Advances in research have led to increased therapeutic options for patients with cancer, but these drugs come at a substantial cost; high out-of-pocket costs pose a significant barrier to treatment initiation for patients with cancer, according to a new, retrospective claims-based study.
Advances in research have led to increased therapeutic options for patients with cancer, but these drugs come at a substantial cost; high out-of-pocket costs pose a significant barrier to treatment initiation for patients with cancer, according to a new, retrospective claims-based study published in Cancer Medicine.
Pengxiang Li, PhD, and colleagues compared initiation of cancer treatment in elderly Medicare Part D enrollees with low out-of-pocket costs due to full low-income subsidies (LIS) with enrollees who were not LIS beneficiaries and were, therefore, responsible for cost sharing of more than 25% during Medicare’s initial coverage phase. This comparison was designed to assess how out-of-pocket costs contribute to treatment initiation with targeted therapy within 6 months of a cancer diagnosis.
Using Medicare claims data from 2011 to 2013, the researchers focused their study on initiation of treatment for renal cell carcinoma, a disease for which there are 10 FDA-approved therapies, 7 of which are oral agents (sorafenib, sunitinib, everolimus, pazopanib, axitinib, cabozantinib, and lenvatinib) and 3 of which are infused drugs (temsirolimus, bevacizumab, and nivolumab). Six of the agents are covered under Part D, and 4 are covered under part B.
Cost-sharing requirements for Part D treatments that are included on a specialty pharmacy tier typically require non-LIS enrollees to pay 25% to 33% coinsurance during each year until a patient enters the coverage gap. After entering the coverage gap, the patient is responsible for even higher cost sharing until he or she reaches the catastrophic coverage threshold, under which a 5% coinsurance applies for the remainder of the year. In contrast, LIS enrollees are responsible for cost sharing of $6.60 or less per month.
A total of 1721 patients were considered in the analysis. Given mean total costs of approximately $7200 per 30-day prescription for therapies covered under Part D, non-LIS patients’ first prescriptions pushed beneficiaries into the coverage gap and generated out-of-pocket costs of $2800 or greater. LIS beneficiaries, as noted above, had out-of-pocket costs that remained at $6.60 or under.
A lower percentage of the non-LIS patient group (20.7%) initiated therapies covered under Part D compared to the LIS beneficiary group (33.9%) in the 6 months after diagnosis, while initiation rates for therapies covered under Part B were similar (8.2% and 10.2%, respectively) between the 2 groups.
“The association between high cost sharing and reduced rates of treatment initiation was apparent despite controlling for demographic and clinical characteristics that might influence treatment decisions and was confirmed via several sensitivity analyses,” wrote the authors.
The authors also reported that non-LIS patients had significantly lower rates of initiating any targeted therapies than LIS beneficiaries, even in cases in which their therapies were available through the Part B benefit (and therefore subject to lower cost sharing).
The authors noted that these findings have clinical and policy implications. First, in reviewing treatment options with patients, clinicians should have proactive discussions about financial barriers to treatment initiation and adherence. Second, streamlined processes for accessing copayment assistance is likely to be useful to reduce both the stress and the burden associated with obtaining financial assistance.
CHMP Pushes 3 Biosimilars Forward, Spelling Hope for Ophthalmology, Supportive Care Markets
February 6th 2025The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) recommended 3 biosimilars and new indications for reference biologics, moving them closer to final European approval and expanding patient access.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for September 2024—Podcast Edition
October 6th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we discuss the FDA's approval of a new biosimilar for treating retinal conditions, which took place in September 2024 alongside other major industry developments, including ongoing legal disputes and broader trends in market dynamics and regulatory challenges.
The Banking of Biosimilars: Insights From a Leading Health Economist
February 4th 2025Biosimilars have the potential to reduce health care costs and expand patient access, but economic and policy barriers affect adoption, explored James D. Chambers, PhD, MPharm, MSc, associate professor at the Tufts Medical Center Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, in an interview.
A Banner Year for Biosimilars: The 19 FDA Approvals From 2024
January 21st 2025In 2024, the FDA approved 19 biosimilars across various therapeutic areas, including the first biosimilars for ustekinumab and denosumab, marking significant progress in expanding treatment options and market competition.
FTC Releases Second Report on PBMs Meddling in Generic Drug Markets
January 19th 2025The 3 largest pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) increased many specialty generic drugs prices by hundreds of percent, with some drugs seeing thousands of percent markups, according to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)’s second interim report on PBM practices.