Specialty drug use for autoimmune conditions varies by race and wage among employees with employer-sponsored health insurance.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between race and ethnicity, wage status, and specialty medication (SpRx) use among employees with autoimmune conditions (AICs) is poorly understood. Insight into sociodemographic variations in use of these medications can inform health equity improvement efforts. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of race and ethnicity and wage status on SpRx use and adherence patterns among employees with AICs enrolled in employer-sponsored health insurance. METHODS: In this observational, retrospective cohort analysis, data were obtained from the IBM Watson MarketScan database for calendar year 2018. Employees were separated into race and ethnicity subgroups based on employer-provided data. Midyear employee wage data were used to allocate employees into the following annual income quartiles: $47,000 or less, $47,001-$71,000, $71,001-$106,000, and $106,001 or more. The lowest quartile was further divided into 2 groups ($35,000 or less and $35,001-$47,000) to better evaluate subgroup differences. Outcomes included monthly days SpRx-AIC supply, proportion of days covered (PDC), and medication discontinuation rates. Generalized linear regressions were used to assess differences while adjusting for patient and other characteristics. RESULTS: From a sample of more than 2,000,000 enrollees, race and ethnicity data were available for 617,117 (29.8%). Of those, 47,839 (7.8%) were identified as having an AIC of interest, with prevalence rates of AICs differing by race within wage categories. Among those with AICs, 5,358 (11.2%) had filled at least 1 SpRx-AIC prescription. Following adjustment, except for the highest wage category, prevalence of SpRx-AIC use was significantly less among Black and Hispanic subpopulations. Black patients had significantly lower SpRx-AIC use rates than White patients (≤$35,000: 4.9 vs 9.4%, >$35,000-$47,000: 5.5 vs 10.6%, >$47,000-$71,000: 8.5 vs 11.1%, and >$71,000-$106,000: 9.1 vs 12.7%; P <0.001 for all). For Hispanic patients, prevalence rates were significantly lower than White patients in 3 different wage categories (≤$35,000: 4.5 vs 9.4%, >$35,000-$47,000: 6.1 vs 10.6%, and >$71,000-$106,000: 8.6 vs 12.7%; P < 0.001). PDC and 90-day discontinuation rates did not differ among race and ethnicity groups within the respective wage bands. CONCLUSIONS: Race and ethnicity and wage-related disparities exist in SpRx use, but not PDC or discontinuation rates for treatment of AICs among non-White and low-income populations with employer-sponsored insurance, and may adversely impact clinical outcomes.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on treatment for mental health needs: a perspective on service use patterns and expenditures from commercial medical claims data.

OBJECTIVE: To examine changes in use patterns, cost of healthcare services before and after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, and their impacts on expenditures for patients receiving treatment for depression, anxiety, eating disorders, and substance use. METHODS: This cross-sectional study employed statistical tests to analyze claims in MarketScan® Commercial Database in March 2020-February 2021 and quarterly from March 2020 to August 2021, compared to respective pre-pandemic periods. The analysis is based on medical episodes created by the Merative™ Medical Episode Grouper (MEG). MEG is a methodology that groups medical and prescription drug claims to create clinically relevant episodes of care. RESULTS: Comparing year-over-year changes, proportion of patients receiving anxiety treatment among all individuals obtaining healthcare services grew 13.7% in the first year of the pandemic (3/2020-2/2021) versus 10.0% in the year before the pandemic (3/2019-2/2020). This, along with a higher growth in price per episode (5.5% versus 4.3%) resulted in a greater increase in per claimant expenditure ($0.61 versus $0.41 per month). In the same periods, proportion of patients receiving treatment for depression grew 3.7% versus 6.9%, but per claimant expenditure grew by same amount due to an increase in price per episode (4.8%). Proportion of patients receiving treatment for anorexia started to increase 21.1% or more in the fall of 2020. Patient proportion of alcohol use in age group 18-34 decreased 17.9% during the pandemic but price per episode increased 26.3%. Patient proportion of opioid use increased 11.5% in March-May 2020 but decreased or had no significant changes in subsequent periods. CONCLUSIONS: We investigated the changes in use patterns and expenditures of mental health patients before and after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic using claims data in MarketScan®. We found that the changes and their financial impacts vary across mental health conditions, age groups, and periods of the pandemic. Some changes are unexpected from previously reported prevalence increases among the general population and could underlie unmet treatment needs. Therefore, mental health providers should anticipate the use pattern changes in services with similar COVID-19 pandemic disruptions and payers should anticipate cost increases due, in part, to increased price and/or service use.

Specialty drug and health care utilization vary by wage level in employer-sponsored health plans.

BACKGROUND: Expenditures on specialty medications for autoimmune conditions (SpRx-AIC) have increased considerably in recent years, raising affordability concerns for employers and other plan sponsors and resulting in greater patient cost-sharing. Among those commercially insured, prior studies have shown differential patterns of health care utilization in association with wage, though no data are available for SpRx-AIC. Notably, out-of-pocket costs associated with SpRx-AIC have been shown to impact medication adherence, particularly for low-income households. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of wage status on SpRx-AIC and health care services use and cost among employees with employer-sponsored health insurance. METHODS: Employee health care claims and wage data were obtained from the IBM Watson MarketScan database for calendar year 2018. Midyear employee wage data were used as a basis for allocating employees into annual income quartiles: $47,000 or less, $47,001-$71,000, $71,001-$106,000, and $106,001 or more. The lowest quartile was further divided into 2 groups ($35,000 or less and $35,001-$47,000) to better evaluate subgroup differences at lower wage levels. Outcomes included monthly days supply of SpRx-AIC, medication discontinuation rates (medication cessation for ≥ 90 days), proportion of days covered (PDC), medical services utilization rates per 1,000, and allowed payment amounts. Generalized linear regressions were used to assess differences while adjusting for patient characteristics, including age, gender, plan type, region, median household income, deductible amount, comorbidity index, and psychiatric diagnostic scores. RESULTS: From a sample of more than 2 million enrollees, 148,761 (7.2%) were identified as having an autoimmune disorder of interest. Of those, 17,096 (11.5%) had filled at least one SpRx-AIC prescription. Following adjustment, SpRx-AIC use was significantly less among the lowest wage group compared with the highest wage group (10.1% vs 11.7%; P < 0.0001). Days supply was significantly lower in the lowest wage group (244.4 vs 258.0; P < 0.001), as was PDC (0.74 vs 0.76; P < 0.001). In the lowest wage group, medical services utilization was significantly higher for inpatient admissions (0.08 vs 0.05; P = 0.002) and emergency department visits (0.52 vs 0.16; P < 0.0001). There were no significant differences among wage groups in SpRx-AIC discontinuation, outpatient services use, or health care costs. CONCLUSIONS: Low-wage employees with autoimmune conditions are significantly less likely to use an SpRx-AIC and have a lower monthly supply and PDC when SpRx-AIC was used. They are more likely to be admitted to the hospital and have more emergency department visits. These findings raise concerns about employer benefit design inequities for SpRx-AIC access and the resulting potential adverse impact on health care costs and employee functional status. DISCLOSURES: National Pharmaceutical Council, Genentech, and TrialCard provided funding support for this study, with funding administered by the National Alliance of Healthcare Purchaser Coalitions. Genentech and TrialCard provided comments regarding the final manuscript draft; National Pharmaceutical Council employees were actively engaged in study design, analysis and interpretation of results, and manuscript preparation. Dr Sherman is a consultant to National Alliance of Healthcare Purchaser Coalitions. Mr Sils and Ms Westrich were employees of the National Pharmaceutical Council at time of study. Ms Kamen is an employee of IBM Watson Health.

Multidisciplinary meeting on male breast cancer: summary and research recommendations.

Male breast cancer is a rare disease, accounting for less than 1% of all breast cancer diagnoses worldwide. Most data on male breast cancer comes from small single-institution studies, and because of the paucity of data, the optimal treatment for male breast cancer is not known. This article summarizes a multidisciplinary international meeting on male breast cancer, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health Office of Rare Diseases and the National Cancer Institute Divisions of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics and Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis. The meeting included representatives from the fields of epidemiology, genetics, pathology and molecular biology, health services research, and clinical oncology and the advocacy community, with a comprehensive review of the data. Presentations focused on highlighting differences and similarities between breast cancer in males and females. To enhance our understanding of male breast cancer, international consortia are necessary. Therefore, the Breast International Group and North American Breast Cancer Group have joined efforts to develop an International Male Breast Cancer Program and to pool epidemiologic data, clinical information, and tumor specimens. This international collaboration will also facilitate the future planning of clinical trials that can address essential questions in the treatment of male breast cancer.

Trial assessing individualized options for treatment for breast cancer: the TAILORx trial.

Novel genetic profiling tests of breast cancer tissue have been shown to be prognostic for overall survival and predictive of local and distant rates of recurrence in breast cancer patients. One of these tests, Oncotype DXtrade mark, is a diagnostic test comprised of a 21-gene assay applied to paraffin-embedded breast cancer tissue, which allows physicians to predict subgroups of hormone-receptor-positive, node-negative patients who may benefit from hormonal therapy alone or require adjuvant chemotherapy to attain the best survival outcome. The results of the assay are converted to a recurrence score (0-100) that has been found to be predictive of 10- and 15-year local and distant recurrence in node-negative, estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer patients. Previous studies have shown that patients with high recurrence scores benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy, whereas patients with low recurrence scores do not. To evaluate the ability to guide treatment decisions in the group with a mid-range recurrence score, the North American Cooperative Groups developed the Trial Assessing IndiviuaLized Options for Treatment for breast cancer, a randomized trial of chemotherapy followed by hormonal therapy versus hormonal therapy alone on invasive disease-free survival-ductal carcinoma in situ (IDFS-DCIS) survival in women with node-negative, estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer with a recurrence score of 11-25. The study was initiated in May 2006 and approximately 4500 patients will be randomized. This article describes the rationale, methodology, statistical ana-lysis and implications of the results on clinical practice.