Low rates of primary medication nonadherence in patients prescribed oral oncology agents across health system specialty pharmacies.

BACKGROUND: New oral oncology medications bring novel challenges when patients are initiating treatment. Rates of primary medication nonadherence (PMN), the rate at which a medication is prescribed but not obtained, of up to 30% have been reported for oral oncology medications. More research is needed to identify causes and develop strategies for health system specialty pharmacies (HSSPs) to improve cancer treatment initiation rates. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the rate and reasons for PMN to specialty oral oncology medications in an HSSP setting. METHODS: We performed a multisite retrospective cohort study across 7 HSSP sites. Patients were included if they had an orally self-administered oncology medication referral generated by the health system of the affiliated specialty pharmacy between May 1, 2020, and July 31, 2020. Data collected at each site using pharmacy software and the electronic health record were deidentified and aggregated for analysis. After identifying unfilled referrals within a 60-day fill window, a retrospective chart review was performed to identify final referral outcomes and reasons for unfilled referrals. Referral outcomes were categorized as unknown fill outcomes (because of being referred to another fulfillment method or if received for benefits investigation only), filled by the HSSP, or not filled. The primary outcome was PMN for each PMN-eligible referral and secondary outcomes included reason for PMN and time to fill. The final PMN rate was calculated by dividing the number of unfilled referrals by total referrals with a known fill outcome. RESULTS: Of 3,891 referrals, 947 were PMN eligible, representing patients with a median age of 65 years (interquartile range = 55-73), near equal distribution between male and female (53% vs 47%), and most commonly with Medicare pharmacy coverage (48%). The most referred medication was capecitabine (14%), and the most common diagnosis was prostate cancer (14%). Among PMN-eligible referrals, 346 (37%) had an unknown fill outcome. Of the 601 referrals with known fill outcome, 69 referrals were true instances of PMN, yielding the final PMN rate of 11%. Most referrals were filled by the HSSP (56%). Patient decision was the most common reason for not filling (25%; 17/69 PMN cases). The median time to fill after initial referral was 5 days (interquartile range = 2-10). CONCLUSIONS: HSSPs have a high percentage of patient initiation of new oral oncology medication treatments in a timely manner. More research is needed to understand patient reasons for deciding not to start therapy and to improve patient-centered cancer treatment planning decisions. DISCLOSURES: Dr Crumb was a planning committee member with Horizon CME for the Nashville APPOS 2022 Conference. Dr Patel received funding and support for attending meetings and/or travel from the University of Illinois Chicago College of Pharmacy.

Comparison of provider satisfaction with specialty pharmacy services in integrated health-system and external practice models: A multisite survey.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to obtain insight into providers' satisfaction with services offered by health-system integrated specialty pharmacies and to determine whether providers' perceptions of services offered under an integrated model differ from perceptions of external specialty pharmacy services. METHODS: A multi-site, cross-sectional, online survey of specialty clinic healthcare providers at 10 academic health systems with integrated specialty pharmacies was conducted. The questionnaire was developed by members of the Vizient Specialty Pharmacy Outcomes and Benchmarking Workgroup and was pretested at 3 pilot sites prior to dissemination. Prescribers of specialty medications within each institution were identified and sent an email invitation to participate in the study that included a link to the anonymous questionnaire. Respondents were asked to rate their agreement with 10 statements regarding quality of services of integrated and external specialty pharmacies on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). An analysis to determine differences in providers' overall satisfaction with the integrated and external specialty pharmacy practice models, as well as differences in satisfaction scores for each of the 10 statements, was performed using paired-samples t tests. RESULTS: The mean (SD) score for overall satisfaction with integrated specialty pharmacies was significantly higher than the score for satisfaction with external specialty pharmacies: 4.72 (0.58) vs 2.97 (1.20); 95% confidence interval, 1.64-1.87; P < 0.001. Provider ratings of the integrated specialty pharmacy model were also higher for all 10 items evaluating the quality of services (P < 0.05 for all comparisons). CONCLUSION: The study results confirm that the health-system integrated specialty pharmacy practice model promotes high rates of provider satisfaction with services and perceived benefits.

Targeting Financial Toxicity in Oncology Specialty Pharmacy at a Large Tertiary Academic Medical Center.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer often face financial toxicity. They may face financial distress because of high out-of-pocket costs that in turn can result in delays in treatment, treatment abandonment, and higher overall costs of care, all of which can have have a negative effect on patient care. A specialty pharmacy practice model can play a role in decreasing financial toxicity. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the patient out-of-pocket costs after enrollment in manufacturer patient assistance programs, copay cards, and foundation grants by an oncology specialty pharmacy at University of Chicago Medicine (UCM). METHODS: For this quality improvement project, a retrospective analysis of prescription claims from January 2017 to June 2017 was performed. The primary outcomes included the number of patients enrolled in manufacturer patient assistance programs, copay cards, and foundation grants, along with the total dollars applied to pharmacy claims. The secondary outcome was the average days to approval of a foundation grant. Inclusion criteria for this quality improvement project included prescriptions filled at UCM Specialty Pharmacy in the 6-month time frame for an oncology indication. Exclusion criteria were prescriptions that were not filled at UCM Specialty Pharmacy due to out-of-network insurance and prescriptions that were part of a patient assistance program where the medication was directly shipped from the manufacturer. RESULTS: In the 6-month time frame, 75 patients received financial assistance, with a total cost savings of $314,857. Financial assistance was most frequently applied to the following medications: peg-filgrastim, dasatinib, abiraterone, filgrastim and filgrastim-sndz, palbociclib, venetoclax, and ruxolitinib. The cost savings of these interventions ranged between $5 and $13,138 per prescription claim. The average days from date of insurance approval to date of financial grant approval was 1.2 days. CONCLUSIONS: This project demonstrates the importance of an oncology specialty pharmacy team in ensuring timely approval of a foundation grant and reducing financial toxicity, which can play a major role in access to therapy. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this project. The authors have no conflicts of interest to report. This project was presented at the Vizient University Health System Consortium Pharmacy Network Resident Poster Session; December 1, 2017; Orlando, FL.