Patient factors associated with time to medication receipt of oral anti-cancer drugs.

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]

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6-6
Author(s):  
Morgan RL Lichtenstein ◽  
Melissa Parsons Beauchemin ◽  
Rohit R. Raghunathan ◽  
Sahil D Doshi ◽  
Cynthia Law ◽  
...  

6 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 payers and providers, which can delay drug receipt. In May 2021, two bills were introduced in the US House of Representatives (HR 3173 and HR 3258) to streamline the prior authorization (PA) process. In this study, we examined clinical and process-related factors associated with PA and time to drug receipt (TTR) for patients who received a new OACD prescription. Methods: We prospectively collected data on all new OACD prescriptions for adult oncology patients from 1/1/2018 to 12/31/2019. We collected patient demographic, medical, and insurance data, drug type (hormonal, chemotherapy, targeted), and specialty pharmacy interactions with payers and financial assistance groups, including PA information. TTR was defined as the number of days from OACD prescription to patient receipt of the drug. We used multivariable logistic regression to separately assess factors associated with TTR and factors associated with PA for patients who received a new OACD prescription. Results: The cohort for both models included 883 patients who were prescribed 1014 new OACDs. Of these prescriptions, 72.3% (N=733) required PA. The median age was 66 and 44% identified as White. The median TTR was 7 days (IQR 0 – 142; 25% ≥ 14 days; and 5% ≥ 30 days). In unadjusted analyses, PA was associated with insurance and drug type and delayed TTR was associated with PA and insurance type. In a multivariable analysis, patients with Medicaid insurance were more likely to require PA compared to patients with Medicare (OR 1.93 (1.14 – 3.32), p=0.03). In addition, patients prescribed targeted and hormone therapies were more likely to require PA than those prescribed oral chemotherapy (targeted: OR 3.33 [2.38 – 4.68], p<0.001; hormone: OR 4.26 [2.45 – 7.65], p<0.001). A separate multivariable analysis showed that PA is associated with delayed TTR (OR 1.62 [1.18 – 2.24], p=0.003) and that Medicaid is associated with a shorter TTR (OR 0.59 [0.37 – 0.94], p=0.03). Conclusions: The current process for obtaining OACDs is complex and multifaceted. Seventy two percent of delivered OACDs require PA, which is associated with delayed TTR. Earlier intervention and new health policies are needed to reduce time to OACD receipt. [Table: see text]


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 43-43
Author(s):  
Melissa Parsons Beauchemin ◽  
Morgan RL Lichtenstein ◽  
Rohit R. Raghunathan ◽  
Sahil D Doshi ◽  
Cynthia Law ◽  
...  

43 Background: Most oral anti-cancer drugs (OACD) prescriptions require extensive coordination between providers and payers, which can delay drug receipt. Specialty pharmacies are intended to facilitate communication between multiple entities to deliver OACDs with increased efficiency. In 2018, our cancer center partnered with Shields Health Solutions (SHS), a freestanding organization providing care coordination to implement a hospital-based specialty pharmacy. We evaluated the rate of failed drug receipt (FR) and time to drug receipt (TTR) before and after specialty pharmacy implementation. Methods: We prospectively collected data on all new OACD prescriptions for adult oncology patients at a large, urban cancer center from 1/1/2018 to 12/31/2019. In fall 2018, a specialty pharmacy was opened to facilitate drug procurement for patients. We collected patient demographic, clinical, and insurance data, OACD name, date prescribed, delivery date, and interactions with payers and financial assistance groups. For prescriptions received, TTR was the number of days from OACD prescription to patient receipt of the drug. FR was defined as failure to receive a prescribed OACD. We excluded OACD prescriptions for a washout period of two months during pharmacy initiation. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine factors associated with TTR > 7 days and FR before and after specialty pharmacy implementation. Results: In total, 883 patients were prescribed 1145 new OACDs. The majority of prescribed drugs were targeted treatment (56%, N = 646) and 72% (N = 819) required prior authorization (PA). Of all prescriptions, 86% (N = 999) were successfully received with an overall median TTR of 7 days. Adjusted analyses showed that patients were more likely to receive their drugs in less than 7 days after specialty pharmacy implementation (OR: 1.4 95% CI 1.04 – 1.81), p = 0.03). In an unadjusted analysis, patients were more likely to receive their initial medications after specialty pharmacy implementation, compared to before specialty pharmacy implementation (89% vs. 84%, p = 0.04). Multivariable analysis showed a trend toward more patients receiving drugs after specialty pharmacy implementation (OR: 1.42, 95% CI 0.98 – 2.03, p = 0.06). Conclusions: The implementation of a hospital-based specialty pharmacy in partnership with SHS decreased TTR. This difference is in part attributable to improved care coordination and communication. A centralized approach may improve overall efficiency due to fewer clinical practice disruptions.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6541-6541
Author(s):  
Daniel O'Neil ◽  
Melissa Kate Accordino ◽  
Jason Dennis Wright ◽  
Cynthia Law ◽  
Suzuka Nitta ◽  
...  

6541 Background: Oral anticancer drug (OACD) prescriptions require coordination between clinicians, payers, specialty pharmacies, and financial assistance (FA) groups, which may delay patient receipt of the drug. Factors associated with delay in receipt of OACDs are unknown. Methods: We prospectively collected data on all new OACD prescriptions (RXs) from the medical oncology practice at the Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center from 1/1/2018 to 12/1/2018. We collected patient demographic, insurance and clinical information; date of prescription; date of drug delivery; and staff interactions with payers and FA groups. Federal Drug Association (FDA) labels and Micromedex were reviewed for initial drug approval dates, approved indications and average wholesale price. We used multivariable linear and logistic regression to determine factors associated with number of days from prescription to receipt of OACD. Results: During the study period 510 OACD RXs were evaluated. Of these, 84 (16%) were never filled. The most common OACDs were capecitabine (90, 18%), abiraterone (45, 9%), palbociclib (35, 7%) and osimertinib (28, 6%). Of 426 filled RXs, the median time from prescription to receipt was 8 days (IQR 5-13), with 193 RXs (46%) received in ≤7 days, 145 (34%) in 8-14 days and 65 (15%) in 14-28 days, and 23 (5%) at > 28 days. Linear regression showed time to receipt of OACD (log transformed) was associated with having commercial primary insurance (p = 0.02), pursing FA (p = < 0.001), RX of a drug approved by the FDA < 2 years earlier (p = 0.008), drugs without an approved indication for the primary tumor (p = 0.03) and estimated drug cost (p = 0.002). The other included covariates, patient age and prior authorization, were not associated with time to receipt. Logistic regression comparing receipt at ≤14 versus > 14 days found association with FA (OR 3.17; 95%CI 1.78-5.65), FDA approval within 2 years (OR 3.52; 95%CI 1.31-9.45) and off-label use (OR 2.30; 95%CI 1.18-4.50). Conclusions: Over 20% of new OACDs were received 14 days or longer from the date of RX. Financial and insurance related factors; and more expensive and recently approved drugs were associated with longer delays in receipt of therapy. Policy changes to improve the timeliness of OACD access are needed.


2020 ◽  
pp. 082585972097594
Author(s):  
Deepa Wadhwa ◽  
David Hausner ◽  
Gordana Popovic ◽  
Ashley Pope ◽  
Nadia Swami ◽  
...  

Purpose: To evaluate factors associated with continuation of systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) after palliative care consultation, and SACT administration in the last 30 days of life, in outpatients with cancer referred to palliative care. Timing of referral was of particular interest. Methods: Patient, disease, and treatment-related factors associated with SACT before and after palliative care, and in the last 30 days of life, were identified using 3-level multinomial logistic regression. Referral to palliative care was categorized by time from death as early (>12 months), intermediate (6-12 months), and late (≤6 months). Results: Of the 337 patients, 240 (71.2%) received SACT for advanced cancer; of these, 126 (52.5%) received SACT only prior to palliative care while 114 (47.5%) also received SACT afterward. Only 35/337 (10.4%) received SACT in the last 30 days of life. On multivariable analysis, factors associated with continuing SACT after palliative care consultation were a cancer diagnosis for <1 year (OR 3.09, p = 0.01), breast primary (OR 11.88, p = 0.0008), and early (OR 28.8, p < 0.001) or intermediate (OR 6.67, p < 0.001) referral timing. No factors were significantly associated with receiving SACT in the last 30 days versus earlier, but the median time from palliative care referral to death in those receiving SACT in the last 30 days versus stopping SACT earlier was 1.78 versus 4.27 months. Conclusion: Patients who received SACT following palliative care consultation were more likely to be referred early; however, patients receiving SACT in their last 30 days tended to be referred late.


2016 ◽  
Vol 07 (01) ◽  
pp. 20-25
Author(s):  
I. Pabinger ◽  
C. Ay

SummaryVenous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer is associated with an increased morbidity and mortality, and its prevention is of major clinical importance. However, the VTE rates in the cancer population vary between 0.5% - 20%, depending on cancer-, treatment- and patient-related factors. The most important contributors to VTE risk are the tumor entity, stage and certain anticancer treatments. Cancer surgery represents a strong risk factor for VTE, and medical oncology patients are at increased risk of developing VTE, especially when receiving chemotherapy or immunomodulatory drugs. Also biomarkers have been investigated for their usefulness to predict risk of VTE (e.g. elevated leukocyte and platelet counts, soluble P-selectin, D-dimer, etc.). In order to identify cancer patients at high risk of VTE and to improve risk stratification, risk assessment models have been developed, which contain both clinical parameters and biomarkers. While primary thromboprophylaxis with lowmolecular- weight-heparin (LMWH) is recommended postoperatively for a period of up to 4 weeks after major cancer surgery, the evidence is less clear for medical oncology patients. Thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical oncology patients is advocated, and is based on results of randomized controlled trials which evaluated the efficacy and safety of LMWH for prevention of VTE in hospitalized medically ill patients. In recent trials the benefit of primary thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy in the ambulatory setting has been investigated. However, at the present stage primary thromboprophylaxis for prevention of VTE in these patients is still a matter of debate and cannot be recommended for all cancer outpatients.


1993 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-46
Author(s):  
Jun YOSHIDA ◽  
Juichiro NAKAYAMA ◽  
Nobuyuki SHIMIZU ◽  
Shonosuke NAGAE ◽  
Yoshiaki HORI

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document