Advancing Patient Care Through Specialty Pharmacy Services in an Academic Health System

To calculate the abandonment rate of oral oncolytic medications and identify factors that may affect likelihood of abandonment. Cross-sectional cohort study using administrative claims data. We analyzed a nationally representative pharmacy claims database and identified 10,508 patients with Medicare and commercial insurance for whom oral oncolytic therapy was initiated between 2007 and 2009. We calculated the abandonment rate for the initial claim, in which abandonment was defined as reversal of an adjudicated pharmacy claim without a subsequent paid claim for any oncolytic (oral or intravenous) within the ensuing 90 days. We assessed likelihood of abandonment using bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses including patient demographics, plan type, drug type, cost sharing, and concurrent prescription activity. The abandonment rate of newly initiated oral oncolytics was 10.0%. Unadjusted bivariate analyses found that high cost sharing, increased prescription activity, lower income, and Medicare coverage were associated with a higher abandonment rate (P < .05). In the logistic regression model, claims with cost sharing greater than $500 were four times more likely to be abandoned than claims with cost sharing of $100 or less (odds ratio [OR], 4.46; P < .001). Patients with five or more prescription claims processed within in the previous month had 50% higher likelihood of abandonment than patients with no other prescription activity (OR, 1.50; P < .001). Abandonment of newly prescribed oral oncolytic therapy is not uncommon, and the likelihood increases for patients enrolled in plans with pharmacy benefit designs that require high cost sharing. Increased concurrent prescription activity was also associated with a higher abandonment rate. These factors should be taken into account when considering likely adherence to cancer therapy.

Despite the clinical success in the real-world of all oral hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapy with response rates approaching that seen in the clinical trials, access has been limited by many payers with discussion of prioritization of treatment based upon AASLD guidelines. We evaluated patients in the TRIO network who were prescribed sofosbuvir (SOF)-based regimens to determine reasons for not starting treatment. Trio Health is a disease management company that works in partnership with academic medical centres, community physicians and specialty pharmacies in the United States to optimize care for HCV. Data for 3841 patients prescribed a sofosbuvir-containing regimen between December 2013 and September 2014 were obtained through this programme. Of the entire group, 315 (8%) patients did not start the prescribed sofosbuvir-containing therapy. A total of 141 (45%) of the nonstart patients had a commercial plan as their primary insurance, 137 (44%) were primarily covered by Medicaid, 17 (5%) were primarily covered by Medicare, and 20 (6%) were either without coverage or coverage was not specified. Reasons for nonstarts were varied and overlapping. Only 15 patients (5% of nonstarts) did not start because they were unreachable or failed to complete required testing. Another 39 patients who did not start (12%) were following their physicians' direction to either wait for new treatment options or to hold treatment for an unspecified reason. Insurance-related processes and financial reasons accounted for 254 (81%) of the 315 nonstarts. The remaining 7 (2%) patients did not have a specified reason for not starting treatment. Nonstart rates were highest in the Medicaid-covered population at 35%. Medicare and Commercial nonstart rates were 2% and 6%, respectively. In a matched comparison, patients with commercial coverage were 6.5 times as likely to start SOF-based therapy compared to patients with Medicaid. Despite high SVR rates of SOF-based regimens in clinical practice, there are still barriers to access to care. In fact, almost half of the nonstart patients had advanced fibrosis scores (F3 or F4) and should have been prioritized to start treatment. As better treatment for HCV with high efficacy and low side effect rates become available, the disparity in access to treatment, as evidenced by the high nonstart rate in the Medicaid-covered group, must be resolved.