The patient's medication access journey: a conceptual framework focused beyond adherence

Does access to free medication reduce health system costs? An evaluation of the Dispensary of Hope program

BACKGROUND: Cost-related medication nonadherence-when patients fail to take medication as prescribed because of the cost of the medication-has numerous consequences: more hospitalizations, avoidable deaths, and greater health care expenditures. Dispensary of Hope is a charitable medication access program that collects and distributes pharmaceuticals to pharmacies to dispense free of charge to patients with no insurance, low incomes, and chronic conditions. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the differences in medical costs and utilization of hospital patients enrolled in the Dispensary of Hope program relative to those who were not enrolled. METHODS: We used administrative claims data from 2 health systems participating in Dispensary of Hope to identify those in the program and a comparison group, respectively. Claims data included emergency department (ED) encounters, inpatient encounters, costs, and prescriptions. Health system 1 (HS1) data began July 1, 2016, and ended December 31, 2019; health system 2 (HS2) data ran from March 10, 2014, to December 31, 2019. Program enrollment dates (index dates) were identified via program registration or prescription fills. We propensity score weighted a comparison population from HS1 and HS2, respectively, to match program patient demographic and comorbidity characteristics. We estimated changes in costs, ED visits, inpatient stays, and primary care sensitive ED visits over time between the 2 groups (difference-indifference) over 18 months preenrollment and postenrollment. RESULTS: HS1 comparison (n = 6,714) and Dispensary of Hope (n = 880) groups were balanced on age, sex, race and ethnicity, and comorbidities; both populations were approximately 46 years old, 43% female, 64% White, with an average of 3.0 comorbidities. The HS2 samples were almost 50 years old and a majority female (56%) and Black (55%). Per-person annual costs at HS1 decreased by $3,161 (P < 0.05) more in the Dispensary of Hope group than in the comparison group from the preenrollment to the postenrollment period. Inpatient stays decreased by 200 stays per 1,000 patients per year (P = 0.02) and ED visits increased by 0.32 (P < 0.01) on a yearly basis relative to the comparison group. Primary care sensitive ED visits increased over the period. No results were statistically significant in HS2. CONCLUSIONS: We found substantial reductions in costs and inpatient stays for Dispensary of Hope HS1 participants, and we did not find significant results at HS2. Differences between the health systems or patient populations could explain these varying results. Our study represents a rigorous, multistate evaluation that highlights the impact of a charitable medication access program on hospital utilization for the medically underserved population. DISCLOSURES: The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: this work was funded and supported by Dispensary of Hope.

Health insurance literacy and health services access barriers in Niemann-Pick disease: the patient and caregiver voice

Background

Major challenges to health care access include low health insurance literacy, prohibitive costs, and insurance barriers. Niemann–Pick disease (NPD), comprising acid sphingomyelinase deficiency (ASMD) and Niemann–Pick type C (NPC), is a group of rare, autosomal recessive, highly heterogeneous, neurovisceral, life-threatening, relentlessly progressive lysosomal disorders. Patients experience debilitating systemic and neurological symptoms and substantial emotional and financial stress. Currently, these multifaceted disorders are managed symptomatically as there are no approved therapies. Given the considerable disease burden of NPD, timely access to quality health care is paramount for improving outcomes in these life-threatening disorders. Understanding health insurance literacy and access challenges among patients with NPD and their caregivers is a first step to overcoming treatment barriers.

Results

Patients from the Niemann–Pick community participated in a health insurance literacy survey and follow-up telephone interviews on perceived access challenges. Of the 79 respondents who completed the survey, 67 participated in interviews. All respondents had stable health insurance coverage. However, 61% of respondents were unaware of Medicaid waivers and did not avail of them. Overall, 50% of respondents with childhood onset NPC selected Medicaid/Medicare and private insurance; 35% utilized Medicaid waivers. Most respondents with ASMD had private insurance only. Although the Niemann–Pick community demonstrated greater health insurance literacy than the general population, knowledge gaps exist in calculating insurance coverage, out-of-pocket maximums, and defining a formulary. The most frequently cited access burden was the process of obtaining medical care and services. Among respondents with ASMD, the greatest access burden was fear of unavailability of or access to medications and treatment. Access challenges adversely impacted patients’ mental health and exacerbated physical symptoms. Delays and denials in obtaining essential medication, equipment, and services contributed to disease progression. Caregivers faced burnout and often questioned the utility of their advocacy.

Conclusions

This study identified knowledge gaps in health insurance literacy and challenges to access medication and health care services among individuals impacted by NPD. Patients and caregivers need the knowledge and skills to navigate a complicated health care system, understand their rights to medication and services and, ultimately, benefit from improved outcomes, especially in a post–drug approval era.

Predictors of adherence to oral anticancer medications: An analysis of 2010-2018 US nationwide claims

BACKGROUND: Various factors, including patient demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, patient out-of-pocket (OOP) costs, therapy-related factors, clinical characteristics, and health-system factors, can affect patient adherence to oral anticancer medications (OAMs). OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of patients initiating oral anticancer therapy who were adherent to OAMs and to identify significant predictors of adherence to OAMs, including patient OOP costs and patient demographics. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from Optum Clinformatics Data Mart commercial claims database for 2010-2018. Patients with a new pharmacy claim for an OAM between July 1, 2010, and December 31, 2017, were followed for 6 months to ascertain their medication adherence, which was defined as a proportion of days covered value of at least 0.8. Average monthly patient OOP costs for OAM prescriptions were categorized as lower OOP costs (quartiles 1-3) and higher OOP costs (quartile 4). Separate multivariable logistic regressions were conducted to identify predictors of OAM nonadherence for each cancer type. RESULTS: Out of 37,938 patients with cancer, 51.9% were adherent to OAMs, with adherence ranging from 32.8% among those with liver cancer to 70.4% among those with brain tumor. The average monthly OOP costs of OAMs also differed by cancer type, ranging from $749 (SD = $1,014) among patients with blood cancer to $106 (SD = $439) among those with prostate cancer. Higher patient OOP costs were associated with higher odds of OAM nonadherence for many cancer types, including renal cancer (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 3.91; 95% CI = 2.80-5.47) and breast cancer (AOR = 1.26; 95% CI = 1.13-1.41). Additionally, patients with inpatient hospitalizations during the 6 months following OAM initiation had significantly higher odds of OAM nonadherence for all cancer types except for stomach cancer. Among patients with stomach cancer, male sex was associated with lower odds of OAM nonadherence (AOR = 0.60; 95% CI = 0.37-0.97). Among patients with renal or stomach cancer, those who had Medicare low-income subsidy had higher odds of OAM nonadherence compared with those with commercial insurance coverage. Among patients with blood cancers, Black and Hispanic patients had higher odds of OAM nonadherence compared with White patients (AOR = 1.48; 95% CI = 1.25-1.75 and AOR = 1.38; 95% CI = 1.13-1.68, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Overall adherence to OAMs was suboptimal, and for several cancer types, adherence was worse among patients with higher OOP costs, those who were hospitalized, and those who received Medicare low-income subsidy. Policies addressing cost and access to OAMs and health-system strategies to address barriers to the effective use of OAMs are needed to improve patient access to these vital medications. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by joint funding from the Pharmacy Quality Alliance and the National Pharmaceutical Council (NPC). Drs Vyas and Kogut were partially supported by this joint funding. Mr Descoteaux was supported by this joint funding for performing data analysis. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of PQA or NPC. Dr Campbell completed this work during his employment at Pharmacy Quality Alliance; he is now an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ.