Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25563701›Full record

ArticleJournal of oncology practice2015

Patient cost sharing and receipt of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents through medicare part D.

Amy J Davidoff, Franklin B Hendrick, Amer M Zeidan, Maria R Baer, Bruce C Stuart, Rahul A Shenolikar, Steven D Gore

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of oncology practice, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Subsidies for Oral Chemotherapy and Use of Immunomodulatory Drugs Among Medicare Beneficiaries With Myeloma.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Amy J DavidoffYale School of Public Health, Yale University; Yale Cancer Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; University of Maryland School of Pharmacy; Marlene and Stewart Greenebaum Cancer Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; and US Health Outcomes and Medical Policy, GlaxoSmithKline, Durham, NC.
Franklin B HendrickYale School of Public Health, Yale University; Yale Cancer Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; University of Maryland School of Pharmacy; Marlene and Stewart Greenebaum Cancer Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; and US Health Outcomes and Medical Policy, GlaxoSmithKline, Durham, NC fhend001@umaryland.edu.
Amer M ZeidanYale School of Public Health, Yale University; Yale Cancer Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; University of Maryland School of Pharmacy; Marlene and Stewart Greenebaum Cancer Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; and US Health Outcomes and Medical Policy, GlaxoSmithKline, Durham, NC.
Maria R BaerYale School of Public Health, Yale University; Yale Cancer Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; University of Maryland School of Pharmacy; Marlene and Stewart Greenebaum Cancer Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; and US Health Outcomes and Medical Policy, GlaxoSmithKline, Durham, NC.
Bruce C StuartYale School of Public Health, Yale University; Yale Cancer Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; University of Maryland School of Pharmacy; Marlene and Stewart Greenebaum Cancer Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; and US Health Outcomes and Medical Policy, GlaxoSmithKline, Durham, NC.
Rahul A ShenolikarYale School of Public Health, Yale University; Yale Cancer Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; University of Maryland School of Pharmacy; Marlene and Stewart Greenebaum Cancer Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; and US Health Outcomes and Medical Policy, GlaxoSmithKline, Durham, NC.
Steven D GoreYale School of Public Health, Yale University; Yale Cancer Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; University of Maryland School of Pharmacy; Marlene and Stewart Greenebaum Cancer Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; and US Health Outcomes and Medical Policy, GlaxoSmithKline, Durham, NC.
Yale Cancer Center · USGlaxoSmithKline (United States) · USUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore · USYale University · US

Funding

Targeting Epigenomics in Myeloid NeoplasmsK24CA111717 · NCI · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI GORE, STEVEN D · 2005 to 2015
$1.7M
Comparative Effectiveness: Erythropoietic Stimulating Agents in Treatment of MDSRC1CA145831 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI DAVIDOFF, AMY J · 2009 to 2010
$774k
NCI NIH HHS CA145831-01NCI NIH HHS K24 CA111717NCI NIH HHS RC1 CA145831
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMedicare Part D prescription benefits cover injected medications, normally covered under Part B, when administered outside of physician offices. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) used for chronic anemia management in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are commonly injected in a physician office but can be administered safely at home. In this study, we explored out-of-pocket (OOP) costs and receipt of Part D-covered ESAs in Medicare beneficiaries with MDS. MATERIALS AND

methodsPatients with MDS enrolled in Medicare Parts A, B, and D were identified using diagnosis codes from 100% claims from 2006 to 2008. OOP costs for the mean erythropoietin alfa claim were compared for Parts B and D. Multivariable models examined the effect of low-income subsidy (LIS) and other Part D cost sharing on receipt of any ESA and any Part D-covered ESA.

resultsA total of 13,117 (62.9%) of 20,848 patients received ESAs, but only 1,436 (6.9%) had any Part D claim. OOP payment was $348 under Part D versus $161 under Part B. Among patients with ESA use, those with LIS were 4× more likely to receive Part D ESAs (P < .01).

conclusionFew patients with MDS received ESAs through Part D. OOP payments required under Part D were substantially higher than under Part B. Cost sharing, as reflected by LIS receipt, likely affected decisions to prescribe ESAs outside of the physician office. Improved coordination between Part B and D benefits regarding issues of home injection of medications may create incentives that improve patient access and convenience and reduce costs associated with administration.

Indexed as

Cost SharingAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHematinicsHumansMaleMedicare Part BMedicare Part DMyelodysplastic SyndromesUnited StatesHematinics

Identifiers

PMID25563701
PMCPMC4371123
OpenAlexW2128489451

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.