Financial Impact of Medically Integrated Pharmacy Interventions on Oral Oncolytic Prescriptions

Cancer Treatment Before and After Physician-Pharmacy Integration

Importance

Integration of pharmacies with physician practices, also known as medically integrated dispensing, is increasing in oncology. However, little is known about how this integration affects drug use, expenditures, medication adherence, or time to treatment initiation.

Objective

To examine the association of physician-pharmacy integration with oral oncology drug expenditures, use, and patient-centered measures.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study used claims data from a large commercial insurer in the US to analyze changes in outcome measures among patients treated by pharmacy-integrating vs nonintegrating community oncologists in 14 states between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2019. Commercially insured patients were aged 18 to 64 years with 1 of the following advanced-stage diagnoses: breast cancer, colorectal cancer, kidney cancer, lung cancer, melanoma, or prostate cancer. Data analysis was conducted from May 2023 to March 2024.

Exposure

Treatment by a pharmacy-integrating oncologist, ascertained by the presence of an on-site pharmacy or nonpharmacy dispensing site.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Oral, intravenous (IV), total, and out-of-pocket drug expenditures for a 6-month episode of care; share of patients prescribed oral drugs; days' supply of oral drugs; medication adherence measured by proportion of days covered; and time to treatment initiation. The association between an oncologist's pharmacy integration and each outcome of interest was estimated using the difference-in-differences estimator.

Results

Between 2012 and 2019, 3159 oncologists (745 females [27.1%], 2002 males [72.9%]) treated 23 968 patients (66.4% female; 53.4% aged 55-64 years). Of the 3159 oncologists, 578 (18.3%) worked in practices that integrated with pharmacies (with a low rate in 2011 of 0% and a high rate in 2019 of 31.5%). In the full sample (including all cancer sites), after physician-pharmacy integration, no significant changes were found in oral drug expenditures, IV drug expenditures, or total drug expenditures. There was, however, an increase in days' supply of oral drugs (5.96 days; 95% CI, 0.64-11.28 days; P = .001). There were no significant changes in out-of-pocket expenditures, medication adherence, or time to treatment initiation of oral drugs. In the breast cancer sample, there was an increase in oral drug expenditures ($244; 95% CI, $41-$446; P = .02) and a decrease in IV drug expenditures (-$4187; 95% CI, -$8293 to -$80; P = .05).

Conclusions and Relevance

Results of this cohort study indicated that the integration of oncology practices with pharmacies was not associated with significant changes in expenditures or clear patient-centered benefits.

New Federal Guidance Makes It Harder for Patients With Cancer to Access Drugs

A recent interpretation of the Stark Law limits cancer practices from delivering drugs to their patients by mail or courier-a perverse interpretation of a law meant to curb physician self-referrals and one that has led to patient harm.

Financial impact of integrated specialty pharmacy efforts to avoid oral anticancer medication waste

BACKGROUND

The growing number of oral anticancer medications represents a significant portion of pharmacy spending and can be costly for patients. Patients taking oral anticancer medications may experience frequent treatment changes following necessary safety and effectiveness monitoring, often resulting in medication waste. Strategies to avoid medication waste could alleviate the financial burden of these costly therapies on the payer and the patient.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact on waste and cost avoidance of reviewing the amount of medication patients have on hand and the presence of upcoming follow-up (ie, provider visit, laboratory testing, or imaging) before requesting a prescription refill renewal for patients taking oral anticancer medications through an integrated health system specialty pharmacy.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of patients filling oral anticancer medications prescribed by a Vanderbilt University Medical Center provider and dispensed by Vanderbilt Specialty Pharmacy between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020. Specialty pharmacists received a system-generated refill renewal request for oral anticancer medications when the final prescription refill was dispensed, prompting the pharmacist to review the patient's medical record for continued therapy appropriateness and to request a new prescription. If the patient had a sufficient supply on hand to last until an upcoming follow-up (ie, provider visit, imaging, or laboratory assessment), the pharmacist postponed the renewal until after the scheduled follow-up. Patients were included in the analysis if the refill renewal request was postponed after review of the amount of medication on hand and the presence of an upcoming follow-up. Medication outcomes (ie, continued, dose changed, held, medication changed to a different oral anticancer medication, or discontinued) resulting from the follow-up were collected. Cost avoidance in US dollars was assigned based on the outcome of follow-up by calculating the price per unit times the number of units that would have been unused or in excess of what was needed if the medication had been dispensed before the scheduled follow-up. The average wholesale price minus 20% (AWP-20%) and wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) were used to report a range of costs avoided over 12 months.

RESULTS

The total cost avoidance over 12 months associated with postponing refill renewal requests in a large academic health system with an integrated specialty pharmacy ranged from $549,187.03 using WAC pricing to $751,994.99 using AWP-20% pricing, with a median cost avoidance per fill of $366.04 (WAC) to $1,931.18 (AWP-20%). Refill renewal requests were postponed in 159 instances for 135 unique patients. After follow-up, medications were continued unchanged in only 2% of postponed renewals, 56% of follow-ups resulted in medication discontinuations, 32% in dose changes, 5% in medication changes, and 5% in medication holds.

CONCLUSIONS

Integrated health system specialty pharmacist postponement of refill requests after review of the amount of medication on hand and upcoming follow-up proved effective in avoiding waste and unnecessary medication costs in patients treated with oral anticancer medications at a large academic health system.

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.