1213 Oncology patient assistance programs (PAPs): A first-in-kind analysis of US drug manufacturer program benefits and eligibility requirements

2015 ◽  
Vol 51 ◽  
pp. S176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Zafar ◽  
A. Asabere ◽  
A. Bastian
2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. e240-e248 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Yousuf Zafar ◽  
Jeffrey Peppercorn ◽  
Akwasi Asabere ◽  
Alex Bastian

Objective: Pharmaceutical manufacturers sponsor drug-specific patient assistance programs that provide eligible patients with financial assistance, either in the form of providing the drug free of charge or copayment assistance. Describing these programs and determining who receives assistance is an important first step in understanding the impact and role of financial assistance in cancer care. Our objective was to describe eligibility criteria and benefits for cancer-specific, manufacturer-sponsored patient assistance programs. Methods: We conducted a prospective review of patient assistance program Web sites and called patient assistance program telephone hotlines from the perspective of a patient or caregiver requesting program details. Results: We identified 24 manufacturers with patient assistance programs, covering 87% of Food and Drug Administration–approved oncology drugs. For free drug programs, the average maximum annual income for qualification was $86,279. For copayment assistance programs, the average was $104,790. Thirty-five percent of free drug programs and 53% of copayment assistance programs declined to provide details on how financial need was determined. None of the programs shared details on patient usage statistics. Conclusion: Variation exists in the quality and quantity of data available to patients seeking financial assistance for cancer treatment via manufacturer Web sites and hotlines. Greater transparency among patient assistance programs would enhance utility for patients and help to determine the net impact on costs and adherence.


2009 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 843-844 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niteesh K. Choudhry ◽  
Joy L. Lee ◽  
Jessica Agnew-Blais ◽  
Colleen Corcoran ◽  
William H. Shrank

2009 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 1227-1227
Author(s):  
Kathryn Saenz Duke

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (8_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8-8
Author(s):  
Aaron Philip Mitchell

8 Background: The rising cost of cancer drugs may make treatment unaffordable for some patients. Patients often rely on drug manufacturer-administered Pharmaceutical Assistance Programs (PAPs) to obtain drugs at reduced or no cost. The overall impact of PAPs on cancer care delivery is unknown. Methods: We identified all patients obtaining cancer drugs across an academically affiliated, integrated health system in the state of North Carolina during 2014. The proportion of patients receiving PAP assistance, and the retail value of the assistance, were quantified for each oncology drug. Cancer drugs were analyzed with respect to route of administration. Results: 215 unique patients submitted a total of 478 successful PAP requests for cancer drugs. The majority of the retail value of drugs obtained was for oral cancer drugs, particularly targeted therapies including tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Among all cancer patients who received medical treatment, 5.5% required PAP assistance, whereas 10.6% receiving an oral agent required PAP assistance (Table). The proportion receiving PAP assistance varied substantially by drug, ranging from <1% of patients (e.g., carboplatin, methotrexate) to 50% of patients (e.g., ponatinib, temsirolimus). Patients obtained a total of $1,556,575 of imatinib and $1,449,633 of dasatinib, which were the two drugs with the highest aggregate retail value. 40% of PAP-utilizing patients were uninsured, 26% had Medicaid coverage, 20% had Medicare coverage, and 14% were commercially insured. Conclusions: A substantial proportion of patients with cancer receive private charitable assistance through PAPs in order to obtain standard-of-care treatments. In particular, a disproportionate share of patients treated with orally-available cancer drugs require PAP assistance. This includes patients with federal and private insurance, suggesting an inability of patients to meet cost-sharing requirements. [Table: see text]


2006 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 14-14
Author(s):  
Stephen R. Bentfield ◽  
Tara E. Swenson

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
pp. 424-432 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron Mitchell ◽  
Benyam Muluneh ◽  
Rachana Patel ◽  
Ethan Basch

Introduction The rising cost of cancer drugs may make treatment unaffordable for some patients. Patients often rely on drug manufacturer-administered Pharmaceutical Assistance Programs (PAPs) to obtain drugs and reduced or no cost. The overall usage of PAPs within cancer care delivery is unknown. Methods We included all cancer patients across an academically affiliated, integrated health system in North Carolina during 2014 ( N = 8591). We identified the subset of patients receiving PAP assistance to afford one or more cancer drugs, in order to calculate the proportion of patients receiving PAP assistance, and the retail value of the assistance. Results Among 8591 cancer patients, 215 unique patients submitted a total of 478 successful PAP requests for cancer drugs. 40% of PAP-utilizing patients were uninsured, 23% had Medicaid coverage, 20% had Medicare coverage, 2% were dual Medicare/Medicaid eligible, and 14% were commercially insured. Among all cancer patients who received medical treatment, 6.0% required PAP assistance, whereas 10.6% receiving an oral agent required PAP assistance. The proportion receiving PAP assistance varied substantially by drug, ranging from <1% of patients (e.g. carboplatin, methotrexate) to 50% of patients (e.g. ponatinib, temsirolimus). The majority of the retail value obtained was for oral agents, including $1,556,575 of imatinib and $1,449,633 of dasatinib, which were the two drugs with the highest aggregate retail value. Conclusions A substantial proportion of cancer patients receive private charitable assistance to obtain standard-of-care treatments. This includes patients with federal and private insurance, suggesting an inability of patients to meet cost-sharing requirements.


2006 ◽  
Vol 63 (13) ◽  
pp. 1254-1259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danielle Chauncey ◽  
C. Daniel Mullins ◽  
Bac V. Tran ◽  
Diane McNally ◽  
Robert N. McEwan

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document