scholarly journals High Dependence on Medicare and Foundation Grant Assistance Among Patients with Hematologic Malignancies Receiving Novel Oral Therapeutics

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 64-64
Author(s):  
Erlene K. Seymour ◽  
Lucius Daniel ◽  
Eva Pointer ◽  
Stephen T. Smith ◽  
Charles A. Schiffer

Introduction: Oral novel therapeutics place a high financial burden on patients. A specialty pharmacy at Karmanos Cancer Institute (KCI) was established which streamlines prior authorization, determines patient cost-sharing, then automatically applies for additional financial assistance (through co-pay cards or foundation grant funding as needed) prior to setting final patient cost-sharing and drug delivery. We evaluated patterns of cost and need for additional funding since this program was established. Methods: We used the KCI Specialty Pharmacy dataset for a retrospective review of patients who received prescriptions for hematologic malignancies between March 2018 - May 2019. Oral therapeutics >$10,000/month average wholesale price were considered high cost. We evaluated patients by drug prescribed and insurance type (Medicare, Medicaid, Private) and gathered information on insurer cost, final patient cost-sharing, cost covered by foundation grant assistance (if needed), and cost covered by manufacturer co-pay cards (if needed). We also calculated time in days from prescription written date to date of prior authorization, as well as prescription written date to date of delivery to the patient for all new first-time prescriptions. Results: 214 prescriptions among 100 patients were available for analysis. 2 of these patients switched insurance types. Drugs that were evaluated included imatinib, dasatinib, bosutinib, nilotinib, ponatinib, ruloxitinib, venetoclax, acalabrutinib, ibrutinib, ixazomib, midostaurin, gilteritinib, everolimus (for relapsed Hodgkin lymphoma), vorinostat, and enasidenib. The majority of patients had Medicare +/- supplemental insurance (52%), followed by private insurance (33%), and Medicaid (17%). Among all patients, 35% required additional financial assistance (for 75 claims). Most of these were through foundation grant funding (26% of all patients, 59 claims) and the remaining through manufacturer co-pay cards (9% of all patients, 16 claims). Medicaid patients did not require additional financial aid and have low cost-sharing given cost-sharing subsidies provided by Medicaid. Most of the patients requiring financial assistance were Medicare patients receiving foundation grant funding (Table). There were 10% of patients who did not receive additional assistance, but had high cost-sharing exceeding $100/prescription (range $295-$3514). Claims costs for all prescriptions totaled just over $2,000,000. The majority of the cost was paid by insurers with more than half covered by Medicare, ~$52,950 paid by foundation grant assistance, ~$8,486 paid by manufacturer co-pay cards, and $23,818 by patient cost-sharing. There were 105 first-time prescriptions to evaluate. When comparing the times required for prior authorization and delivery of drugs to patients, median times were similar by insurance type (Table), and most prescriptions received prior authorization approval within 1 day and were delivered within 7 days. Conclusions: Financial assistance was needed for 35% of all patients on novel therapeutics, mostly through foundation grant assistance. Medicare covered half of total 2 million dollar cost. Medicare patients bear the most burden, with 40% requiring foundation grant assistance, and 19% acquiring high co-pays. The KCI Specialty Pharmacy attained a total of ~$61,433 in financial assistance, and provided an efficient process for fast authorization and drug delivery which did not vary by insurance type or need for grants. Disclosures Smith: Genentech Advisory Council: Other: Pharmacy Consultant.

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Vicky Mengqi Qin ◽  
Yuting Zhang ◽  
Kee Seng Chia ◽  
Barbara McPake ◽  
Yang Zhao ◽  
...  

Abstract Objectives This study aims to examine: (1) temporal trends in the percentage of cost-sharing and amount of out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE) from 2011 to 2015; (2) factors associated with cost-sharing and OOPE; and (3) the relationships between province-level economic development and cost-sharing and OOPE in China. Setting A total of 10,316 adults aged ≥45 years from China followed-up from 2011 to 2015 were included in the analysis. We measured two main outcome variables: (1) patient cost sharing, measured by the percentage of OOPE as total healthcare expenditure, and (2) absolute amount of OOPE. Results Based on self-reported data, we did not find substantial differences in the percentage of cost sharing, but a significant increase in the absolute amount of OOPE among the middle-aged and older Chinese between 2011 and 2015. The percentage of cost-sharing was considerably higher for outpatient than inpatient care, and the majority paid more than 80% of the total cost for prescription drugs. Provinces with higher GDP per capita tend to have lower cost-sharing and a higher OOPE than their counterparts, but the relationship for OOPE became insignificant after adjusting for individual factors. Conclusion Reducing out-of-pocket expenditure and patient cost sharing is required to improve financial protection from illness, especially for those with those with chronic conditions and reside in less developed regions in China. Ongoing monitoring of financial protection using data from various sources is warranted.


2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Charitha Gowda ◽  
Stephen Lott ◽  
Matthew Grigorian ◽  
Dena M Carbonari ◽  
M Elle Saine ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Despite the availability of new direct-acting antiviral (DAA) regimens, changes in DAA reimbursement criteria, and a public health focus on hepatitis C virus (HCV) elimination, it remains unclear if public and private insurers have increased access to these therapies over time. We evaluated changes in the incidence of absolute denial of DAA therapy over time and by insurance type. Methods We conducted a prospective cohort study among patients who had a DAA prescription submitted from January 2016 to April 2017 to Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc., which provides HCV pharmacy services across the United States. The main outcome was absolute denial of DAA prescription, defined as lack of fill approval by the insurer. We calculated the incidence of absolute denial, overall and by insurance type (Medicaid, Medicare, commercial), for the 16-month study period and each quarter. Results Among 9025 patients from 45 states prescribed a DAA regimen (4702 covered by Medicaid, 1821 Medicare, 2502 commercial insurance), 3200 (35.5%; 95% confidence interval, 34.5%–36.5%) were absolutely denied treatment. Absolute denial was more common among patients covered by commercial insurance (52.4%) than Medicaid (34.5%, P < .001) or Medicare (14.7%, P < .001). The incidence of absolute denial increased across each quarter of the study period, overall (27.7% in first quarter to 43.8% in last quarter; test for trend, P < .001) and for each insurance type (test for trend, P < .001 for each type). Conclusions Despite the availability of new DAA regimens and changes in restrictions of these therapies, absolute denials of DAA regimens by insurers have remained high and increased over time, regardless of insurance type.


2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amitabh Chandra ◽  
Jonathan Gruber ◽  
Robin McKnight

2018 ◽  
Vol 44 (5) ◽  
pp. E6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seungwon Yoon ◽  
Michael A. Mooney ◽  
Michael A. Bohl ◽  
John P. Sheehy ◽  
Peter Nakaji ◽  
...  

OBJECTIVEWith drastic changes to the health insurance market, patient cost sharing has significantly increased in recent years. However, the patient financial burden, or out-of-pocket (OOP) costs, for surgical procedures is poorly understood. The goal of this study was to analyze patient OOP spending in cranial neurosurgery and identify drivers of OOP spending growth.METHODSFor 6569 consecutive patients who underwent cranial neurosurgery from 2013 to 2016 at the authors’ institution, the authors created univariate and multivariate mixed-effects models to investigate the effect of patient demographic and clinical factors on patient OOP spending. The authors examined OOP payments stratified into 10 subsets of case categories and created a generalized linear model to study the growth of OOP spending over time.RESULTSIn the multivariate model, case categories (craniotomy for pain, tumor, and vascular lesions), commercial insurance, and out-of-network plans were significant predictors of higher OOP payments for patients (all p < 0.05). Patient spending varied substantially across procedure types, with patients undergoing craniotomy for pain ($1151 ± $209) having the highest mean OOP payments. On average, commercially insured patients spent nearly twice as much in OOP payments as the overall population. From 2013 to 2016, the mean patient OOP spending increased 17%, from $598 to $698 per patient encounter. Commercially insured patients experienced more significant growth in OOP spending, with a cumulative rate of growth of 42% ($991 in 2013 to $1403 in 2016).CONCLUSIONSEven after controlling for inflation, case-mix differences, and partial fiscal periods, OOP spending for cranial neurosurgery patients significantly increased from 2013 to 2016. The mean OOP spending for commercially insured neurosurgical patients exceeded $1400 in 2016, with an average annual growth rate of 13%. As patient cost sharing in health insurance plans becomes more prevalent, patients and providers must consider the potential financial burden for patients receiving specialized neurosurgical care.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1519-1519
Author(s):  
Morgan RL Lichtenstein ◽  
Melissa Beauchemin ◽  
Sahil Doshi ◽  
Rohit Raghunathan ◽  
Cynthia Law ◽  
...  

1519 Background: The past decade has seen a dramatic increase in the number of Food and Drug Administration approvals of oral anti-cancer drugs (OACDs). Most OACD prescriptions require coordination between providers, payers, specialty pharmacists, and financial assistance organizations, which can delay drug receipt. We evaluated median time to OACD receipt (TTR) from initial OACD prescription submission and assessed clinical and process-related factors associated with TTR. Methods: We prospectively collected data on all new OACD prescriptions for adult oncology patients at a large, urban outpatient cancer center from 1/1/2018 to 12/31/2019. We collected patient demographic, medical, and insurance data; prescription submission and delivery dates; and interactions with payers and financial assistance groups. TTR was defined as the number of days from OACD initial prescription to patient receipt of the drug. We estimated the median TTR across all patients and used multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with TTR above the median. Results: The cohort included 1080 patients who were prescribed 1269 new OACDs. Of these prescriptions, 84% (N=1069) were received, and 71% (N=896) required prior authorization. The median patient age was 66, 44% identified as Non-Hispanic White (White), 25% of patients had commercial insurance, 16% had Medicaid alone, and 58% had Medicare alone or in combination with another plan. The median TTR per patient was 7 days (IQR 0 – 142; 25% ≥ 14 days and 5% ≥ 30 days). In unadjusted analyses, insurance and race/ethnicity were associated with TTR. Compared with patients covered by Medicaid, those with Medicare and supplemental insurance (a partial, not free-standing plan) had nearly 2.5 times the odds of TTR >7 days controlling for other factors. Race/ethnicity showed a trend toward longer TTR with Non-Hispanic Black (Black) patients having a longer TTR compared to White patients, controlling for other factors. We did not observe statistically significant effects of either comorbidity or prior authorization requirement on TTR. Conclusions: Though the majority of oncology patients prescribed OACDs receive the drug, 71% of prescriptions required prior authorization and a quarter of patients waited at least two weeks. Disparities in TTR are primarily driven by financial factors, specifically insurance type.[Table: see text]


Surgery ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 168 (2) ◽  
pp. 244-252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Kirsch ◽  
John R. Montgomery ◽  
Hsou Mei Hu ◽  
Michael Englesbe ◽  
Brian Hallstrom ◽  
...  

1963 ◽  
Vol 6 (03) ◽  
pp. 30-31
Author(s):  
Joseph Greenberg

The Third West African Languages Congress took place in Freetown, Sierra Leone, from March 26 to April 1, 1963. This was the third of the annual meetings of those interested in West African languages sponsored by the West African Languages Survey, previous meetings having been held in Accra (1961) and Dakar (1962). The West African Languages Survey is a Ford Foundation project. Additional financial assistance from UNESCO and other sources contributed materially to the scope and success of the meeting. This meeting was larger than previous ones both in attendance and in number of papers presented and, it may be said, in regard to the scientific level of the papers presented. The official participants, seventy-two in number, came from virtually every country in West Africa, from Western European countries and from the United States. The linguistic theme of the meeting was the syntax of West African languages, and a substantial portion of the papers presented were on this topic. In addition, there was for the first time at these meetings a symposium on the teaching of English, French and African languages in Africa. The papers of this symposium will be published in the forthcoming series of monographs planned as a supplement to the new Journal of West African Languages. The other papers are to appear in the Journal of African Languages edited by Jack Berry of the School of Oriental and African Studies.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document