Generic entry of aromatase inhibitors and pharmaceutical access: Initiation of hormonal therapy, timeliness of initiation, and drug choice

Was Unstable Medicaid Coverage Among Older Medicare Beneficiaries Associated With Worse Clinical Outcomes? Evidence From the Delivery of Breast Cancer Care

BACKGROUND

Medicare and Medicaid dually eligible beneficiaries (duals) could experience Medicaid coverage changes without losing Medicaid. It is unknown whether health care use and clinical outcomes among elderly duals with coverage changes would be like those among duals without coverage changes or duals ever lost Medicaid and whether various types of unstable coverage due to income/asset changes are associated with worse clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

Examine the associations of unstable Medicaid coverage with clinical outcomes among older Medicare beneficiaries.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Population-based cohort study.

SUBJECTS

A total of 131,202 women newly diagnosed with breast cancer at 65 years and older between 2007 and 2015 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database.

MEASURES

We examined 2 types of unstable Medicaid coverage: (1) those who had changes in the types of Medicaid support they received and (2) those who ever lost Medicaid. We examined outcomes that predict better cancer survival and involve the use of inpatient and outpatient services and prescription drugs: early diagnosis, receiving surgery, receiving radiation, hormonal therapy adherence, and discontinuation. We used logistic regressions to estimate the predicted probabilities of outcomes for dual groups.

RESULTS

Duals had poorer outcomes than those who were "never dual." Women with the 2 types of unstable Medicaid coverage had similarly worse outcomes than those with stable coverage. Those with stable coverage had similar outcomes regardless of the generosity of Medicaid support.

CONCLUSIONS

These patterns are concerning and, in the context of well-defined clinical guidelines for beneficial treatments that extend survival, point to the importance of stable insurance coverage and income.

Patients' Experience of Medication Brand Changes during Hormone Therapy for Breast Cancer-An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis

Medication adherence to hormone therapy (HT) in breast cancer survivors is often suboptimal and is affected by a range of factors. Patients are usually prescribed different generic formulations of HT drugs and their impact on side effects and on adherence and persistence is poorly understood. This study aimed to explore women's lived experience of HT medication brand changes (generic substitution) and its impact on side effects, quality of life and medication-taking behaviors, as well as on adherence and persistence. Nine female breast cancer survivors who had previous experience of HT medication brand changes participated in the study. Individual, online, semi-structured interviews were conducted and analyzed using interpretative phenomenological analysis. The findings identified three superordinate themes and nine subordinate themes that influenced the lived experience of medication brand changes for these patients: (i) experiencing brand changes, (ii) responsiveness of health care providers and (iii) future expectations. Women reported negative physical and emotional experiences of brand changes, which is often compounded by healthcare professionals' lack of information and reassurances, disbelief in the worsening of side effects and inconsistent advice regarding generics. These have implications for women's self-efficacy for medication-taking behaviors, ability to manage side effects and HT adherence and persistence.

Hormonal Therapy Drug Switching, Out-of-Pocket Costs, and Adherence Among Older Women With Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Adherence to aromatase inhibitors (AIs) and tamoxifen has considerable survival benefits for postmenopausal women diagnosed with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Reduced out-of-pocket costs and treatment-related side effects could increase therapy adherence. Given that individuals' side effect profiles could differ across AIs, generic AI entry could facilitate switching between AIs to manage side effects and improve adherence.

METHODS

From Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare, we selected women first diagnosed with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer at age 65+ years and initiated an AI within 1 year of diagnosis between January 1, 2007, and May 31, 2008, or June 1, 2011, and December 31, 2012, and followed them for up to 2 years (N  = 20 677). We estimated changes in probabilities of adherence with and without switching for Part D enrollees with and without the low-income subsidy (LIS vs non-LIS) before and after generic entry using linear probability models. Tests of statistical significance are 2-sided.

RESULTS

After generic entry reduced out-of-pocket costs of AIs (larger reduction for non-LIS), the percentage of women who ever switched from one AI to another AI increased from 8.8% to 14.6% for non-LIS and from 7.3% to 12.5% for LIS. Adherence without switching increased by 8.0 percentage points (pp) for non-LIS (P < .001) but decreased by 4.9 pp (P < .001) for LIS. Adherence with switching increased for both non-LIS (6.4 pp, P < .001) and LIS (4.4 pp, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Increased switching after generic entry contributed to increased adherence, suggesting switching allowed better management of treatment-related side effects. Subsidized women also experienced increased adherence with switching after generic entry, suggesting that patients and physicians might not understand Part D benefit design when making decisions.