Characterizing Out-of-Pocket Payments and Financial Assistance for Patients Prescribed Abiraterone and Enzalutamide at an Academic Cancer Center Specialty Pharmacy

Patterns of Care for Medicare Beneficiaries With Metastatic Prostate Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Therapeutic options for men with metastatic prostate cancer have increased in the past decade. We studied recent treatment patterns for men with metastatic prostate cancer and how treatment patterns have changed over time.

METHODS

Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results‒Medicare database, we identified fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries who either were diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer or developed metastases following diagnosis, as indicated by the presence of claims with diagnoses codes for metastatic disease, between 2007 and 2017. We evaluated treatment patterns using claims.

RESULTS

We identified 29,800 men with metastatic disease, of whom 4721 (18.8%) had metastatic disease at their initial diagnosis. The mean age was 77 years, and 77.9% of patients were non-Hispanic White. The proportion receiving antineoplastic agents within 3 years of the index date increased over time (from 9.7% in 2007 to 25.9% in 2017; P < .001). Opioid use within 3 years of prostate cancer diagnosis was stable during 2007 to 2013 (around 73%) but decreased through 2017 to 65.5% (P < .001). Patients diagnosed during 2015 to 2017 had longer median survival (32.6 months) compared to those diagnosed during 2007 to 2010 (26.6 months; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Most metastatic prostate cancer patients do not receive life-prolonging antineoplastic therapies. Improved adoption of effective cancer therapies when appropriate may increase length and quality of survival among metastatic prostate cancer patients.

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.

ASHP Survey of Health-System Specialty Pharmacy Practice: Practice Models, Operations, and Workforce - 2022

PURPOSE

The results of the 2022 American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) Survey of Health-System Specialty Pharmacy (HSSP) Practice: Practice Models, Operations, and Workforce are presented.

METHODS

A total of 273 leaders in HSSPs were contacted by email to complete a survey hosted using Qualtrics. The survey sample was compiled from ASHP member lists, the presence of a specialty pharmacy indicated in previous ASHP surveys, and outreach to ASHP member organizational leaders.

RESULTS

The survey response rate was 35.9%. Most HSSPs dispense 30,000 or fewer specialty prescriptions annually. Most respondents have an annual revenue of $100 million or less, are part of a 340B-covered entity, operate one location, have 1 to 2 specialty pharmacy accreditations, dispense both nonspecialty and specialty medications, and employ an average of 15.5 pharmacists and 17.6 technicians. The majority (66.7%) dispense 50% or less of prescriptions written by internal providers due to payor and manufacturer network restrictions. Over one-third employ nonpharmacist and nontechnician professionals. Specialty pharmacists are involved in treatment decisions and therapy selection before prescription generation (69.8%), and 47.7% of respondents report pharmacists operating under collaborative practice agreements. Most (82.6%) offer experiential or formal education in specialty pharmacy. The top point of pride remains patient satisfaction and level of service. Top challenges include access to payor networks, the ability to hire and retain qualified staff, and shrinking reimbursement from payors.

CONCLUSION

The HSSP is a continually maturing integrated advanced practice model focused on providing patient-centric care to all patients and employees of the health system regardless of network status. HSSPs are raising the standards for quality in specialty pharmacy care.

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.

Out-of-Pocket Costs for Prostate Cancer Medications Substantially Vary by Medicare Part D Plan: An Online Tool Presents an Opportunity to Mitigate Financial Toxicity

INTRODUCTION

Patients with advanced prostate cancer are frequently prescribed enzalutamide or abiraterone, often requiring high out-of-pocket costs. Many of these patients are insured through Medicare and have an option to select among 54 different Part D drug plans. However, less than 30% of patients report comparing costs before selecting a plan. An online Part D plan navigator is publicly available and allows patients to compare estimated out-of-pocket prescriptions costs. In this study, we examine the variability of out-of-pocket costs based on available Part D drug plans for patients with prostate cancer and demonstrate how an online tool could save patients thousands of dollars.

METHODS

We identified drug plans available for selection in 2023 using the online Medicare Part D Plan Finder. We sampled plan options for 12 different zip codes within the United States. A university-sponsored specialty cancer pharmacy and online mail-order pharmacy were included for comparison. We identified out-of-pocket costs for enzalutamide and abiraterone based on all Part D plans available for selection.

RESULTS

On average, 24 Part D drug plans were available for each zip code. Median annual out-of-pocket costs were $11,626 for enzalutamide and $9,275 for abiraterone. The range of annual out-of-pocket costs were $9,854 to $13,061 for enzalutamide and $1,379 to $13,274 for abiraterone. Within certain zip codes, potential out-of-pocket cost savings were $2,512 for enzalutamide and $9,321 for abiraterone. Median difference of out-of-pocket cost between enzalutamide and abiraterone was $8,758.

CONCLUSIONS

Out-of-pocket costs vary considerably across Part D drug plans. The Medicare Part D Plan Finder is a simple and effective tool to identify affordable drug plans. Guidance on plan selection could save patients thousands of dollars and help mitigate the financial toxicity of treatment. Comprehensive cancer centers could include plan navigators as an essential component of treatment.

Characterization of a multidisciplinary team's role in hospital discharge for patients receiving hypomethylating agents with venetoclax as induction therapy for acute myeloid leukemia

PURPOSE

Venetoclax combined with a hypomethylating agent (HMA) has become the standard of care for elderly/unfit patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML). This study is aimed at characterizing the impact of an interdisciplinary team on the length of stay (LOS) of patients with newly diagnosed AML receiving venetoclax with an HMA.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study included patients with AML who received HMA with venetoclax as an initial treatment between December 2015 and July 2021. The primary outcome was the median LOS during induction stratified by HMA. Secondary outcomes included barriers to hospital discharge, incidence of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS), response rates, and utilization of the institution's prescription assistance program (PAP).

RESULTS

Seventy-eight patients were included in our analysis: 51 received azacitidine/venetoclax, and 27 received decitabine/venetoclax. The median LOS from therapy initiation was eight days (range 7-38) for the azacitidine group and six days (range 5-26) for the decitabine group. The most common barriers to discharge were transfusion dependence (33 patients, 42.3%) and insurance coverage (12 patients, 15.4%). Twelve patients (15.3%) had tumor lysis syndrome during hospital admission, and 20 (25.6%) were readmitted during induction. Twenty-three patients (29.5%) required financial assistance for AML care, and a pharmacy-led PAP generated approximately $342,646 in cost savings.

CONCLUSION

The utilization of an interdisciplinary AML team to target early hospital discharge proved to be safe and effective and led to a reduction in costs for the health system. Future research may identify select patients who may be suitable for earlier discharge or outpatient induction.

Cost-effectiveness of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy in adults with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma

Follicular lymphoma (FL) is traditionally considered treatable but incurable. In March 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) FL after ≥2 lines of therapy. Priced at $373 000, CAR T-cell therapy is potentially curative, and its cost-effectiveness compared with other modern R/R FL treatment strategies is unknown. We developed a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of third-line CAR T-cell vs standard of care (SOC) therapies in adults with R/R FL. We estimated progression rates for patients receiving CAR T-cell and SOC therapies from the ZUMA-5 trial and the LEO CReWE study, respectively. We calculated costs, discounted life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CAR T-cell vs SOC therapies with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. Our analysis was conducted from a US payer's perspective over a lifetime horizon. In our base-case model, the cost of the CAR T-cell strategy was $731 682 compared with $458 490 for SOC therapies. However, CAR T-cell therapy was associated with incremental clinical benefit of 1.50 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $182 127 per QALY. Our model was most sensitive to the utilities associated with CAR T-cell therapy remission and third-line SOC therapies and to the total upfront CAR T-cell therapy cost. Under current pricing, CAR T-cell therapy is unlikely to be cost-effective in unselected patients with FL in the third-line setting. Both randomized clinical trials and longer term clinical follow-up can help clarify the benefits of CAR T-cell therapy and optimal sequencing in patients with FL.

Impact of a Comprehensive Financial Resource on Financial Toxicity in a National, Multiethnic Sample of Adult, Adolescent/Young Adult, and Pediatric Patients With Cancer

PURPOSE

Financial toxicity is a well-recognized problem for patients with cancer. However, a crucial gap remains in describing and implementing mitigation strategies. We conducted a national survey of a multiethnic adolescent/pediatric and adult patient population served by Family Reach, a nonprofit organization focused on removing financial barriers to cancer care, to evaluate the impact of a comprehensive financial resource on patient-reported financial toxicity.

METHODS

An electronic survey was administered to characterize patients' current financial health and the impact of Family Reach's resources on financial toxicity. The survey was e-mailed to all patients or caregivers who received resources from Family Reach between January 1, 2020, and June 30, 2020. Factors associated with higher financial stress and higher potential impact of resources on financial burden were evaluated through separate multivariate regression models. Qualitative responses were analyzed using manual coding and thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Three hundred thirty socioeconomically and racially diverse respondents (overall response rate 40%; 46% non-Hispanic White; 48% with incomes below the federal poverty line) completed the survey and were included in the analysis. More than half of respondents reported high financial stress in the previous week. Hispanic ethnicity, Black race, and low annual household income were associated with higher financial toxicity. A greater amount of financial assistance was associated with a higher confidence rating that resources provided would decrease financial stress. In open-ended comments, respondents highlighted the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting job loss on financial toxicity, the importance of financial navigation, the benefits of financial assistance, and anxiety about long-term financial health.

CONCLUSION

A comprehensive financial resource, particularly financial assistance, alleviated financial toxicity in a multiethnic national sample of patients with cancer. Ongoing work is critical to address sustainable funding sources and financial navigation to support patients during treatment and survivorship.