Outpatient cancer drug costs

Abstract

BACKGROUNDTo the authors' knowledge, no analysis has examined the specific components of drug spending for overall cancer care. The authors' objective was to quantify and characterize trends in outpatient drug expenditures for cancer patients.METHODSThe authors retrospectively analyzed pharmacy and outpatient professional claims data from commercial and Medicare health maintenance organization enrollees with a solid tumor diagnosis in 1995 and 1998. Charges were subdivided by type of drug (antineoplastic drugs, chemotherapy adjuncts, supportive drugs, and drugs unrelated to cancer treatment).RESULTSIn 1995, 14,663 cancer patients received outpatient drug treatment and 13,829 patients in 1998. Total charges increased from $17.9 million (mean charge of $1218 per patient) to $27.9 million (mean charge of $2003 per patient), an average annual increase of 16%. Antineoplastic therapy constituted the largest component of cancer‐related drug costs (67%) and represented 76% of the increase from 1995 to 1998. Most charges were incurred in the professional setting for agents administered by injection. The primary explanation for the increases appeared to be a shift in treatment patterns toward newer, more expensive antineoplastic agents. Supportive therapy represented 17% of the increase in cancer drug costs, followed by chemotherapy adjuncts (7%). Charges for drugs unrelated to cancer therapy increased by 21% per year.CONCLUSIONSAntineoplastic therapy administered in an office or clinic was the single most important cost driver, with newer more expensive agents replacing older, less expensive drugs. Attempts to understand and control outpatient drug cost increases for cancer patients should focus primarily on antineoplastic therapy, especially the appropriate substitution of newer agents for older, less expensive alternatives. Some nonchemotherapy cancer drugs may offer an opportunity to improve quality of life with a relatively small effect on overall cancer drug costs. Cancer 2002;94:1142–50. © 2002 American Cancer Society.DOI 10.1002/cncr.10347

Costs Associated with Capecitabine or 5-Fluorouracil Monotherapy after Surgical Resection in Patients with Colorectal Cancer

“…The heavy economic burden of cancer care mirrors the skyrocketing health care costs confronting the health care community. The costs of prescription chemotherapy drugs are often cited as the key driver of increasing health care costs [22, 23], and the cost of CRC chemotherapy is seldom spared from such arguments. The current standard-of-care therapy in the adjuvant setting for patients with early-stage colon cancer is FOLFOX (5-FU, LV, and oxaliplatin) for a total of 6 months of treatment.…”

Trends in the costs of drugs launched in the UK between 1981 and 2015: an analysis of the launch price of drugs in five disease areas

“…Studies on rising overall pharmaceutical expenditure seen during the 1990s to mid-2000s in North America and Europe have highlighted the role played by both increased utilisation and the adoption of newer, more expensive medicines 9 10. The high cost of newer agents has been identified by some commentators as the key component of rising per-patient pharmaceutical costs for cancer chemotherapy and the treatment of diabetes mellitus, glaucoma, psychosis, multiple sclerosis and haemophilia 11 12. However, other studies suggest increasing utilisation as the major driver of rising costs in the treatment of hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, depression and rheumatoid arthritis, where increasing overall pharmaceutical spending has not necessarily been accompanied by increased per-patient spending 13–15…”

Exploring the Role of Community Health Workers in Providing Cancer Navigation: Perceptions of African American Older Adults

“…Those barriers include issues related to the high cost burden of cancer treatment and lack of support resources for patients, families, and caregivers (Chang et al, 2004; Halbert et al, 2002). The risk for poor outcomes is additive in the presence of comorbidities and decreased economic, psychological, and social resources (Aday, Begley, Lairson, & Slater, 1998), in addition to aging (Schneider, Zaslavsky, & Epstein, 2002).…”