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.

Disclaimer In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. 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, implemented at institutions across the United States, promotes high rates of provider satisfaction with services and perceived benefits.

Disclaimer In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.