scholarly journals The Sustainability of Price Dynamics in Precision Hematology

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 114-114
Author(s):  
Caleb J Scheckel ◽  
Aakash Desai ◽  
Chelsee Jensen ◽  
Jacob Orme ◽  
Nandita Khera ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Despite the promise of targeted agents in hematology, the high price of cancer therapies is a rapidly evolving problem. Until now, the increase in price of targeted anti-cancer treatments used in common hematological malignancies has not been evaluated. Here, we report patterns in price changes from 2015-2019 for multiple in-class anticancer medications for common hematologic malignancies. Methods: We utilized the publicly available Medicare Part D provider utilization and payment database from 2015 to 2019. We extracted drug prices (using generic names) for commonly used targeted anticancer agents for acute myeloid leukemia, chronic myeloid leukemia, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, B-cell lymphomas, and multiple myeloma. The primary outcome was the correlation of average change in Medicare spending per dosage unit among the multiple brand-name medications within each class available. We additionally calculated compound annual growth rates (CAGRs) [i.e. mean annual growth rates over a specified period of time] for medication costs within each class, and compared it with the consumer price index (CPI) (a measure of the average change over time in the prices of consumer items) and inflation rate. Agents without in-class competitor were excluded. CPI and inflation rates came from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Results: The study included 6 BCR-ABL inhibitors (1 generic), 2 BTK inhibitors, 2 IDH inhibitors, 2 FLT3 inhibitors, 3 IMIDs, 3 PI, 2 PI3K inhibitors, and 5 anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies. The median (range) Pearson correlation coefficient values for drugs within each class were -0.155 (-0.984-0.992) for BCR-ABLi, -0.362 for BTKi, 0.234 (0.215-0.999) for IMIDs, 0.899 (-0.034-0.988) for PIs, and 0.954 (0.847-0.999) for anti-CD20 antibodies. The median correlation coefficient for BCR-ABLi was 0.751 if generic imatinib was excluded. The correlation coefficient between 2 nd and 3 rd generation IMIDs was 0.999. Non-generic BCR-ABLi and anti-CD20 antibodies showed strong linear association in price increase between two drugs within the same class. Due to drug novelty, coefficient could not be calculated for therapies with 2 or fewer data points (midostaurin, gilteritinib, enasidenib, ivosidenib, idelalisib, duvelisib). There was no significant correlation between expenditure for BTKi, PIs, and IMIDs. The median CAGRs in costs over this 5-year period were: were 6.29% for BCR-ABLi, 18.36% for BTKi, 2.69% for IDHi, 4.23% for FLT3i, 10.63% for IMIDs, 5.11% for PIs, 5.79% for PI3Ki, and 5.85% for anti-CD20s. The median CAGR in costs for modern precision-driven cancer therapeutic classes outpaced CPI (2.26%/year), and the average inflation rate (1.90%/year). Conclusions: Increase in cost within the same class should be weighed against incremental clinical benefit for the patients. For non-generic BCR-ABLi and anti-CD20 antibodies, despite there being several agents, the rise in drug expenditures correlated closely, calling into question the true value of within-class competition. There is an urgent need for drug pricing reform given the average expenditure of Medicare part D, and ultimately out-of-pocket costs for our patients with cancer continues to trend upwards. Increased advocacy efforts are needed to ensure precision therapeutics remains an attainable and sustainable goal. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7-7
Author(s):  
Aakash Desai ◽  
Chelsee Jensen ◽  
Caleb Scheckel ◽  
Jacob Orme ◽  
Sri Harsha Tella ◽  
...  

7 Background: Despite the promise of precision oncology, the cost-effectiveness of targeted treatments is debated. Until now, the increase in price of oral targeted anti-cancer treatments used in common malignancies has not been evaluated. Here, we report patterns in price changes from 2015-2019 for multiple oral anti-cancer medications for common solid tumor malignancies. Methods: We utilized the publicly available Medicare Part D provider utilization and payment database from 2015 to 2019. We extracted drug prices (using generic names) for commonly used targeted oral anticancer agents for lung, breast, and prostate cancer. The primary outcome was the correlation of average change in Medicare spending per dosage unit among the multiple brand-name medications within each class available. We additionally calculated compound annual growth rates (CAGRs) [i.e. mean annual growth rates over a specified period of time] for medication costs within each class, and compared it with the consumer price index (a measure of the average change over time in the prices of consumer items). Results: The study included 6 EGFR inhibitors (1 generic), 5 ALK inhibitors, 2 BRAF inhibitors, 3 hormonal agents (1 generic), 3 CDK4/6 inhibitors, 2 PARP inhibitors, and 7 anti-androgen agents (2 generic). The median (range) Pearson correlation coefficient values for drugs within each class were 0.967 (0.915-0.978) for EGFRi, 0.981 (0.966-0.989) for ALKi, 0.996 for BRAFi, 0.994 (0.992-0.999) for CDK4/6i, 0.855 for PARPi, and 0.442 (-0.522-0.962) for anti-androgens. Except for anti-androgens, all other drug classes showed strong linear association in price increase between two drugs within the same-class. A coefficient could not be calculated for therapies with 2 or fewer data points ( i.e., generic erlotinib, dacomitinib, generic abiraterone, apalutamide, and darolutamide). There was no significant correlation between expenditure for anti-estrogen agents. The median (range) CAGRs in costs over this 5-year period were: were 4.56% for EGFRi, 6.40% for ALKi, 2.58% for BRAFi, 5.48% for hormonal agents, 5.21% for CDK4/6i, 27.29% for PARPi, and 34.8% for anti-androgen agents. Conclusions: The median CAGR in costs for modern oral precision driven cancer therapeutic classes mostly outpaced CPI (2.26%/year), and the average inflation rate (1.90%/year). Increase in cost within the same class should be weighed against incremental clinical benefit for the patients. For most classes despite there being multiple agents, the rise in drug expenditures correlated closely, calling into question the true value of within class competition. There is an urgent need for drug pricing reform given the average expenditure of Medicare part D, and ultimately out of pocket costs for our patients with cancer continues to trend upwards. Increased advocacy efforts are needed to ensure precision therapeutics remains an attainable and sustainable goal.


2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. e152-e162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chan Shen ◽  
Bo Zhao ◽  
Lei Liu ◽  
Ya-Chen Tina Shih

Purpose: The number of targeted oral anticancer medications (TOAMs) has grown rapidly in the past decade. The high cost of TOAMs raises concerns about the financial aspect of treatment, especially for patients enrolled in Medicare Part D plans because of the coverage gap. Methods: We identified patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) who were new TOAM users from the SEER registry data linked with Medicare Part D data, from years 2007 to 2012. We followed these patients throughout the calendar year when they started taking the TOAMs and examined their out-of-pocket (OOP) payments and gross drug costs, taking into account their benefit phase, plan type, and cost share group. Results: We found that 726 (81%) of the 898 patients with CML who received TOAMs had reached the catastrophic phase of their Medicare Part D benefit within the year of medication initiation, with a large majority of patients reaching this phase in less than a month. Patients without subsidies showed a clear pattern of a spike in OOP payments when they began treatment with TOAMs. The OOP payment for patients with subsidies was substantially lower. The monthly gross drug costs were similar between patients with and without subsidies. Conclusion: Patients experience quick entry and exit from the coverage gap (also called the donut hole) as a result of the high price of TOAMs. Closing the donut hole will provide financial relief during the initial month(s) of treatment but will not completely eliminate the financial burden.


2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. A3
Author(s):  
J.A. Doshi ◽  
P. Li ◽  
H. Huo ◽  
A.R. Pettit ◽  
R. Kumar ◽  
...  

2006 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
MARY ELLEN SCHNEIDER

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Betty E. Tanius ◽  
Stacey Wood ◽  
Yaniv Hanoch ◽  
Thomas Rice ◽  
Martina Ly ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document