Cost differential of immuno-oncology therapy delivered at community versus hospital clinics.

OBJECTIVES: The site of cancer care delivery has been shown to be associated with the total cost of care. The magnitude of this effect in patients receiving expensive immuno-oncology (I-O) therapies has not been evaluated. We evaluated cost differentials between community-based and hospital-based outpatient clinics among patients receiving I-O therapies. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective analysis utilizing Truven MarketScan Commercial and Supplemental Medicare claims databases. METHODS: Cost data for 3135 patients with non-small cell lung cancer, squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, bladder cancer, renal cell carcinoma, or melanoma who received pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and/or ipilimumab between January 1, 2015, and February 14, 2017, were analyzed as cost per patient per month (PPPM). Patients treated within a community setting were matched 2:1 with those treated at a hospital clinic based on cancer type, specific I-O therapy, receipt of radiation therapy, evidence of metastatic disease, gender, age, and evidence of surgery in the preindex period. RESULTS: Mean (SD) total (medical plus pharmacy) PPPM cost was significantly lower for patients treated in a community- versus hospital-based clinic ($22,685 [$16,205] vs $26,343 [$22,832]; P <.001). Lower PPPM medical cost in the community versus hospital setting ($21,382 [$15,667] vs $24,831 [$22,102]; P <.001) was the major driver of this cost differential. Lower total cost was seen regardless of cancer type or I-O therapy administered. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with I-O therapies in community practice is associated with a lower total cost of care compared with that in hospital-based outpatient practices. With the expanding indications of these agents, future research is needed.

Cost Differences Associated With Oncology Care Delivered in a Community Setting Versus a Hospital Setting: A Matched-Claims Analysis of Patients With Breast, Colorectal, and Lung Cancers.

PURPOSE:: Access to high-quality cancer care remains a challenge for many patients. One such barrier is the increasing cost of treatment. With recent shifts in cancer care delivery from community-based to hospital-based clinics, we examined whether this shift could result in increased costs for patients with three common tumor types. METHODS:: Cost data for 6,675 patients with breast, lung, and colorectal cancer were extracted from the IMS LifeLink database and analyzed as cost per patient per month (PPPM). Patients treated within a community setting were matched (2 to 1) with those treated at a hospital clinic on the basis of cancer type, chemotherapy regimen, receipt of radiation therapy, presence of metastatic disease, sex, prior surgery, and geographic region. Approximately 84% of patients were younger than 65 years of age. RESULTS:: Mean total PPPM cost was significantly lower for patients treated in a community- versus hospital-based clinic ($12,548 [standard deviation {SD}, $10,507] v $20,060 [SD, $16,555]; P < .001). The PPPM chemotherapy cost was also significantly lower in the community setting ($4,933 [SD, $4,983] v $8,443 [SD, $10,391]; P < .001). The lower cost observed in community practice was irrespective of chemotherapy regimen and tumor type. CONCLUSION:: We observed significantly increased costs of care for our patient population treated at hospital-based clinics versus those treated at community-based clinics, largely driven by the increased cost of chemotherapy and provider visits in hospital-based clinics. If the site of cancer care delivery continues to shift toward hospital-based clinics, the increased health care spending for payers and patients should be better elucidated and addressed.

Assessment of pharmacists' views on biosimilar naming conventions.

BACKGROUND: As the date for the introduction of biosimilars in the United States approaches, questions remain regarding the naming, coding, and approval process for these agents that will need to be carefully considered. OBJECTIVES: To (a) ascertain pharmacists' awareness of and comfort level with biosimilars and (b) determine the impact of identical or different nonproprietary names on pharmacists' confidence in substituting interchangeable biologics. METHODS: The Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy, the American Pharmacists Association, and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists fielded a survey to their membership or a partial segment of their membership. The survey consisted of 2 sections: (1) current processes for reporting biologics being dispensed and (2) familiarity and preferences regarding biosimilars. RESULTS: A substantial majority (70.1%) of respondents reported regularly using National Drug Code numbers as the identifier for biological products dispensed to patients; however, 10.4% of respondents reported using either the nonproprietary name or the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System code as the identifier. When presented with 3 scenarios for naming conventions of interchangeable biosimilars and asked to rate their level of confidence (1 = not confident, 5 = very confident) to substitute, 74.6% of pharmacists indicated that they would be confident or very confident in substituting an interchangeable biosimilar with the reference product if both shared the same active ingredient or nonproprietary name of the reference biologic; 25.3% of pharmacists were confident in substituting when the nonproprietary name is not shared with the biologic; and 37.3% of pharmacists expressed confidence in substituting when the biologic and biosimilar product did not share the same nonproprietary name because of a prefix or suffix. CONCLUSIONS: The imminent entry of biosimilars into the U.S. market highlights the need to carefully evaluate current processes of identification, reporting, and recording of the biological products dispensed. The results of this survey indicate that the ultimate decision on the naming convention for biosimilars may influence dispensing pharmacists, with the majority of respondents being most comfortable with biosimilars having the same nonproprietary name as the reference biologic.