and not using copay assistance, Black/African American, Hispanic patients, and those with household incomes less than $50,000 were more likely to abandon prescriptions than White patients and patients with household incomes more than $200,000 (odds ratio [OR] [95% CI], P value: Black/African American: 1.17 [1.06-1.29], P < 0.01; Hispanic: 1.11 [1.01-1.22], P = 0.03; income <$50,000: 1.24 [1.11-1.37], P < 0.01). Among patients using oral oncolytic medicines and not using copay assistance, there was no racial or ethnic difference in prescription abandonment. Patients using oral oncolytics with household incomes less than $50,000 were more likely to use copay assistance (1.34 [1.12-1.61], P < 0.01), but also more likely to abandon their prescriptions if not using copay assistance (1.44 [1.12-1.85], P < 0.01). Copay assistance was associated with a 79% (RA) and 71% (oral oncolytics) lower odds of prescription abandonment (0.21 [0.19-0.24], P < 0.01; 0.29 [0.24-0.36], P < 0.01), which did not differ across race, ethnicity, or income levels (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Copay assistance has potential to narrow disparities in prescription abandonment for commercially insured Black/African American or Hispanic patients taking RA medicines and patients with household incomes less than $50,000; however, efforts to improve access to copay assistance are needed. Copay assistance, as a factor facilitating equal access to medicines, is an important consideration when evaluating policies that impact access to copay assistance programs. DISCLOSURES: Genentech, Inc., provided funding and support for this study. Dr Wong is an employee of Genentech, Inc., and shareholder of Roche, Inc. Ms Donahue, Mr Thiesen, and Mr Yeaw are employees of IQVIA.

Differences in Diabetic Prescription Drug Utilization and Costs Among Patients With Diabetes Enrolled in Colorado Marketplace and Medicaid Plans, 2014-2015.

Importance: Increasing prices of antidiabetic medications in the US have raised substantial concerns about the effects of drug affordability on diabetes care. There has been little rigorous evidence comparing the experiences of patients with diabetes across different types of insurance coverage. Objective: To compare the utilization patterns and costs of prescription drugs to treat diabetes among low-income adults with Medicaid vs those with Marketplace insurance in Colorado during 2014 and 2015. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included diabetic patients enrolled in Colorado Medicaid and Marketplace plans who were aged 19 to 64 years and had incomes between 75% and 200% of the federal poverty level during 2014 and 2015. Data analysis was conducted from September 2020 to April 2021. Exposures: Health insurance through Colorado Medicaid or Colorado's state-based Marketplace. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were drug utilization (prescription drug fills) and drug costs (total costs and out-of-pocket costs). The secondary outcome was months with an active prescription for noninsulin antidiabetic medications. An all payer claims database was combined with income data, and linear models were used to adjust for clinical and demographic confounders. Results: Of 22 788 diabetic patients included in the study, 20 245 were enrolled in Medicaid and 2543 in a Marketplace plan. Marketplace-eligible individuals were older (mean [SD] age, 52.12 [10.60] vs 47.70 [11.33] years), and Medicaid-eligible individuals were more likely to be female (12 429 [61.4%] vs 1413 [55.6%]). Medicaid-eligible patients were significantly more likely than Marketplace-eligible patients to fill prescriptions for dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (adjusted difference, -3.7%; 95% CI, -5.3 to -2.1; P < .001) and sulfonylureas (adjusted difference, -6.6%; 95% CI, -8.9 to -4.3; P < .001). Overall rates of insulin use were similar in the 2 groups (adjusted difference, -2.3%; -5.1 to 0.5; P = .11). Out-of-pocket costs for noninsulin medications were 84.4% to 95.2% lower and total costs were 9.4% to 54.2% lower in Medicaid than in Marketplace plans. Out-of-pocket costs for insulin were 76.7% to 94.7% lower in Medicaid than in Marketplace plans, whereas differences in total insulin costs were mixed. The percentage of months of apparent active medication coverage was similar between the 2 groups for 4 of 5 drug classes examined, with Marketplace-eligible patients having a greater percentage of months than Medicaid-eligible patients for sulfonylureas (adjusted difference, 5.3%; 95% CI, 0.3%-10.4%; P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, drug utilization across multiple drug classes was higher and drug costs were significantly lower for adults with diabetes enrolled in Medicaid than for those with subsidized Marketplace plans. Patients with Marketplace coverage had a similar percentage of months with an active prescription as patients with Medicaid coverage.

Pediatric Medication Noninitiation in Spain.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate medication noninitiation prevalence in the pediatric population and identify the explanatory factors underlying this behavior. METHODS: Observational study of patients (<18 years old) receiving at least 1 new prescription (28 pharmaceutical subgroups; July 2017 to June 2018) in Catalonia, Spain. A prescription was considered new when there was no prescription for the same pharmaceutical subgroup in the previous 6 months. Noninitiation occurred when a prescription was not filled within 1 month or 6 months (sensitivity analysis). Prevalence was estimated as the proportion of total prescriptions not initiated. To identify explanatory factors, a multivariable multilevel logistic regression model was used, and adjusted odds ratios were reported. RESULTS: Overall, 1 539 003 new prescriptions were issued to 715 895 children. The overall prevalence of 1-month noninitiation was 9.0% (ranging from 2.6% [oral antibiotics] to 21.5% [proton pump inhibitors]), and the prevalence of 6-month noninitiation was 8.5%. Noninitiation was higher in the youngest and oldest population groups, in children from families with a 0% copayment rate (vulnerable populations) and those with conditions from external causes. Out-of-pocket costs of drugs increased the odds of noninitiation. The odds of noninitiation were lower when the prescription was issued by a pediatrician (compared with a primary or secondary care clinician). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of noninitiation of medical treatments in pediatrics is high and varies according to patients' ages and medical groups. Results suggest that there are inequities in access to pharmacologic treatments in this population that must be taken into account by health care planners and providers.

Knowledge, Experience, and Perceptions of Generic Drugs among Middle-Aged Adults and their Willingness-to-Pay: A Nationwide Online Survey in Japan.

Promoting generic drugs can reduce the financial burden on patients and improve healthcare finances. The insurers have been conducting promotional efforts, such as direct-mail campaigns, but little is known about the public's perception of generic drugs and effective message strategies for promotion. In 2018, we conducted a web-based survey of middle-aged Japanese men and women that investigated: (i) their perceptions of generic drugs, (ii) the association between perceptions and willingness-to-pay for brand-name drugs relative to generic drugs, and (iii) potentially effective forms of information provision to alter individuals' perceptions. Of the 1,005 respondents, over half perceived generic drugs as having the same level of efficacy and safety as brand-name drugs. While willingness-to-pay was dispersed among respondents, two factors were associated with small willingness-to-pay: (a) perceiving generic drugs as having the same level of efficacy and safety as brand-name drugs and (b) perceiving that promoting the use of generic drugs is important for controlling medical expenditures. Moreover, presenting potential savings over five years by choosing generic drugs was a potentially effective tool for altering perceptions, relative to showing monthly savings. Our findings suggest that certain parts of the population still have high willingness-to-pay for brand-name drugs, and strategic communication to alter perception could be effective in promoting the use of generic drugs among those who are price-inelastic.

Strategies to Reduce Out-of-Pocket Medication Costs for Canadians Living with Heart Failure.

INTRODUCTION: Daily medication is the cornerstone of evidence-based therapy to reduce mortality and morbidity in patients with heart failure (HF). Up to 20% of Canadian patients pay for medications out of pocket. We sought to identify strategies that patients and prescribers can employ to reduce these costs. METHODS: We collected data from outpatient pharmacies in Hamilton, Ontario. We determined prices for different medications in each of the drug classes recommended for HF with reduced ejection fraction in the Canadian Cardiovascular Society's guidelines. We examined differences in dispensing and delivery fees and inquired about other cost-saving strategies. RESULTS: We collected data from 24 different pharmacies, including a selection of hospital-based, independent, and larger chain pharmacies. In the most extreme scenario (i.e., 90-day prescription instead of a 30-day prescription and the least expensive generic drug instead of the most expensive brand name drug), total medication costs can differ by up to $495.56 per month. Costs were affected by choice of agent within a drug class, generic versus brand-name drug, quantity dispensed, dispensing fee, and delivery cost. CONCLUSIONS: Prescription content, dispensing practice, and pharmacy choice can remarkably impact out-of-pocket costs for HF medications. Prescribers can reduce costs by writing 90-day prescriptions and choosing the lowest-cost generic drugs in each therapeutic class. Patients should consider the services received for their pharmacy dispensing fees, use free delivery services where needed, and request inexpensive generic drugs. Pharmacists can facilitate cost minimization without compromising therapeutic efficacy.

[Medical expenses for diabetes care in Japan: Analysis of inter-prefecture differences].

Objectives　Medical expenses for diabetes differ between Japan's 47 prefectures. The medical care expenditure regulation plan aims to reduce regional differences in outpatient medical costs through prevention of severe diabetes, promotion of specific health checkups and specific health guidance, promotion of generic drugs, and proper use of medicines. To achieve this goal, we need to conduct an in-depth analysis of inter-prefecture differences in diabetes care expenses. This study analyzed regional differences in prescription fees for dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and the use of generic sulfonylureas (SUs), glinides, biguanides, α-glucosidase inhibitors (α-GIs), and thiazoline derivatives, using the National Database of Health Insurance Claims and Specific Health Checkups of Japan (NDB). Furthermore, we analyzed regional differences in consultancy fees for dialysis prevention.Methods　We analyzed the 2nd NDB Open Data Japan website of the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare. Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) was used to evaluate the relationship between the medical costs of diabetes and each factor. The correlation coefficient was analyzed with Student's t-test, and a P-value<0.05 was considered statistically significant.Results　Regarding oral hypoglycemic drugs, prefectures with a large number of DPP-4 inhibitors tended to have higher medical costs of diabetes (r=0.40, P=0.0048). Furthermore, such expenses tended to be low in prefectures where the use of generic SU drugs was high (r=-0.43, P=0.0023).Conclusions　In conclusion, the results revealed regional differences in the use of DPP-4 inhibitors and generic SU drugs, which may contribute to the regional differences in medical expenses for diabetes. This study suggests that NDB open data are useful for policy making to reduce regional differences in outpatient medical costs of diabetes.

Part D coverage gap reform: trends in drug use and expenditures.

OBJECTIVES: This study analyzed annual trends in the distribution of beneficiaries entering each benefit phase and the utilization of and expenditures for prescription drugs among Medicare Part D beneficiaries from 2008 to 2015. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective, repeated cross-sectional analysis using Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey data. METHODS: The study population included elderly Part D beneficiaries without a low-income subsidy, with continuous enrollment in a Part D plan, and with at least 1 prescription fill for a given year. We assessed annual trends for 3 outcomes: (1) proportion of beneficiaries entering each benefit phase and the number of days taken to enter these phases, (2) number of 30-day prescription drug fills, and (3) total and out-of-pocket spending on prescription drugs. RESULTS: The proportion of beneficiaries reaching the catastrophic coverage phase increased after the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and they reached the threshold earlier in the year. The overall number of 30-day drug fills increased over the study period, although no statistically significant changes in utilization were seen among those reaching the catastrophic coverage phase. Total drug spending steadily increased over time, particularly after the ACA, with the largest increase seen in those reaching the catastrophic threshold; however, out-of-pocket spending significantly decreased. CONCLUSIONS: Although this study provides support for reductions in financial barriers to prescription drugs under the ACA, substantial increases in both total drug spending and the proportion of high-cost beneficiaries in the Part D program indicate a growing burden of Part D spending on the Medicare program, which is expected to continue to grow in the future.

Patient and Plan Spending after State Specialty-Drug Out-of-Pocket Spending Caps.

BACKGROUND: Specialty drugs are used to treat complex or life-threatening conditions, often at high financial costs to both patients and health plans. Three states - Delaware, Louisiana, and Maryland - passed legislation to cap out-of-pocket payments for specialty drugs at $150 per prescription. A concern is that these caps could shift costs to health plans, increasing insurance premiums. Estimates of the effect of the caps on patient and health-plan spending could inform future policies. METHODS: We analyzed a sample that included 27,161 persons under 65 years of age who had rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, hepatitis C, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, Crohn's disease, or ulcerative colitis and who were in commercial health plans from 2011 through 2016 that were administered by three large nationwide insurers. The primary outcome was the change in out-of-pocket spending among specialty-drug users who were in the 95th percentile for spending on specialty drugs. Other outcomes were changes in mean out-of-pocket and health-plan spending for specialty drugs, nonspecialty drugs, and nondrug health care and utilization of specialty drugs. We compared outcomes in the three states that enacted caps with neighboring control states that did not, 3 years before and up to 3 years after enactment of the spending cap. RESULTS: Caps were associated with an adjusted change in out-of-pocket costs of -$351 (95% confidence interval, -554 to -148) per specialty-drug user per month, representing a 32% reduction in spending, among users in the 95th percentile of spending on specialty drugs. This finding was supported by multiple sensitivity analyses. Caps were not associated with changes in other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Caps for spending on specialty drugs were associated with substantial reductions in spending on specialty drugs among patients with the highest out-of-pocket costs, without detectable increases in health-plan spending, a proxy for future insurance premiums. (Funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health Data for Action Program.).

Development of a method to determine the cost of breast cancer treatment with chemotherapy at Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa.

BACKGROUND: There has been no comprehensive study determining the financial burden of breast cancer in the South African (SA) public sector. OBJECTIVES: To develop a method to determine the cost of breast cancer treatment with chemotherapy per episode of care and to quantify the associated costs relating to chemotherapy at Groote Schuur Hospital (GSH), a government hospital in SA. These costs included costs associated with the management of adverse events arising from chemotherapy. METHODS: Retrospective patient-level data were collected for 200 patients from electronic databases and patient folders between 2013 and 2015. Direct medical costs were determined from the health funder's perspective. The information collected was categorised into the following cost components: chemotherapy medicines, support medicines, administration of chemotherapy, laboratory tests, radiology scans and imaging, doctor consultations and adverse events. Time-and-motion studies were conducted on a set of new patients and the data obtained were used for the study sample of 200 patients. All the above costs were used to determine the cost of chemotherapy per episode of care. The episode of care was defined as the care provided from 2 months prior to the date of commencing chemotherapy (pre-chemotherapy phase), during chemotherapy (treatment phase) and until 6 months after the date when the last cycle of chemotherapy was administered (follow-up phase). RESULTS: A method was developed to determine the episode-of-care costs for breast cancer at GSH. The total direct medical cost for treatment of breast cancer at GSH for 200 patients was ZAR3 154 877, and the average episode-of-care cost per patient was ZAR15 774. The average cost of management of adverse events arising from the various treatment modalities was ZAR13 133 per patient. It was found that the cost of treating a patient with adverse events was 1.8 times higher than the cost of treating a patient without adverse events. Of the patients, 86.5% managed to complete their prescribed chemotherapy treatment cycles, and the average cost of treatment of these patients was 1.3 times more than the average cost for patients who could not complete their treatment, based on the number of treatment cycles received. CONCLUSION: A comprehensive method to determine the costs associated with breast cancer management per episode of care was developed, and costs were quantified at GSH according to the treatment protocol used at the hospital.