Search

BackgroundYoung adults and other working-age adults with cancer are at risk for cancer-related financial toxicity (FT), including material hardships, depletion of coping resources, and psychological burden. This study compares FT domains in young adults (18-39 years old) (YAs), other working-age adults (40-64 years old), and older adults (≥65 years old) receiving cancer care.MethodsA total of 311 adults were surveyed using the multi-domain Economic Strain and Resilience in Cancer instrument measuring FT (0-10 score indicating least to greatest FT; score ≥5 severe FT). Participants were receiving ambulatory care from March-September 2019. Associations of age with overall FT and material hardship, coping resource depletion, and psychological burden FT domains were tested using Kruskal-Wallis and χ2 tests and multivariable generalized linear models with gamma distribution.ResultsYAs (median age, 31.5 years) comprised 9.6% of the sample; other working-age adults comprised 56.9%. Overall, material, coping, and psychological FT scores were worse in younger age adults versus older adults (P

At the onset of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, hospitals experienced a demand surge for COVID-19–related medical care while simultaneously struggling to source prescription drugs needed to manage COVID-19 patients. This is worrisome as shortfalls in the supply of essential drugs can negatively impact patient outcomes. The popular press reporting on these challenges suggests that they are caused by supply chain disruptions. However, rigorous research on the relationship between the pandemic and prescription drug supply is limited. To address this gap, we leverage a quasi-experimental design and IQVIA's National Sales Perspectives™ data from 2018 to 2020. We focus on prescription drugs indicated for the management of COVID-19 patients and a set of control drugs (i.e., drugs not used for COVID-19). We find that in the early phases of the pandemic, hospitals stockpiled prescription drugs indicated for the management of COVID-19, making this behavior an under-recognized cause of the sourcing challenges. The sales volume of drugs indicated for COVID-19 management was concentrated in the first two months of the pandemic, after which sales decreased significantly despite a nationwide increase in COVID-19–related hospitalizations. We investigate another potential cause of stockpiling: expected price increases. Counter to concerns of price gouging, we find little evidence of price inflation for these drugs. An implication for drug manufacturers is that orders due to stockpiling by downstream buyers early on in a pandemic may need to be discounted when predicting future demand. Our results have implications for drug suppliers, hospitals, and policymakers interested in improving medical product supply chain resilience. This paper was accepted by Stefan Scholtes, healthcare management. Funding: R. M. Conti was supported by the National Science Foundation (Grant 1123649-463157) and the Sloan Foundation. Supplemental Material: The online appendices and data files are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.04150. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The Affordable Care Act (ACA) increased private nonemployer health insurance options, expanded Medicaid eligibility, and provided preexisting health condition protections. We evaluated insurance coverage among long-term adult survivors of childhood cancer pre- and post-ACA implementation. Methods Using the multicenter Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, we included participants from 2 cross-sectional surveys: pre-ACA (2007-2009; survivors: n = 7505; siblings: n = 2175) and post-ACA (2017-2019; survivors: n = 4030; siblings: n = 987). A subset completed both surveys (1840 survivors; 646 siblings). Multivariable regression models compared post-ACA insurance coverage and type (private, public, uninsured) between survivors and siblings and identified associated demographic and clinical factors. Multinomial models compared gaining and losing insurance vs staying the same among survivors and siblings who participated in both surveys. Results The proportion with insurance was higher post-ACA (survivors pre-ACA 89.1% to post-ACA 92.0% [+2.9%]; siblings pre-ACA 90.9% to post-ACA 95.3% [+4.4%]). Post-ACA insurance increase in coverage was higher among those aged 18-25 years (survivors: +15.8% vs +2.3% or less ages 26 years and older; siblings +17.8% vs +4.2% or less ages 26 years and older). Survivors were more likely to have public insurance than siblings post-ACA (18.4% vs 6.9%; odds ratio [OR] = 1.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.1 to 2.6). Survivors with severe chronic conditions (OR = 4.7, 95% CI = 3.0 to 7.3) and those living in Medicaid expansion states (OR = 2.4, 95% CI = 1.7 to 3.4) had increased odds of public insurance coverage post-ACA. Among the subset completing both surveys, low- and mid-income survivors (<$40 000 and <$60 000, respectively) experienced insurance losses and gains in reference to highest household income survivors (≥$100 000), relative to odds of keeping the same insurance status. Conclusions Post-ACA, more childhood cancer survivors and siblings had health insurance, although disparities remain in coverage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key Points: Question: Is cost sharing associated with nondispensing of naloxone prescriptions (abandonment)? Findings: This cross-sectional analysis of 2020-2021 data from a national pharmacy transactions database used a regression discontinuity approach to evaluate the association between cost sharing and abandonment, exploiting the fact that deductibles typically reset at the beginning of the year in commercial insurance plans and in Medicare plans. The findings suggest a decision by commercial and Medicare plans to increase naloxone cost sharing by $10 would be associated with a 3.1- and 2.3-percentage-point increase in the probability of abandonment, respectively. Meaning: Cost sharing may be a barrier to dispensing of naloxone prescriptions in commercially insured and Medicare patients. Importance: Increasing access to naloxone (an opioid antagonist that can reverse overdose) could slow the US opioid epidemic. Prior studies suggest cost sharing may be a barrier to dispensing of naloxone prescriptions, but these studies were limited by their cross-sectional designs and use of databases that do not capture prescriptions that are not filled (abandoned). Objective: To evaluate the association between cost sharing and naloxone prescription abandonment (nondispensing of naloxone prescriptions). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional, regression discontinuity analysis exploited the fact that deductibles typically reset at the beginning of the year in commercial and Medicare plans. The included data were derived from the 2020-2021 IQVIA Formulary Impact Analyzer (a pharmacy transactions database that represents 63% of prescriptions at US pharmacies). The analysis included claims for naloxone nasal spray among commercially insured patients and Medicare patients that occurred during the 60 days before January 1, 2021, through 59 days after January 1, 2021. Exposure: Cost sharing, which is defined as the amount patients would have to pay to fill prescriptions. Main Outcomes and Measures: Local linear regression models were used to assess for abrupt changes in cost sharing and the probability of prescription abandonment on January 1, 2021. To estimate the association between cost sharing and prescription abandonment, a fuzzy regression discontinuity analysis was conducted. Results: These analyses included naloxone claims for 71 306 commercially insured patients and 101 706 Medicare patients (40 019 [56.1%] and 61 410 [60.4%], respectively, were female). The commercially insured patients and Medicare patients accounted for 73 311 and 106 076 naloxone claims, respectively. On January 1, 2021, the mean cost sharing per claim increased by $15.0 (95% CI, $13.8-$16.2) for commercially insured patients and increased by $12.3 (95% CI, $10.9-$13.6) for Medicare patients and the probability of abandonment increased by 4.7 (95% CI, 3.2-6.2) percentage points and 2.8 (95% CI, 1.6-4.1) percentage points, respectively. The results from the fuzzy regression discontinuity analysis suggest a decision by commercial and Medicare plans to increase naloxone cost sharing by $10 would be associated with percentage-point increases of 3.1 (95% CI, 2.2-4.1) and 2.3 (95% CI, 1.4-3.2), respectively, in the probability of abandonment. Conclusions: The elimination of cost sharing might be associated with increased naloxone dispensing to commercially insured and Medicare patients. This study evaluates the association between cost sharing and naloxone prescription abandonment (nondispensing of naloxone prescriptions) in commercial insurance and Medicare plans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy PointsThe 340B Drug Pricing Program accounts for roughly 1 out of every 100 dollars spent in the $4.3 trillion US health care industry. Decisions affecting the program will have wide‐ranging consequences throughout the US safety net.Our scoping review provides a roadmap of the questions being asked about the 340B program and an initial synthesis of the answers. The highest‐quality evidence indicates that nonprofit, disproportionate share hospitals may be using the 340B program in margin‐motivated ways, with inconsistent evidence for increased safety net engagement; however, this finding is not consistent across other hospital types and public health clinics, which face different incentive structures and reporting requirements. Context: Despite remarkable growth and relevance of the 340B Drug Pricing Program to current health care practice and policy debate, academic literature examining 340B has lagged. The objectives of this scoping review were to summarize i) common research questions published about 340B, ii) what is empirically known about 340B and its implications, and iii) remaining knowledge gaps, all organized in a way that is informative to practitioners, researchers, and decision makers. Methods: We conducted a scoping review of the peer‐reviewed, empirical 340B literature (database inception to March 2023). We categorized studies by suitability of their design for internal validity, type of covered entity studied, and motivation‐by‐scope category. Findings: The final yield included 44 peer‐reviewed, empirical studies published between 2003 and 2023. We identified 15 frequently asked research questions in the literature, across 6 categories of inquiry—motivation (margin or mission) and scope (external, covered entity, and care delivery interface). Literature with greatest internal validity leaned toward evidence of margin‐motivated behavior at the external environment and covered entity levels, with inconsistent findings supporting mission‐motivated behavior at these levels; this was particularly the case among participating disproportionate share hospitals (DSHs). However, included case studies were unanimous in demonstrating positive effects of the 340B program for carrying out a provider's safety net mission. Conclusions: In our scoping review of the 340B program, the highest‐quality evidence indicates nonprofit, DSHs may be using the 340B program in margin‐motivated ways, with inconsistent evidence for increased safety net engagement; however, this finding is not consistent across other hospital types and public health clinics, which face different incentive structures and reporting requirements. Future studies should examine heterogeneity by covered entity types (i.e., hospitals vs. public health clinics), characteristics, and time period of 340B enrollment. Our findings provide additional context to current health policy discussion regarding the 340B program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Siblings of children with cancer may experience adverse household economic consequences, but their financial outcomes in adulthood are unknown. Methods: A total of 880 siblings (aged 18–64 years) of adult‐aged childhood cancer survivors were surveyed to estimate the prevalence of financial hardship by three established domains (behavioral, material, and psychological). For individual financial hardship items matching the contemporaneous National Health Interview Survey or Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, siblings were compared with the general population by calculating adjusted prevalence odds ratios (ORs) to sample‐weighted responses. Multivariable logistic regression models examined associations between sibling characteristics and each hardship domain and between sibling hardship and survivors' cancer/treatment characteristics. Results: Behavioral, material, and psychological hardship was reported by 24%, 35%, and 28%, respectively. Compared with national survey respondents, siblings were more likely to report worries about medical bills (OR, 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06–1.22), difficulty affording nutritious foods (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.54–2.07), and forgoing needed medical care (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.10–1.73), prescription medications (OR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.99–3.20), and dental care (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.15–1.57) because of cost. Sibling characteristics associated with reporting financial hardship in one or more domains included female sex, older age, chronic health conditions, lower income, not having health insurance, high out‐of‐pocket medical expenditures, and nonmedical/nonhome debt. No survivor cancer/treatment characteristics were associated with sibling financial hardship. Conclusions: Adult siblings of childhood cancer survivors were more likely to experience financial hardship compared with the general population. Childhood cancer may adversely affect entire households, with potentially lasting implications. Adult siblings of long‐term childhood cancer survivors may experience greater aspects of financial hardship compared with the general population. A childhood cancer diagnosis and treatment may adversely affect entire households, with potentially lasting implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on critiques of U.S. pharmaceutical policy for interfering with a supposed "free" market, citing industry complaints about government intervention. It highlights how the U.S. pharmaceutical market diverges from typical free-market characteristics due to factors like patents granting monopolies, limited consumer information, and the role of doctors and insurers in drug selection.