Hospital-Administered Cancer Therapy Prices for Patients With Private Health Insurance

Author(s): Roy Xiao, MD, MS1,2; Joseph S. Ross, MD, MHS3,4,5; Cary P. Gross, MD6; Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD7,8; J. Michael McWilliams, MD, PhD9,10; Rosh K. V. Sethi, MD, MPH2,11,12,13; Vinay K. Rathi, MD, MBA1,2
Source: JAMA Intern Med. Published online April 18, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2022.1022

Dr. Diaz's Thoughts

Analysis of 61 NCI-designated cancers demonstrate parenteral cancer drug price markups across all centers ranging between 188.4% to 633.6%. Only 27 centers publicly disclose payer-specific prices for cancer therapies as required by federal regulation. Authors recommend public policies to discourage excessive hospital price markups on patenteral chemotherapeutics to reduce financial burden on cancer treatment for patients.

ABSTRACT

IMPORTANCE

The federal Hospital Price Transparency final rule, which became effective in 2021, requires hospitals to publicly disclose payer-specific prices for drugs. However, little is known about hospital markup prices for parenterally administered therapies.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the extent of price markup by hospitals on parenterally administered cancer therapies and price variation among hospitals and between payers at each hospital.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A cross-sectional analysis was conducted of private payer–specific negotiated prices for the top 25 parenteral (eg, injectable or infusible) cancer therapies by Medicare Part B spending in 2019 using publicly available hospital price transparency files. Sixty-one National Cancer Institute (NCI)–designated cancer centers providing clinical care to adults with cancer were included. The study was conducted from April 1 to October 15, 2021.

EXPOSURES

Estimated hospital acquisition costs for each cancer therapy using participation data from the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was hospital price markup for each cancer therapy in excess of estimated acquisition costs. Secondary outcomes were the extent of across-center price ratios, defined as the ratio between the 90th percentile and 10th percentile median prices across centers, and within-center price ratios, defined as the ratio between the 90th percentile and 10th percentile prices between payers at each center.

RESULTS

Of 61 NCI-designated cancer centers, 27 (44.3%) disclosed private payer–specific prices for at least 1 top-selling cancer therapy as required by federal regulations. Median drug price markups across all centers and payers ranged between 118.4% (sipuleucel-T) and 633.6% (leuprolide). Across-center price ratios ranged between 2.2 (pertuzumab) and 15.8 (leuprolide). Negotiated prices also varied considerably between payers at the same center; median within-center price ratios for cancer therapies ranged from 1.8 (brentuximab) to 2.5 (bevacizumab).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Most NCI-designated cancer centers did not publicly disclose payer-specific prices for cancer therapies as required by federal regulation. The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that, to reduce the financial burden of cancer treatment for patients, institution of public policies to discourage or prevent excessive hospital price markups on parenteral chemotherapeutics might be beneficial.

Author Affiliations

1Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Boston, Massachusetts; 2Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; 3Section of General Medicine and the National Clinician Scholars Program, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut; 4Department of Health Policy and Management, Yale University School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut; 5Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale-New Haven Health, New Haven, Connecticut; 6Cancer Outcomes Public Policy and Effectiveness Research Center, Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Connecticut; 7Department of Health Policy, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee; 8Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tennessee; 9Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; 10Division of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; 11Division of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; 12Center for Head & Neck Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts; 13Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Related Articles

The Future of Home and Community Care

It is hard to believe that medical house calls used to make up 40% of all U.S doctors’ visits.1 Home visits used to be the norm, but somewhere in the mid-20th century something changed, and by 1980 house calls accounted for fewer than 1% of patient encounters.2 As a result, people have largely forgotten about the once-famous black medical bag that physicians used to carry from door to door.

Read More »

Compliance of National Cancer Institute–Designated Cancer Centers With January 2021 Price Transparency Requirements

Thought-provoking oped highlighting the underbelly of buzzwords in healthcare today. The shift from volume to value that we’ve seen unfold over the past 3-5 years has moved front and center in many conversations, yet remains elusive insofar as its definition and implementation. This article rightly calls out that value is ultimately in the eye of the beholder, and yet there’s no disputing that doing what’s right for the patient trumps all.

Read More »

Hospitals and for-profit PBMs are diverting billions in 340B savings from patients in need

America’s economically disadvantaged patients can point in two directions when talking about what is wrong with the 340B Drug Pricing Program, which is designed to help hospitals caring for underserved communities — and the patients they treat — keep necessary medicines reasonably priced: large supposedly “nonprofit” hospitals and for-profit pharmacy benefit managers that serve as 340B contract pharmacies, which together divert billions of dollars in savings that should be helping patients in need.

Read More »

Impact of Co-pay Assistance on Patient, Clinical, and Economic Outcomes

Patient assistance programs (eg, co-pay assistance) may reduce patients’ out-of-pocket costs for prescription medicines, providing financial assistance to access medicines for reduced or no cost. A literature review to identify peer-reviewed articles on studies evaluating the impact of co-pay assistance on clinical, patient, and economic outcomes was conducted.

Read More »

Everybody’s Talking About Value-Based Health Care. Here’s What They’re Not Saying.

Thought-provoking oped highlighting the underbelly of buzzwords in healthcare today. The shift from volume to value that we’ve seen unfold over the past 3-5 years has moved front and center in many conversations, yet remains elusive insofar as its definition and implementation. This article rightly calls out that value is ultimately in the eye of the beholder, and yet there’s no disputing that doing what’s right for the patient trumps all.

Read More »