Provider perceptions of barriers to biosimilar utilization in community oncology practices.

BACKGROUND: Biosimilars reduce the burden of cost on patients and payers, and so doing, increase access to life-saving care. However, biosimilar uptake in the US has been inconsistent. OBJECTIVES: This study assessed provider perceptions of barriers to biosimilar use and their relationships to utilization rates in a large, national oncology network and examined if perceptions differed by demographic and practice characteristics. METHODS: A 28-item survey was administered to 400 network physicians, pharmacists, nurses, and administrators, spanning 25 provider groups, and measured 1) barriers to use categorized into 4 subscales-payer-related, provider-related, operational, and patient-related, using a Likert scale ranging from Never (1) to Always (5); and 2) demographic and practice characteristics. Utilization rates were assessed using aggregated patient-level drug administration data found in the electronic health record system. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to describe responses and assess relationships between variables. RESULTS: A total of 46 responses were analyzed, with a response rate of 11.5%. Most respondents were female (55.6%), physicians (52.2%), with over 6 years of experience (67%). A majority worked in practices participating in the Oncology Care Model (86.7%) and received continuing education on biosimilars (84.8%). Overall scale score was moderately low (mean=2.31), indicating low levels of perceived barriers. The lowest subscale score was operational barriers (mean=2.21), while payer-related barriers was the highest (mean=2.78). Perceptions of barriers did not differ based on demographic and practice characteristics. The average biosimilar utilization rate was 66.2%, with practices in the West administering biosimilars most frequently (71.8%). Utilization was not impacted by perceptions of barriers. CONCLUSION: Perceived barriers to biosimilar utilization were not common and not associated with utilization. Infrequent impediments to utilization may be associated with network-wide emphasis on continuing education and a value-based care environment. Future research should consider other practice- and patient-level factors that may impact biosimilar utilization.

Opening the black box: the impact of an oncology management program consisting of level I pathways and an outbound nurse call system.

PURPOSE: The Innovent Oncology Program aims to improve the value of cancer care delivered to patients. McKesson Specialty Health and Texas Oncology (TXO) collaborated with Aetna to launch a pilot program. The study objectives were to evaluate the impact of Innovent on Level I Pathway compliance, implement the Patient Support Services program, and measure the rate and costs associated with chemotherapy-related emergency room (ER) visits and hospital admissions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, nonrandomized evaluation of patients enrolled in Innovent from June 1, 2010, through May 31, 2012. Data from the iKnowMed electronic health record, the McKesson Specialty Health financial data warehouse, and Aetna claims data warehouse were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 221 patients were included and stratified according to disease and age groups; 76% of ordered regimens were on pathway; 24% were off pathway. Pathway adherence improved from TXO baseline adherence of 63%. Of the 221 patients, 81% enrolled in PSS. Within the breast, colorectal, and lung cancer groups, 14% and 24% of patients had an ER visit and in-patient admission (IPA; baseline) versus 10% and 18% in Innovent, respectively; average in-patient days decreased from 2.1 to 1.2 days, respectively. Total savings combined for the program was $506,481. CONCLUSION: Implementation of Innovent positively affected patient care in several ways: Fewer ER visits and IPAs occurred, in-patient days decreased, cancer-related use costs were reduced, and on-pathway adherence increased.

Pathways, outcomes, and costs in colon cancer: retrospective evaluations in two distinct databases.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to use two separate databases to evaluate the clinical outcomes and the economic impact of adherence to Level I Pathways, an evidence-based oncology treatment program in the treatment of colon cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The first study used clinical records from an electronic health record (EHR) database to evaluate survival according to pathway status in patients with colon cancer. Disease-free survival in patients receiving adjuvant treatment and overall survival in patients receiving first-line therapy for metastatic disease was calculated. The second study used claims data from a national administrative claims database to examine direct medical costs and use, including the cost of chemotherapy and of chemotherapy-related hospitalizations according to pathway status. RESULTS: Overall costs from the national claims database-including total cost per case and chemotherapy costs-were lower for patients treated according to Level I Pathways (on-Pathway) compared with patients not treated according to Level I Pathways. Use of pathways was also associated with a shorter duration of therapy and lower rate of chemotherapy-related hospital admissions. Survival for patients on-Pathway in the EHR database was comparable with those in the published literature. CONCLUSION: Results from two distinct databases suggest that treatment of patients with colon cancer on-Pathway costs less; use of these pathways demonstrates clinical outcomes consistent with published evidence.

Pathways, outcomes, and costs in colon cancer: retrospective evaluations in 2 distinct databases.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to use 2 separate databases to evaluate the clinical outcomes and the economic impact of adherence to Level I Pathways, an evidence-based oncology treatment program in the treatment of colon cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The first study used clinical records from an electronic health record (EHR) database to evaluate survival according to pathway status in patients with colon cancer. Disease-free survival in patients receiving adjuvant treatment and overall survival in patients receiving first-line therapy for metastatic disease was calculated. The second study used claims data from a national administrative claims database to examine direct medical costs and use, including the cost of chemotherapy and of chemotherapy-related hospitalizations according to pathway status. RESULTS: Overall costs from the national claims database-including total cost per case and chemotherapy costs-were lower for patients treated according to Level I Pathways (on- Pathway) compared with patients not treated according to Level I Pathways. Use of pathways was also associated with a shorter duration of therapy and lower rate of chemotherapy-related hospital admissions. Survival for patients on- Pathways in the EHR database was comparable with that in the published literature. CONCLUSION: Results from 2 distinct databases suggest that treatment of patients with colon cancer on-Pathways costs less; use of these pathways demonstrates clinical outcomes consistent with published evidence.

Benchmarks for value in cancer care: an analysis of a large commercial population.

PURPOSE: Cancer costs are increasing at an unprecedented rate. Key cost drivers include chemotherapy, hospital admissions/emergency room visits, and aggressive end-of-life care. We sought to evaluate these costs in a commercial payer population in collaboration with consultants from Milliman. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used a retrospective analysis of Medstat 2007 to evaluate chemotherapy costs and use. Included patients had a cancer diagnosis; received chemotherapy during the evaluation period; had at least 1 day of coverage between January 1 and December 31, 2007 (medical and prescription coverage); was younger than age 70, and had active employment or was the spouse of an active employee. Costs are allowed amounts and are trended until 2009. Admission rates and emergency room visits are reported. Hospice use and chemotherapy during the last 14 and 30 days of life were also evaluated. RESULTS: In this commercial population of 14 million patients, 0.68% had claims for a cancer diagnosis; approximately 22% of those received chemotherapy during the study time period. Patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy averaged $111,000 per year in total medical and pharmacy costs. The average hospitalization rate for any reason was 1 admission/yr. Approximately 40% (or 0.4 admits/year) were identified as being chemotherapy related. Of the 3.5% of patients who died in the hospital, 51% received chemotherapy within 30 days of death. CONCLUSION: Understanding the costs of cancer care offers opportunities to formulate a strategic plan to control cancer costs and maintain quality care. Comprehensive cancer solutions to address the full spectrum of care will facilitate improved quality and patient outcomes.

Pemetrexed therapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma.

OBJECTIVE: To review pemetrexed, a novel multi-targeted antifolate agent. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was conducted (1985-September 2004) using MEDLINE and CANCERLIT. Recent abstracts from the American Society of Clinical Oncology were also included, along with the manufacturer's information. Key words were pemetrexed, LY-231514, Alimta, multi-targeted antifolate, malignant pleural mesothelioma. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Relevant information on pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, and safety and efficacy of pemetrexed from clinical trials was selected. DATA SYNTHESIS: Pemetrexed inhibits folate metabolism and purine/pyrimidine synthesis. Based on Phase I and II trials, pemetrexed has antitumor activity in solid tumors such as lung, colorectal, and cervical. A pivotal Phase III study in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) demonstrated survival superiority of pemetrexed-cisplatin regimen versus cisplatin. CONCLUSIONS: Pemetrexed is a promising new drug for the treatment of solid malignancies, most notably MPM.