How to Effectively Decrease Patient Co-Payments of High-Cost Drugs Through Innovation: Lessons From the Karmanos Specialty Pharmacy

The current landscape of aromatase inhibitors for the treatment of estrogen receptor-positive breast carcinoma

Estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast carcinoma represents a significant portion of breast cancer cases and is characterized by the presence of estrogen receptors that promote tumor growth upon estrogen binding. ER + breast cancer progression involves hormonal influences, interactions within the tumor microenvironment, and genetic mutations that may lead to treatment resistance. Successful therapeutic options include hormonal therapies, particularly aromatase inhibitors (AIs), which aim to block the effects of estrogen or reduce its synthesis. With higher efficacy than tamoxifen, AIs such as anastrozole, letrozole, and exemestane have become widely employed in adjuvant and first-line treatments for advanced breast cancer. AIs function by inhibiting the enzyme aromatase, which converts androgens into estrogens in the peripheral tissues. Because too much estrogen might promote tumor growth, this decrease in estrogen levels is essential for treating ER+ malignancies. To provide a comprehensive overview of AIs in the treatment of ER+ breast cancer, this study examined the pharmacokinetics, clinical uses, mechanisms of action, and problems with treatment resistance. To maximize therapeutic approaches and enhance patient outcomes in the treatment of ER breast cancer, it is imperative to understand these characteristics.

National survey of financial burden and experience among patients with cancer and autoimmune disease receiving charitable copay assistance

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the role that charitable copay assistance (CPA) plays in addressing access to care and financial distress. The study sought to evaluate financial distress and experience with CPA among patients with cancer and autoimmune disease.

METHODS

This is a national cross-sectional self-administered anonymous electronic survey conducted among recipients of CPA to cover the costs of a drug for cancer or autoimmune disease. Self-reported financial distress as measured by Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity as well as health care spending and experience with financial barriers to care were evaluated, as were perspectives on policy questions related to CPA and costs of care.

RESULTS

Among 1566 respondents (1108 with cancer and 458 with autoimmune disease, median age 71, 51% female, 89% White, 69% household income <$60,000), 53% reported mild and 31% moderate/severe financial distress, despite CPA. Eighteen percent reported missing recommended care because of costs. Most respondents (96%) had Medicare, 55% reported supplemental insurance, and 66% believed that insurance would prevent them from facing high costs of health care. A total of 52% reported paying more than $100 monthly in drug costs and 41% spending more than 10% of monthly income on health care. Financial distress was similar among patients with cancer and autoimmune diseases. In multivariable regression analysis, younger age, less education, unemployment, higher comorbidity, and lower income were independently associated with higher financial distress.

CONCLUSIONS

This study informs policy debate over the role of CPA foundations in the U.S. health insurance safety net and highlights the inadequacy of Medicare to guarantee access to care for older patients with chronic illness.

Interventions to Address Cancer-Related Financial Hardship: A Scoping Review and Call to Action

PURPOSE

As oncology practices implement routine screening for financial hardship (FH) and health-related social needs, interventions that address these needs must be implemented. A growing body of literature has reported on FH interventions.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review of the literature using PubMed, EMBASE, PsychInfo, and CINAHL to identify key studies (2000-2024) reporting on interventions to address cancer-related FH. Full-length manuscripts were included in the review if they detailed a research, quality improvement, or community-based intervention to address at least one element of FH and drew association with an outcome of interest. Studies were categorized by intervention type and qualitatively analyzed to identify critical components, outcomes, and limitations.

RESULTS

Forty-four publications reporting on 43 interventions were included in the final analysis and were categorized as research interventions (n = 20) and real-world programs (n = 20). Studies reporting on financial navigation programs (n = 17) and specialty pharmacy assistance programs (n = 11) were most common; enrolled patients received concrete assistance with direct medical costs and cost-of-living expenses (eg, transportation and food). In addition, several of these programs improved overall patient-reported financial toxicity, decreased appointment no-shows, and improved enrollment in clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

Interventions to address FH are feasible and can address all domains of FH-material, behavioral, and psychosocial. Future research should address the uptake and implementation of these interventions across diverse cancer care delivery settings. Such programs will be an essential part of cancer care delivery until broad social and policy changes can address the underlying factors that contribute to FH in Americans with cancer.

Pharmacy Assistance Programs for Oral Anticancer Drugs: A Narrative Review

Oral anticancer medications (OAMs) are high priced with a significant cost-sharing burden to patients, which can lead to catastrophic financial, psychosocial, and clinical repercussions. Cost-conscious prescribing and inclusion of low-cost alternatives can help mitigate this burden, but cost transparency at the point of prescribing remains a major barrier to doing so. Pharmacy assistance programs, including co-payment cards and patient assistance programs administered by manufacturers and foundation-based grants, remain an essential resource for patients facing prohibitive co-payments for OAMs. However, access to these programs is fraught with complexities, including lack of trained financial navigators, limited transparency on eligibility criteria, onerous documentation burdens, and limits in available funding. Despite these drawbacks and the potential for such programs to incentivize manufacturers to keep list prices high, assistance programs have been demonstrated to improve financial well-being for patients with cancer. The increasing development of integrated specialty pharmacies with dedicated, trained pharmacy staff can help improve and standardize access to such programs, but these services are disproportionately available to patients seen at tertiary care centers. Multistakeholder interventions are needed to mitigate the burden of cost sharing for OAMs, including increased clinician knowledge of financial resources and novel assistance mechanisms, investment of institutions in trained financial navigation services and centralized platforms to identify assistance programs, and policies to cap out-of-pocket spending and improve transparency of rates charged by pharmacy benefit managers to a health plan.

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.

Patient perceptions of copay card utilization and policies

BACKGROUND

Copay cards are intended to mitigate patient out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses. This qualitative, exploratory focus group study aimed to capture patient perceptions of copay cards and copay adjustment programs (CAPs; insurers' accumulator and maximizer policies), which redirect the copay card utilization benefits intended for patients' OOP expenses.

METHODS

Patients with chronic conditions were recruited through Janssen's Patient Engagement Research Council program. They completed a survey and attended a live virtual session to provide feedback on copay cards.

RESULTS

Among 33 participants (median age, 49 years [range, 24-78]), the most frequent conditions were cardiovascular-metabolic disease and inflammatory bowel disease. Patients associated copay cards with lessening financial burden, improving general and mental health, and enabling medication adherence. An impact on medication adherence was identified by 10 (63%) White and nine (100%) Black respondents. Some patients were unaware of CAPs despite having encountered them; they recommended greater copay card education and transparency about CAPs.

CONCLUSION

Patients relied on copay cards to help afford their prescribed medication OOP expenses and maintain medication adherence. Use of CAPs may increase patient OOP expenses. Patients would benefit from awareness programs and industry - healthcare provider partnerships that facilitate and ensure access to copay cards.