Dataset Information

Do cancer survivors change their prescription drug use for financial reasons? Findings from a nationally representative sample in the United States.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There is limited evidence from nationally representative samples about changes in prescription drug use for financial reasons among cancer survivors in the United States.

Methods

The 2011 to 2014 National Health Interview Survey was used to identify adults who reported ever having been told they had cancer (cancer survivors; n = 8931) and individuals without a cancer history (n = 126,287). Measures of changes in prescription drug use for financial reasons included: 1) skipping medication doses, 2) taking less medicine, 3) delaying filling a prescription, 4) asking a doctor for lower cost medication, 5) buying prescription drugs from another country, and 6) using alternative therapies. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were controlled for demographic characteristics, number of comorbid conditions, interactions between cancer history and number of comorbid conditions, and health insurance coverage. Main analyses were stratified by age (nonelderly, ages 18-64 years; elderly, ages ≥65 years) and time since diagnosis (recently diagnosed, <2 years; previously diagnosed, ≥2 years).

Results

Among nonelderly individuals, both recently diagnosed (31.6%) and previously diagnosed (27.9%) cancer survivors were more likely to report any change in prescription drug use for financial reasons than those without a cancer history (21.4%), with the excess percentage changes for individual measures ranging from 3.5% to 9.9% among previously diagnosed survivors and from 2.6% to 2.7% among recently diagnosed survivors (P < .01). Elderly cancer survivors and those without a cancer history had comparable rates of changes in prescription drug use for financial reasons.

Conclusions

Nonelderly cancer survivors are particularly vulnerable to changes in prescription drug use for financial reasons, suggesting that targeted efforts are needed. Cancer 2017;123:1453-1463. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

SUBMITTER: Zheng Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6080209 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Recent research suggests that mental health problems in spouses of cancer survivors are associated with worse mental health in the survivors themselves. Adequately treating spousal mental health problems therefore represents an opportunity to improve outcomes for both cancer survivors and their co-surviving family members. OBJECTIVE:Using nationally representative data, this study sought to determine how depression treatment differs between spouses of cancer survivors with depression compared to the general married population and assess rural/urban disparities in treatment. DESIGN:The design of the study is cross sectional. PARTICIPANTS:Data are from the Medical Expenditures Panel Survey, a household-based survey of US adults; we concatenated data from 2004 to 2013. We identified spouses of cancer survivors (n =?225) and a comparison group of married adults (n =?3678). MAIN MEASURES:Key measures included depression, guideline concordance of depression treatment (at least four prescriptions related to depression treatment, or at least eight psychotherapy or counseling visits), and sociodemographic characteristics. Logistic regressions evaluated the association between whether their spouse had cancer and receipt of guideline-concordant treatment, controlling for sociodemographic characteristics; secondary analyses included rurality as a moderator. Analyses were weighted to account for the complex sampling design. KEY RESULTS:Spouses of cancer survivors were 33% less likely to receive guideline-concordant depression treatment than comparison spouses (odds ratio (OR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45-0.99), controlling for covariates. Rural-urban disparities were observed: rural spouses of cancer survivors were 72% less likely to receive guideline-concordant treatment (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11-0.68) than rural comparison spouses. Spouses of cancer survivors and comparison spouses were no different in their receipt of any treatment versus no treatment. CONCLUSIONS:Spouses of cancer survivors with depression may be at increased risk of non-guideline-concordant depression treatment, particularly in rural areas. The findings have implications for identifying and educating individuals with depression in primary care and other clinical areas.

Project description:ImportanceOver the past decade, branded prescription drug manufacturers have substantially increased list prices while offering larger rebate payments to health care insurers. Whereas larger rebates can partially offset increases in list prices for insurers, patient out-of-pocket costs may be directly associated with list prices for individuals without insurance and indirectly associated with list prices for individuals with insurance through deductibles or coinsurance.ObjectiveTo investigate the association between rebates and patient out-of-pocket costs and whether this association differs by coverage type (ie, Medicare, commercial, or uninsured) and before and after 2014.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study was conducted using data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) combined with pricing data for single-source branded drugs from SSR Health from 2007 through 2018. The study was conducted among a nationally representative sample of the noninstitutionalized civilian US population. Included individuals were respondents to MEPS with at least 1 prescription for a single-source branded drug who were covered by Medicare or commercial insurance or were uninsured during an entire year. Data analyses were conducted from August 2019 through March 2021.ExposuresEstimated rebate size.Main outcomes and measuresOut-of-pocket costs per prescription were calculated, adjusting for year and drug.ResultsAmong 38 131 individuals with at least 1 prescription, the mean age was 54 years (95% CI, 54 to 55 years), with 22 044 women (57.8%) and 29 086 White individuals (76.3%). The sample included 444 unique drugs with a survey-weighted total of 4.7 billion prescriptions. Estimated mean (SE) rebates increased from $34 ($1) per prescription in 2007 to $374 ($9) per prescription in 2018. The rebate sizes were associated with statistically significant mean out-of-pocket increases per branded prescription of $4 (95% CI, $4 to $4) from 2007 to 2013 and $11 (95% CI, $10 to $12) from 2014 to 2018. From 2014 to 2018, rebate sizes were associated with statistically significant mean increases in out-of-pocket costs per prescription of $13 (95% CI, $12 to $13) for individuals with Medicare, $6 (95% CI, $6 to $7) for individuals with commercial insurance, and $39 (95% CI, $34 to $44) for individuals without insurance. After adjusting for list prices, there was no association between rebates and out-of-pocket costs, with a change from 2014 to 2018 of -$0.01 (95% CI, -$0.04 to $0.02).Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that drug manufacturers may have provided larger rebates to insurers primarily by increasing list prices and that individuals without insurance had greater cost increases. The results emphasize the need for policy solutions that decouple list prices and out-of-pocket costs.