Estimated out-of-pocket costs for cancer-directed and supportive care medications for older adults with advanced pancreatic cancer

Access to Financial Assistance Programs and Their Impact on Overall Spending on Oral Anticancer Medications at an Integrated Specialty Pharmacy

PURPOSE

Financial assistance (FA) programs are increasingly used to help patients afford oral anticancer medications (OAMs), but access to such programs and their impact on out-of-pocket (OOP) spending has not been well explored. This study aimed to (1) characterize the impact of receipt of FA on both OOP spending and likelihood of catastrophic spending on OAMs and (2) evaluate racial/ethnic disparities in access to FA programs.

METHODS

Patients with a cancer diagnosis prescribed an OAM anytime between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2021 were included in this retrospective, single-center study at an integrated specialty pharmacy affiliated with a tertiary academic cancer center. Fixed-effect regression models were used to characterize the impact of receipt of FA on overall spending and likelihood of catastrophic spending on OAMs, as well as explore the association of race/ethnicity with receipt of FA.

RESULTS

Across 1,186 patients prescribed an OAM, 37% received FA. Receipt of FA was associated with lower annual spending on OAMs (β = -$1,236 US dollars [USD; 95% CI, -$1,841 to -$658], P < .001) but not reduced risk of catastrophic spending (odds ratio [OR], 0.442 [95% CI, 0.755 to 3.199], P = .23). Non-White patients (OR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.43 to 0.85], P = .004) and patients who spoke English as a second language (OR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.23 to 0.90], P = .02) were less likely to receive FA compared with White and English-speaking patients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

FA programs can mitigate high OOP spending but not for patients who spend at catastrophic levels. There are racial/ethnic and language disparities in access to such programs. Future studies should evaluate access to FA programs across diverse delivery settings.

Pre-Diagnosis Pain in Patients With Pancreatic Cancer Signals the Need for Aggressive Symptom Management

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed the impact of pancreatic cancer (PC) pain on associated symptoms, activities, and resource utilization from 2016 to 2020 in an online patient registry.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Responses from PC patient volunteers (N = 1978) were analyzed from online surveys in a cross-sectional study. Comparisons were performed between PC patient groups reporting, (1) the presence vs. absence of pre-diagnosis PC pain, (2) high (4-8) vs. low (0-3) pain intensity scores on an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS), and (3) year of PC diagnosis (2010-2020). Descriptive statistics and all bivariate analyses were performed using Chi-square or Fisher's Exact tests.

RESULTS

PC pain was the most frequently reported pre-diagnosis symptom (62%). Pre-diagnostic PC pain was reported more frequently by women, those with a younger age at diagnosis, and those with PC that spread to the liver and peritoneum. Those with pre-diagnostic PC pain vs. those without reported higher pain intensities (2.64 ± 2.54 vs.1.56 ± 2.01 NRS mean ± SD, respectively, P = .0039); increased frequencies of post-diagnosis symptoms of cramping after meals, feelings of indigestion, and weight loss (P = .02-.0001); and increased resource utilization in PC pain management: (ER visits N = 86 vs. N = 6, P = .018 and analgesic prescriptions, P < .03). The frequency of high pain intensity scores was not decreased over a recent 11-year span.

CONCLUSIONS

PC pain continues to be a prominent PC symptom. Patients reporting pre-diagnosis PC pain experience increased GI metastasis, symptoms burden, and are often undertreated. Its mitigation may require novel treatments, more resources dedicated to ongoing pain management and surveillance to improve outcomes.

The costs and inequities of precision medicine for patients with prostate cancer: A call to action

Financial toxicity is a growing problem in the delivery of cancer care and contributes to inequities in outcomes across the cancer care continuum. Racial/ethnic inequities in prostate cancer, the most common cancer diagnosed in men, are well described, and threaten to widen in the era of precision oncology given the numerous structural barriers to accessing novel diagnostic studies and treatments, particularly for Black men. Gaps in insurance coverage and cost sharing are 2 such structural barriers that can perpetuate inequities in screening, diagnostic workup, guideline-concordant treatment, symptom management, survivorship, and access to clinical trials. Mitigating these barriers will be key to achieving equity in prostate cancer care, and will require a multi-pronged approach from policymakers, health systems, and individual providers. This narrative review will describe the current state of financial toxicity in prostate cancer care and its role in perpetuating racial inequities in the era of precision oncology.

Medicare Part D plan-selection experience: qualitative findings from a national cross-sectional survey

Background

A variety of services exit to assist eligible beneficiaries select Medicare Part D insurance plans; however, selecting an optimal plan remains a challenge. While patients would benefit from evaluating and switching their Medicare Part D plan on a yearly basis, few choose to do so.

Objective

The objective of this study was to describe the Medicare Part D plan selection experience across all US states.

Methods

This was a qualitative analysis using data from a cross-sectional Qualtrics panel survey administered in January 2022. Descriptive statistics were generated for demographic and patient-specific items for individuals who provided open-ended survey item responses. Open-coding and content analysis were used to analyze responses to the open-ended survey item.

Results

Overall, 540 responses were received, with the largest number of responses from Florida (11%, 61). A total of 101 respondents (18.7%) of survey respondents provided open-ended comments. Qualitative analysis identified four response categories: Benefit design, Plan information and selection assistance, Plan Switching, and Plan-selection experience.

Conclusions

Overall, participants expressed frustrations with high costs and plan restrictions. Many participants needed plan-selection assistance, with some individuals switching plans each year. Recent legislation may address difficulties related to medication costs; however, additional focus on resources and educational interventions may improve the Medicare Part D experience.

The least costly pharmacy for cancer supportive care medications over time: the logistic toxicity of playing catch up

PURPOSE

No single pharmacy in an urban zip code is consistently the least expensive across medications. If medication prices change differently across pharmacies, patients and clinicians will face challenges accessing affordable medications when refilling medications. This is especially pertinent to people with cancer with multiple fills of supportive care medications over time. We evaluated if the lowest-priced pharmacy for a formulation remains the lowest-priced over time.

METHODS

We compiled generic medications used to manage nausea/vomiting (14 formulations) and anorexia/cachexia (12 formulations). We extracted discounted prices in October 2021 and again in March 2022 for a typical fill at 8 pharmacies in Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA (zip code 55,414) using GoodRx.com. We examined how prices changed across formulations and pharmacies over time.

RESULTS

Data were available for all 208 possible pharmacy-formulation combinations (8 pharmacies × 26 formulations). For 172 (83%) of the 208 pharmacy-formulation combinations, the March 2022 price was within 20% of the October 2021 price. Across pharmacy-formulation combinations, the price change over time ranged from - 76 to + 292%. For 12 (46%) of the 26 formulations, at least one pharmacy with the lowest price in October 2021 no longer was the least costly in March 2022. For one formulation (dronabinol tablets), the least expensive pharmacy became the most expensive, with an absolute and relative price increase of a fill of $22 and 85%.

CONCLUSION

For almost half of formulations studied, at least one pharmacy with the lowest price was no longer the least costly a few months later. The lowest price for a formulation (across pharmacies) could also change considerably. Thus, even if a patient accesses the least expensive pharmacy for a medication, they may need to re-check prices across all pharmacies with each subsequent fill to access the lowest prices. In addition to safety concerns, directing medications to and accessing medications at multiple pharmacies can add time and logistic toxicity to patients with cancer, their care partners, prescribers, and pharmacy teams.

Finding the Lowest-Cost Pharmacy for Cancer Supportive Care Medications: Not So Easy

PURPOSE

To decrease the financial burden on people with cancer, clinicians and patients increasingly use medication price comparison websites to seek pharmacies where medications may be cheaper. Shopping around at different pharmacies can add additional time and logistic burden to patients and care partners. We sought to determine whether a single pharmacy consistently offered the lowest price for symptom control medications.

METHODS

We compiled medications/formulations used to manage two common cancer-associated symptoms: nausea/vomiting and anorexia/cachexia. We extracted discounted, lowest price with coupon prices for a typical fill of these medications at nine pharmacies in Minneapolis, MN, using GoodRx. We compared prices across formulations and pharmacies to assess whether a pharmacy consistently offered the lowest price.

RESULTS

We included 24 formulations for nausea/vomiting (14 generic and 10 brand-name) and 19 for anorexia/cachexia (12 generic and seven brand-name). Prices for brand-name formulations were similar across pharmacies, but prices of generic formulations varied widely across pharmacies. For example, the prices of a seven-unit fill of generic 5-mg olanzapine tablets ranged from $4 to $57 US dollars. No single pharmacy consistently offered the lowest price across the formulations studied. For example, for the 12 generic formulations for anorexia/cachexia, one pharmacy had the highest price for four formulations and the lowest price for two others.

CONCLUSION

In this study of discounted medication prices, we found that no single pharmacy in an urban zip code consistently offered the lowest price for medications used to manage two common cancer-associated symptoms. Well-intentioned efforts to pursue the cheapest source of each medication by visiting multiple pharmacies may add extra time and logistic toxicity to patients and care partners. This approach can increase redundant scripts and expose patients to medication-related adverse events.