Prescription Drug Provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act: Any Relief of Financial Hardship for Patients With Cancer?

Impact of competition on reimbursement decisions for cancer drugs in China: an observational study

Background

Annual Chinese National negotiations for including innovative drugs in the National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) reveal an increasing number of new drugs with overlapping action mechanisms of action and similar indications. Yet, it is unclear if competition affects reimbursement decisions. Thus, we explored the impact of competition on reimbursement decisions for cancer drugs in China.

Methods

We identified the cancer drugs involved in NRDL negotiations from 2017 to 2022 and focused on the initial reimbursement decision for eligible newly negotiated drugs. Drugs were classified as within-class competitors based on their equivalent biological mechanisms of action and approved indications, including identified and potential competitors. Other variables included drug type, clinical benefit and safety, monthly drug cost, and disease incidence rate. We employed traditional univariate and multivariate Firth's penalized logistic regression to assess the association between reimbursement decisions and variables at the indication and drug levels.

Findings

Between 2017 and 2022, 102 cancer drugs corresponding to 141 indications were studied, and 66 drugs (64.7%) covering 95 indications (67.4%) were added to the NRDL. The proportion of reimbursements for indications with identified competition was significantly higher than that for indications without identified competition (84.6% vs 52.6%, p < 0.0001). However, the difference in reimbursement proportions between groups with and without potential competition was not statistically significant (66.7% vs 68.3%, p = 0.84). Firth's penalized logistic regression showed that identified competition was positively correlated with successful NRDL inclusion, whereas potential competition had no significant effect on negotiation outcomes. Improved overall survival or progression-free survival were positively associated with NRDL inclusion, whereas disease incidence negatively impacted reimbursement decisions.

Interpretation

Improved clinical benefit and identified competition were positively correlated with NRDL inclusion. In China's value-based negotiation model, clinical benefits served as a crucial foundation of price negotiation for cancer drugs, and market competition helped these drugs enter the NRDL at more reasonable prices. This has important implications for reimbursement decisions and accessibility and affordability improvement for innovative drugs worldwide.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 72104151).

Real-World Health Care Resource Use and Costs Among Patients With Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Treated With Venetoclax-Based and Bruton Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor-Based Regimens in the Second-Line Setting

PURPOSE

Real-world evidence comparing health care resource use (HRU) and costs between novel targeted therapies among patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is lacking. We compared all-cause and CLL-specific HRU and costs between patients initiated on B-cell lymphoma 2 inhibitor (venetoclax)- or Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi)-based regimens in the second-line (2L) setting.

METHODS

This is a retrospective observational study using Optum Clinformatics Data Mart of adult patients with CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma who received 2L venetoclax- or BTKi-based regimens (January 2018-December 2021) for the first time and had ≥one CLL diagnostic claim after 2L initiation and ≥two claims for venetoclax or BTKi. Baseline characteristics were balanced using stabilized inverse probability of treatment weights. Mean monthly cost difference (MMCD) between cohorts for all-cause and CLL-specific per patient per month (PPPM) costs was estimated. Rates of PPPM-HRU were compared between cohorts using rate ratios (RRs).

RESULTS

Of 280 patients, median age 75.5 years, 64.6% and 35.4% received BTKi- versus venetoclax-based regimens, respectively. Most BTKi-treated patients received monotherapy (88.4%), whereas 62.3% of venetoclax-treated patients received combination therapy with anti-CD20 agents. The median duration of 2L therapy was 11.6 and 11.0 months for BTKi versus venetoclax cohorts, respectively. All-cause total costs were lower for venetoclax versus BTKi (MMCD [SE], $-2,497.64 [$1,006.77] in US dollars (USD); P = .01), driven by lower medication costs offsetting medical costs; trends were similar for CLL-specific estimates. Outpatient HRU was higher for venetoclax versus BTKi (RR all-cause: 1.22 versus CLL-specific: 1.64).

CONCLUSION

Venetoclax was associated with total monthly cost savings versus BTKis, illustrating the economic value of time-limited venetoclax-based regimens in the 2L setting.

Why Does the Inflation Reduction Act Exclude Expensive Cancer Treatments in Price Negotiations?

PURPOSE

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) includes provisions for price negotiations of certain high-spending drugs in Medicare Parts B and D. This provision received considerable attention from those interested in the costs of cancer care since Medicare covers most patients with cancer and many cancer drugs are expensive. We simulate how many cancer drugs may be eligible for IRA price negotiations and examine the reasons that many are likely to be excluded from negotiation.

METHODS

This study uses 2021 Medicare Fee-for-Service Part B and Part D prescription drugs expenditure data. Cancer drugs were identified using the SEER Program list of cancer medications. Our measures included total spending, beneficiary users, and spending-per-beneficiary for all cancer drugs covered under Medicare. Each drug was evaluated for eligibility on the basis of IRA negotiation provisions, including estimated loss of patent exclusivity, current competitors, and orphan drug designation.

RESULTS

We found that very few cancer drugs will meet the IRA eligibility thresholds to be included in negotiations. We estimate that only 2.2% of beneficiaries with cancer will see lower costs because of the IRA negotiations. The main reason for this is that although novel cancer drug treatments are priced high, they generally treat relatively few beneficiaries and thus do not meet negotiation eligibility criteria, which are primarily based on a ranking of total spending.

CONCLUSION

The IRA negotiation provisions will have limited impact on cancer drug prices and will likely leave most patients with cancer exposed to high drug costs.

The evolution of payer management of oncology drugs in the United States between 2017 and 2022

BACKGROUND: Research conducted in 2017 by Runyan et al concerning the current and future management of oncology drugs in the United States formed the basis for this research. The authors concluded that despite the high cost of oncology drugs, US payers relied on traditional management tools to manage the category, although these tools were ineffective at controlling costs. Innovative tools were not common in 2017. OBJECTIVE: To compare findings from the 2017 research with findings from a 2022 payer survey to understand how payer management of oncology drugs changed over 5 years. The study evaluates changing trends in oncology drug management. METHODS: The survey that informed the publication by Runyan et al in 2017 was reviewed, updated, and completed by 21 pharmacy and medical directors across 18 organizations representing 121.9 million covered lives. Both surveys included questions about management tools being employed in oncology and challenges to managing oncology. They used case studies in non-small cell lung cancer and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. These disease areas were chosen again in 2022 because they were included in the 2017 survey and because of the increase in competition in both categories from 2017 to 2022. The payer sample was designed to match the 2017 sample. The research was fielded from March to May 2022. The results were analyzed in Microsoft Excel; basic statistical analysis was conducted. Payers' responses for each question were weighted by the number of reported covered lives at their organization so that the organization's site was represented. RESULTS: On average, payers rated the management priority of oncology as a 5.3 and the budget impact as a 6.3 on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 was low and 7 was high. Traditional tools remain dominant in this therapeutic area. However, there has been an increase in use of innovative tools. Pathways of care are trending upward since the initial survey in 2017. The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) also influences payers' decision-making in oncology more than it did 5 years ago. Despite these shifts, most payers allow for unrestricted access of targeted therapies in non-small cell lung cancer and chronic lymphocytic leukemia, in line with each drug's US Food and Drug Administration-approved label. CONCLUSIONS: The increased use of pathways of care, shifting financial risk to providers, and the influence of ICER should continue to be monitored. Future research should focus on the role of pathways of care, comprehensive, evidence-based treatment protocols, in influencing prescribing decisions of hematologists and oncologists. DISCLOSURES: The authors work for Envision Pharma Group (formerly Two Labs), a company that provides consulting services to the pharmaceutical and biotech industries. As such, clients in these industries pay Envision Pharma Group for their services. This study was funded independently by Envision Pharma Group.

Facing financial barriers to healthcare: patient-informed adaptation of a conceptual framework for adults with a history of cancer

Background

Cancer-related financial hardship is associated with negative clinical outcomes, which may be partially explained by cost-related delayed or forgone care in response to financial barriers. We sought to understand patient experiences facing financial barriers to medical care following a cancer diagnosis.

Methods

We conducted virtual, semi-structured interviews in Fall 2022 with 20 adults with a history of cancer who had experienced cancer-related financial hardship in the prior year. We used template analysis within a pragmatic paradigm, combining constructivist and critical realist theoretical perspectives, to analyze interview transcripts and adapt an existing conceptual framework of financial barriers to care.

Results

The majority of interviewees identified as women (70%), non-Hispanic white (60%), and reported an annual household income of <$48,000 (60%). As interviewees sought to overcome financial barriers, they described substantial frustration at the limitations and complexities of United States health and social care systems, resulting in a reliance on a fragmented, uncertain resource landscape. The administrative burden resulting from bureaucratic systems and the advocacy responsibilities required to navigate them ultimately fell on interviewees and their caregivers. Thus, participants described their ability to overcome financial barriers as being influenced by individual and interpersonal factors, such as social support, comfort asking for help, time, prior experience navigating resources, and physical and mental health. However, participants noted health system organizational factors, such as whether all new patients proactively met with a social worker or financial navigator, as having the potential to lessen the administrative and financial burden experienced.

Conclusion

We present an adapted conceptual framework outlining multi-level factors influencing patient experiences coping with financial barriers to medical care. In addition to influencing whether a patient ultimately delays or forgoes care due to cost, financial barriers also have the potential to independently affect patient mental, physical, and financial health.