Estimating prevalence and financial impact of “bagging” oncology drugs: Evidence from privately-insured patients with cancer.

Authors

null

Ya-Chen Tina Shih

MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX

Ya-Chen Tina Shih, Ying Xu

Organizations

MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX

Research Funding

Other Government Agency
NCI.

Background:“Bagging” is a drug delivery model that distributes physician-administered drugs through pharmacies, most specialty pharmacies. Under the traditional buy-in-bill model oncology drugs are covered in medical benefit, whereas drugs distributed through bagging practices are reimbursed under pharmacy benefit. Several professional associations have urged policymakers to limit or prohibit bagging practices, citing patient safety as the main concern. This study estimated the prevalence of bagging practice and the associated financial impact among cancer patients with private insurance. Methods: We selected 10 cancer drugs with highest total spending from the 2020 Medicare Part B Drug Spending Dashboard. Using 2019-2020 MarketScan data, we identified these drugs from medical and/or pharmacy claims and estimated the prevalence of “bagging” practice as the proportion of patients who had their cancer drugs covered by pharmacy benefit. We compared the per patient per month (PPPM) insurance payment and out-of-pocket expense (OOPE) between medical and pharmacy claims and tested the difference in PPPM costs using non-parametric Wilcoxon test. Results: The top 10 drugs selected for this study included four immunotherapy (pembrolizumab, nivolumab, durvalumab, atezolizumab), five targeted therapy drugs (rituximab, bevacizumab, daratumumab, trastuzumab, pemetrexed), and one supportive care product (pegfilgrastim). The study cohort consisted of 39,757 cancer patients, including 10,599, 19,276, and 17,882 patients (not mutually exclusive) receiving immunotherapy, targeted therapy agents, and supportive care drug, respectively. On average, “bagging” practice was observed in 4.4% of patients, ranging from less than 1% for immunotherapy and 2.4% for targeted therapy to 6.9% for supportive care drugs. The prevalence of bagging practice was higher in comprehensive plans (11.3%) and PPO (4.3%) versus other insurance plan types (3.8%). By census region, the prevalence was highest in Northeast (7.2%) and lowest in North Central (3.4%). Insurance payment PPPM was lower for drugs distributed through bagging practices than the conventional buy-and-bill model (mean $11,075 vs. $13,622; median $9,275 vs. $10,728, P < 0.001). OOPE PPPM exhibited the opposite pattern, with mean and median OPPE $437 and $53 for bagging practices and $186 and $0 for buy-and-bill. Conclusions: We observed wide variation in bagging practices by drug classes, plan types, and geographic regions. Evidence from the privately insured suggested that although bagging oncology drugs appeared to have reduce oncology drug costs for payors, this practice was associated with higher OOP for cancer patients with private insurance. Future research should examine the impact of bagging practices on clinical outcomes, such as treatment delays or disruptions and treatment-related side effects.

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2022 ASCO Quality Care Symposium

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Poster Session A

Track

Cost, Value, and Policy,Health Care Access, Equity, and Disparities,Patient Experience

Sub Track

Cost and Cost-Effectiveness of Care

Citation

J Clin Oncol 40, 2022 (suppl 28; abstr 25)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2022.40.28_suppl.025

Abstract #

25

Poster Bd #

A23

Abstract Disclosures

Similar Abstracts

Abstract

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Trends in prices of checkpoint inhibitors in the US, 2016-2023.

First Author: Jeddeo Paul

First Author: Yahya Alwatari

First Author: Helmy M. Guirgis