Preferred Pharmacy Networks and Drug Costs

Selective contracting is an increasingly popular tool for reducing health care costs, but any savings must be weighed against consumer surplus losses from restricted access. Recently, many prescription drug plans (PDPs) utilize preferred pharmacy networks to reduce drug prices. Our results suggest that Medicare Part D plans with preferred pharmacy networks pay lower retail drug prices, while subsidized enrollees’ insensitivity to preferred pharmacy cost-sharing discounts reduces these savings. We then estimate pharmacy demand models to quantify the costs and benefits of preferred pharmacy networks, finding that the average enrollee benefits from preferred pharmacy contracting due to reduced out-of-pocket (OOP) costs at preferred pharmacies. (JEL G22, H51, I13, I18, L65, L81)

Retrospective real-world comparison of clinical and economic burden between first-generation and second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML).

e19030 Background: TKIs are the standard of care for the treatment of chronic phase CML under National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. Imatinib is recommended as a first-generation TKI (1GTKI), and bosutinib, dasatinib, nilotinib, and ponatinib are recommended as second-generation TKIs (2GTKIs). TKIs are associated with high healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs, although literature is limited comparing 1GTKI and 2GTKIs in a U.S. population. Methods: Using the Veteran’s Health Administration (VHA) database between April 1, 2013 and March 31, 2018, the study included patients aged ≥18 years with ≥1 medical claim for CML and ≥1 prescription claim for a TKI on or after the initial CML diagnosis date during the identification period (October 1, 2014 to September 30, 2017); the first TKI prescription claim was defined as the index date. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) minimized potential confounding; included variables were age, race, Quan-Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score, and CHA2DS2-VASc Score. Medication possession ratio (MPR) assessed adherence to index TKI; optimal adherence was defined as MPR ≥80%. Results: 944 patients were included: 78.9% on 1GTKI and 21.1% on 2GTKI. Mean age was 62.21 years (SD:18.8); 77.2% were white. At baselinetients on 1GTKI had a higher comorbidity burden than 2GTKIs: COPD (19.7% vs. 8%; p < 0.01), anemia (17.7% vs. 11.1%; p = 0.02), GI symptoms (28.5% vs. 18.6%; p < 0.01), cardiac dysrhythmias (15.6% vs. 7.5%; p < 0.01), coronary artery disease (26.3% vs. 13.6%; p < 0.01), hypertension (55.7% vs. 43.2%; p < 0.01) and CHA2DS2-VASc Score (2.2 vs 1.6; p < 0.01). Optimal adherence was higher with 1GTKI (69.6% vs. 62.2%; p = 0.04), although this was not statistically significant when mean MPR was compared. During follow-up, no difference between 1GTKI and 2GTKIs patients occurred with cardiac-related risk factors or CHA2DS2-VASc Score. Compared to 1GTKI, 2GTKIs had lower medical (inpatient and outpatient) costs ($3,162 vs. $3,906; p = 0.04) but higher all-cause pharmacy cost ($7,214 vs. $3,895; p < 0.01) due to imatinib becoming a generic drug during the study period. CML-related ($2,260 vs. $1,640, p < 0.01) and cardiac-related medical costs ($1,365 vs. $665, p < 0.01) were significantly higher in 1GTKI vs. 2GTKIs patients. Conclusions: Adherence to TKI therapy was suboptimal for both 1GTKI and 2GTKIs. 2GTKIs incurred lower medical cost in comparison to 1GTKI. Differences in total all-cause cost was primarily driven by pharmacy cost of TKIs. These results show that, beyond the cost of the TKI, using a 2GTKIs in the first-line can lead to cost offsets when compared to imatinib.

Healthcare utilization and costs associated with cancer-related diarrhea.

e18623 Background: Diarrhea is a common toxicity of cancer treatments, including radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and/or targeted therapies. Cancer-related diarrhea (CRD) leads to increased healthcare utilization and cost. This study evaluated the all-cause and CRD-specific healthcare utilization and cost of patients with CRD compared to a matched non-CRD cohort. Methods: We conducted a longitudinal observational study among adult patients ( > 18 years) with CRD using diagnosis codes or pharmacy claims compared to matched non-CRD patients using claims data from the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus database (October 2015 to March 2020). The index date was the date of the first cancer claim, and we re-indexed patients based on their CRD claim. Each patient had a 6-month pre-index period and a minimum 3-month post-index period. Patients were also required to have ≥12 months of continuous enrollment following the CRD index date. We directly matched patients 1:1 from the CRD cohort to the non-CRD cohort to adjust for selection bias and baseline differences. Our aim was to compare all-cause healthcare costs over a fixed 12-month post-index period, converting all costs to 2020 USD using the Consumer Price Index's medical component. We analyzed healthcare utilization for CRD-treated, CRD-inadequately treated, and CRD-untreated sub-cohorts (per Buono et al., J Econ 2017). Secondary endpoints included healthcare cost (proportion of patients, per-patient mean and median) and healthcare utilization (prescription fills and visits to the emergency department [ED], physician office, lab/pathology and outpatient ancillary services). We built one generalized estimating equation model with log link and gamma distribution adjusted for type of cancer, therapy and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) to estimate the difference in total healthcare cost between CRD and non-CRD cohorts. Results: We evaluated a total of 104,135 matched pairs of CRD and non-CRD adult patients with solid or hematologic cancer receiving either targeted or chemotherapy, with 12-month continuous enrollment. Patients with CRD incurred significantly higher mean ($104,880 vs $39,664, p < 0.0001) and median ($59,969 vs $8,914, p < 0.0001) all-cause healthcare cost compared to patients without CRD over the 12-month post-index period. Inadequately treated CRD patients had the mean highest cost ($129,531) vs adequately CRD-treated ($107,050) or untreated CRD patients ($56,350) (all p < 0.0001). Mean pharmacy cost for CRD and non-CRD patients were ($35,190 vs $15,883); visits to the ED ($1,107 vs $431), physician office ($3,457 vs $2,058), lab/pathology ($4,074 vs $1,404), and outpatient ancillary services ($15,805 vs $4,940) (all p-values < 0.0001). Conclusions: Our findings show that patients with CRD had nearly 2.9 times higher all-cause total cost than patients without CRD after adjusting for covariates. Prevention of CRD may result in a significant reduction in cancer-treatment cost.

Efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness comparison between U-100 human regular insulin and rapid acting insulin when delivered by V-Go wearable insulin delivery device in type 2 diabetes

IntroductionWe compared the efficacy and safety of human regular insulin (HRI) versus rapid-acting insulin (RAI) in a type 2 diabetes population already using the V-Go insulin delivery device.Research design and methodsThis was a 14-week, multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, phase IV, non-inferiority study. Patients ≥21years of age, with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes who were currently using the V-Go insulin delivery system with RAI, with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥6.5% (≥48 mmol/L) to ≤12.5% (≤108 mmol/L) were randomized 1:1 to RAI continuation or switch to HRI. The primary outcome was estimated treatment difference (ETD) in HbA1c least-squares mean change from baseline at 14 weeks (prespecified non-inferiority hypothesis with 95% CI upper limit <0.4%). Primary analysis was by per protocol (PP); safety analysis was by intention to treat.ResultsWe randomized 136 patients to continued RAI treatment (n=67) or HRI (n=69); 113 patients were included in the PP analysis (RAI, n=54; HRI, n=59). Mean change in HbA1c from baseline to study end was −0.60±1.1% (95% CI −0.90 to –0.29); −6.6±12.0 mmol/mol (95% CI −9.8 to −3.2) with HRI treatment and −0.38±1.3% (95% CI −0.70 to –0.05); −4.2±14.2 mmol/mol (95% CI −7.7 to −0.5) with RAI treatment, with ETD of −0.22% (95% CI −0.67 to 0.22); −2.4 mmol/mol (95% CI −7.3 to 2.4), p=0.007, confirming non-inferiority of HRI to RAI. No between-group differences in changes in total daily insulin doses, number of hypoglycemic values (≤70 mg/dL (≤39 mmol/L) or body weight were observed. No severe hypoglycemic events were reported. Direct pharmacy cost savings (−US$265.85; 95% CI −US$288.60 to −US$243.11; p<0.0001) were observed with HRI treatment.ConclusionsIndividuals with type 2 diabetes requiring insulin can be treated with V-Go wearable insulin delivery device using HRI, safely and effectively, and potentially at a much lower cost compared with RAI, which can lead to improved access to insulin therapy for these individuals.Trial registration numberNCT03495908.

AB1164 A COST PER RESPONDER ANALYSIS OF ABATACEPT VERSUS ADALIMUMAB FOR THE TREATMENT OF RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS AMONG PATIENTS WITH SHARED EPITOPE (SE) POSITIVITY FROM A UNITED STATES PAYER PERSPECTIVE

Background:The shared epitope (SE) is a significant genetic risk factor for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and it has been proposed to be associated with T-cell activation and the production of anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA).1-3The results from the Early AMPLE trial, a head-to-head trial comparing the efficacy of abatacept versus adalimumab among early moderate-to-severe RA patients with positive ACPA (ACPA+) and rheumatoid factor (RF), showed that at week 24, patients with SE positivity (SE+) responded better to abatacept compared to adalimumab across all efficacy measures evaluated (ACR20 [American College of Rheumatology], ACR50, ACR70, DAS[disease activity score]28-CRP[C-reactive protein]).4Objectives:To compare the cost per responder (CPR) between abatacept and adalimumab among RA patients with SE+ at week 24 using the Early AMPLE trial data from a United States (US) payer perspective.Methods:A CPR analysis was conducted for RA patients with SE+, ACPA+, and RF. Responders were defined as patients achieving ACR20, ACR50, ACR70, or DAS28-CRP ≤2.6 and efficacy data was sourced from the trial (Figure 1).4Approved product labels were referenced for treatment dosing regimen and wholesale acquisition cost was used to calculate pharmacy cost.5A real-world rebate scenario was considered for adalimumab (30%) to reflect the real-world pricing in the US market. The CPR was calculated as the total pharmacy cost divided by the proportion of responders.Results:The total pharmacy cost at week 24 was $26,273 per patient for abatacept and $21,731 per patient for adalimumab. With achieving ACR70 as the definition of responder, the CPR at 24-week was $46,337 for abatacept and $74,935 for adalimumab, a difference of $28,598 (Table 1). The CPR was consistently lower for abatacept compared to adalimumab across all clinical measures, with difference ranging from $7,099 to $43,609.Table 1.Overall cost per responder resultsAbataceptAdalimumabDifferenceACR20$30,303.74$37,403.06-$7,099.32ACR50$34,254.68$48,077.83-$13,823.15ACR70$46,337.46$74,935.10-$28,597.64DAS28-CRP ≤2.6$52,546.68$96,155.65-$43,608.97Conclusion:While the pharmacy cost was higher for abatacept compared to adalimumab driven by the rebate, due to its higher clinical efficacy, the CPR was consistently lower for SE+ RA patients treated with abatacept. The results may be useful for US healthcare decision makers in understanding how to optimize treatment for SE+ RA patient while minimizing costs in today’s budget constrained environment.References:[1]Gregersen PK, Silver J, Winchester RJ. The shared epitope hypothesis. An approach to understanding the molecular genetics of susceptibility to rheumatoid arthritis.Arthritis and rheumatism. 1987;30(11):1205-13.[2]Holoshitz J. The rheumatoid arthritis HLA-DRB1 shared epitope.Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2010;22(3):293-8.[3]Sakkas LI, Bogdanos DP, Katsiari C, et al. Anti-citrullinated peptides as autoantigens in rheumatoid arthritis-relevance to treatment.Autoimmun Rev. 2014;13(11):1114-20.[4]Fleischmann R, Weinblatt M, Ahmad H, et al. Efficacy of abatacept and adalimumab in patientsn with early rheumatoid arthritis with multiple poor prognostic factors: post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled clinical trial (AMPLE).Rheumatol Ther. 2019;6(4): 559-571.[5]Truven Health Analytics. Redbook online. Accessed October 11, 2019.Disclosure of Interests:Sang Hee Park Consultant of: Pharmerit International, which received consultancy fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb (US), Inc. for this study, Xue Han Employee of: BMS, Francis Lobo Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb (US), Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb (US), Sakina Nanji Consultant of: Pharmerit International, which received consultancy fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb (US), Inc. for this study, Dipen Patel Consultant of: Pharmerit International, which received consultancy fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb (US), Inc. for this study

Optimizing the Economic Impact of Sickle Cell Hospitalization By Effective Care Plans

Background: Adults with sickle cell disease (SCD) vaso-occlusive crisis (VOC) frequently seek care in the emergency department (ED) which often results in hospital admissions. The Hematology-Oncology at Ellis Fischel Cancer Center collaborated with organization's ED to develop and implement individualized care plans for adults with SCD presenting to the ED with the goal of adequate outpatient management, reduction in hospital admissions and optimizing the economic impact of sickle cell hospitalization. Methods: Baseline data was collected from November 2014 through June 2018. Medical Director, Oncology Unit Manager, and Performance Improvement Professional (PIP) collaborated with the ED Medical Director and representatives to develop a disease-specific individualized acute care plan for our adult SCD patient population. 100% case were reviewed by PIP and bi-monthly aggregate case review were done by the Medical Director/Unit Manager. The care plan include pathways for lab collection, pain medication regimens, prescription opioid refill policies, a timeline for outpatient follow-up, and criteria for hospital admission. These care pathways were then transitioned to order sets within the organization's electronic medical record. Results: Implementation of the SCD care plans resulted in significant improvement of length of stay(LOS) index indicating better management during the hospital stay, resulting in reduction of the inpatient pharmacy cost per encounter in half as mentioned in Table 1. Admissions per patient did not change significantly, but ED visits per patient went down and clinic visits per patient went up pointing to better management outside of acute care as shown in Table 2. Last 4 quarters of this study showed marked decrease in cost per patient as indicated in Table 3. Conclusions: This study clearly demonstrates that collaboration with the ED and development of care plans can improve the overall patient care for this population resulting in better outpatient management. Implementing this protocol has not only improved the patient experience but also has decreased the financial toxicity for the patient and the institution. We would encourage other institutions to implement such protocol in the ED and in the outpatient setting to meet the patient needs. Table 3 Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

COST ANALYSIS OF EMERGENCY VISITS DUE TO DRUG RELATED PROBLEMS

Objective: To identify patients coming to Emergency Medicine Department (EMD) with drug related problems, classify the DRPs and calculate the direct cost spent for treating them. Methods: This was a prospective observational study conducted in emergency medicine department. The patients coming to EMD with DRPs were classified according to Cipolle’s classification and the direct medical and non-medical costs were calculated. Results: A total of around 107 patients identified with DRPs of which 99 patients were included in the study. In this study, 51% of the cases were due to ADR and 35% due to non-adherence and rest of the cases were due to overdose (10%), drug interaction (3%) and sub therapeutic dose (1%). Major portion for treatment was spent for direct medical cost in which cost for laboratory investigations have contributed the most, INR 10,93,992 (42%) followed by Health care professional cost INR 55,6814 (21%), Pharmacy cost INR 4,00,524.6 (15%), Admission cost INR 3,80,400 (15%). The direct non-medical cost includes cost for diet and travel which was found to be INR 1,68,443 and INR 71,947 respectively. Conclusion: The drug related problems adds a significant economic burden on the patients which can be reduced by imparting knowledge about the proper use of medicines and by improving collaborative efforts of the patients, physicians, pharmacists and caregivers.

Pharmacy cost in cancer.

e18358 Background: Health care spending in US is highest in the developed world and contributes to up to 1/5 of the GDP. The price escalation is steep and contribution from cancer care is soaring. The cost of medications is deemed to be the leading cause of increased health care spending. In this era of precision medicine, with more effective and better tolerated drugs, patients are using them for longer periods of time, adding to the ever mounting health care spending. Methods: We used a large claims based data set US database MarketScan to explore the economic burden of drug cost in cancer care. Between January 1, 2013 and September 30, 2015 we identified 195,290 enrollees with active cancer. We analyzed the economic burden of medications for overall cancer care by exploring the total cost of care and the pharmacy expenditure by various classes of drugs for these patients. The perspective was that of the health care system as the costs included payments by the insurer and the patient. Results: There were 195,290 active cancer patients in this analysis. Mean age was 61 years, 55% were females. Breast cancer was the most common diagnosis. Mean total cost of care and total drug cost per patient over the study period was $141,415 and $13,579, respectively. The total pharmacy expenditure across all study patients was ~2.5B. Antineoplastic drugs make up the largest portion of the total pharmacy expenditure at 39%. Cost contribution based on drug categories were anti-infective (6%), cardiovascular (6%), central nervous system (including opiates, anti-nausea medications and antidepressants) (7%), blood formulations (including anticoagulants) (8%), hormones (8%) and gastrointestinal drugs (4%) respectively. Conclusions: Based on the real world information from a large insurance claims database, this study quantifies the contribution of various drug classes to the cost of cancer care. Antineoplastic contribute to > 1/3rd of the total pharmacy spending. With increasing trend for immunotherapy and combination therapy drug costs are bound to go up even more steeply. Unless drug prices are regulated, we are looking towards an unsustainable level of growth in the health care spending in cancer care.