Evaluation of Medicare Coverage and Estimated Out-of-Pocket Costs for Generic Abiraterone Products

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.

Analyzing Access and Costs of Oral Medications for Overactive Bladder: Uncovering Disparities

OBJECTIVE

To report out-of-pocket costs associated with overactive bladder (OAB) medications among Medicare beneficiaries and the uninsured.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Prescription Drug Plan Formulary Data (Q1-2022). FDA-approved medications for OAB were identified. We calculated out-of-pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries in each Part D prescription benefit phase, average retail price, total yearly costs and discounted prices through cash-pay discount coupons (GoodRx) or online pharmacies like Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company (MCCPDC). We also report plan utilization management requirements.

RESULTS

We analyzed 5721 plan formularies for 18 medications. Mirabegron was the only beta-3 agonist (B3). Only Vesicare oral solution (14.3% of plans) and Mirabegron (0.1%) required prior authorization. Many plans required step therapy for selective generic anticholinergics (ACH) (12.4%-43.3%), while the B3 rarely required step therapy (0.6%). Monthly costs varied by coverage phase and averaged $59 for ACHs in the initial coverage phase ($14 in catastrophic; $72 in coverage gap). The monthly cost for the B3 averaged $47 in the initial coverage phase ($26 in catastrophic; $129 in coverage gap). The total yearly cost for generic ACHs ranged from $494 (oxybutynin IR) to $1452 (darifenacin) and the yearly cost for brand-name ACHs ranged from $1175 (Toviaz ER) to $2198 (Oxytrol). The total yearly cost for the B3 was $1283.

CONCLUSION

We evaluated coverage, out-of-pocket costs, total yearly costs, and utilization management for OAB medications to make pricing more transparent. While selective medications may be "covered," coverage does not translate into affordable drug prices.

Projected Savings for Generic Oncology Drugs Purchased via Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company Versus in Medicare

PURPOSE

Self-administered oncology drugs contribute disproportionately to Medicare Part D spending; prices often remain high even after generic entry. Outlets for low-cost drugs such as Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company (MCCPDC) offer opportunities for decreased Medicare, Part D, and beneficiary spending. We estimate potential savings if Part D plans obtained prices such as those offered under the MCCPDC for seven generic oncology drugs.

METHODS

Using the 2020 Medicare Part D Spending dashboard, Q3-2022 Part D formulary prices, and Q3-2022 MCCPDC prices for seven self-administered generic oncology drugs, we estimated Medicare savings by replacing Q3-2022 Part D unit costs with costs under the MCCPDC plan.

RESULTS

We estimate potential savings of $661.8 million (M) US dollars (USD; 78.8%) for the seven oncology drugs studied. Total savings ranged from $228.1M USD (56.1%) to $2,154.5M USD (92.4%) compared with 25th and 75th percentiles of Part D plan unit prices. The median savings replacing Part D plan prices were abiraterone $338.0M USD, anastrozole $1.2M USD, imatinib 100 mg $15.6M USD, imatinib 400 mg $212.0M USD, letrozole $1.9M USD, methotrexate $26.7M USD, raloxifene $63.8M USD, and tamoxifen $2.6M USD. All 30-day prescription drug prices offered by MCCPDC generated cost savings except for three drugs offered at the 25th percentile Part D formulary pricing: anastrozole, letrozole, and tamoxifen.

CONCLUSION

Replacing current Part D median formulary prices with MCCPDC pricing could yield significant savings for seven generic oncology drugs. Individual beneficiaries could save nearly $25,200 USD per year for abiraterone or between $17,500 USD and $20,500 USD for imatinib. Notably, Part D cash-pay prices for abiraterone and imatinib under the catastrophic phase of coverage were still more expensive than baseline MCCPDC prices.

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.