Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, is the Ingram Associate Professor of Cancer Research at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, and a member of the editorial board for The American Journal of Managed Care®.
A Vanderbilt University health policy researcher calls for modernization of Medicare policies to control or cap out-of-pocket costs for seniors, as more high-cost cancer drugs are managed under the Part D program.
Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, who is the Ingram Associate Professor of Cancer Research at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, addresses this topic in an essay, “Your Money or Your Life — The High Cost of Cancer Drugs under Medicare Part D,” published today in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Dusetzina, who is also a member of the editorial board for The American Journal of Managed Care®, writes that up to half of all cancer drugs are now given as oral agents, which means they are no longer billed as a medical benefit but instead are billed a pharmacy benefit under Medicare Part D. Although Dusetzina does not address this directly, there have been reports that use of oral oncolytics increased during the pandemic, as physicians sought to reduce cancer patients’ risk of COVID-19 exposure.
For younger patients, Dusetzina notes, increased use of oral cancer agents might not be noticeable. But this shift matters a lot for older patients due to Medicare’s cost-sharing rules—and older patients are more likely to develop cancer. “Most beneficiaries would be responsible for high (and unlimited) out-of-pocket spending for drugs filled under their pharmacy benefit,” or Part D.
These same seniors have typically taken steps to protect themselves from unexpected medical cost under Medicare Part B, as 90% have supplemental coverage to cover most out-of-pocket costs under the medical benefit. But that’s no help with pharmacy benefit.
Dusetzina illustrates the problem by comparing 2 first-line treatment scenarios for patients with common types of newly diagnosed metastatic breast cancer:
She notes that in both scenarios, the patients received the current standard of care, with each physician prescribing based on the patient’s subtype of breast cancer. But one patient would face significantly higher out-of-pocket costs because the most appropriate treatment happens to be an oral agent.
Cost-sharing rules in Medicare Part D, she writes, must be viewed in light of typical incomes for seniors, which can be quite low—although incomes may be not quite low enough to qualify for subsidies.
The patient prescribed the CDK4/6 inhibitor, for example, might pay half her annual income for this drug alone, Dusetzina writes, “not including payments for premiums and other needed medical care. Asset limits, including limits on retirement and investment savings, may further constrain access to subsidies among older adults.”
Medicare Part D out-of-pocket spending caps, or policies that would allow the cost of the initial fill to be spread out over 12 months could make a difference for patients with limited incomes, she writes. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation could be encouraged to test other models such as monthly price caps.
Dusetzina cast her argument in light of President Joe Biden’s recent unveiling of Moonshot 2.0, which calls for cutting cancer death rates in the United States by 50% over the next 25 years. To do so, Dusetzina writes, patients must be able to afford their drugs.
“Ensuring access to prescription drugs with proven benefits and limiting the amount that patients pay out of pocket would be an important first step,” she concluded. “Without access, even cures are ineffective.”
Reference
Dusetzina S. Your money or your life — the high cost of cancer drugs under Medicare Part D. N Engl J Med. Published online May 4, 2022. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp2202726
Panelists Call for Consistent Education, Support to Improve Patient Comfort With Biosimilars
May 15th 2024At the Festival of Biologics USA, panelists stressed the need for patient-centered communication and education to boost comfort with biosimilars, emphasizing consistent support from health care providers despite restrictive payer policies.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for April 2024—Podcast Edition
May 5th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, The Center for Biosimilars® glances back at all the major biosimilar policy updates from April, including 2 FDA approvals, 1 European approval, and several insights into possible policy changes from the Festival of Biologics USA conference.
Partnering for Biosimilar Security: India's Role in US Health Care Savings, Supply Chain Stability
May 9th 2024As Indian pharmaceutical companies supplied 4 of every 10 prescriptions in the US in 2022, generating $1.3 trillion in health care savings, a new IQVIA report highlights concerns about supply chain risks and advocates for partnerships to bolster biosimilar security and overall supply chain resilience.
A New Chapter: How 2023 Will Shape the US Biosimilar Space for 2024 and Beyond
December 31st 2023On this episode of Not So Different, Cencora's Brian Biehn and Corey Ford take a look back at major policy and regulatory advancements in 2023 and how these changes will alter the space going forward.
Cencora Analysis Shows Differences in Payer Coverage Between G-CSF Biosimilars
May 2nd 2024Data from a Cencora study showed some misalignment in payer coverage of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) biosimilars, highlighting that while filgrastim biosimilars are often favored over the originator, reference pegfilgrastim still dominates over its biosimilars.