Association of Patient Cost Sharing and Area Deprivation with Multiple Myeloma Treatment Receipt and Outcomes
Authors
Advisor
Date
Embargo until
Language
Book title
Publisher
Peer Reviewed
Type
Research Area
Jurisdiction
Other Titles
See at
Abstract
Introduction: Advances in multiple myeloma (MM) treatment have improved survival, but there are increased concerns about treatment affordability and access. This study assessed 1) how cost-sharing assistance and area deprivation affect treatment receipt, 2) changes in the patient cost responsibility and disparities in treatment over time, and 3) how the low-income subsidy (LIS), which lowers Part D cost sharing, and area deprivation affect treatment access and survival.
Methods: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database, we identified patients diagnosed with MM. The effect of cost-sharing assistance and area deprivation on treatment was estimated using multilevel logistic regression. We estimated the monthly incremental patient cost responsibility among MM patients compared to non-cancer controls and examined changes over time (2007-2011, 2012-2016). The effect of diagnosis period and area deprivation on treatment was estimated using multilevel logistic regression. The association between LIS, area deprivation, and mortality was estimated from a mixed-effects Cox proportional hazards model. We assessed whether treatment mediates the association between LIS and mortality.
Results: Individuals receiving Medicare Parts A, B and D cost-sharing assistance had higher odds of receiving treatment compared with non-recipients (OR=1.21; 95%CI: 1.01–1.45). Living in the most deprived area (Quintile 5) was associated with lower odds of receiving treatment compared with the least deprived area (Quintile 1; OR=0.81; 95%CI: 0.65–0.99), but there was no difference in the other quintiles. The difference in the estimated monthly incremental patient cost responsibility between 2012-2015 and 2007-2011 was $58 [average marginal cost; 95%CI: $12–$105]). The difference in the likelihood of any treatment receipt between Quintile 1 and 5 decreased, but the difference in the likelihood of receiving a novel agent-based regimen increased. The mortality hazard was higher for LIS recipients relative to non-recipients in Quintiles 1, 3 and 4 (HR=1.50, 1.38, 1.28; p=0.0001), and there was no difference in the other two quintiles. This association was partially mediated by treatment receipt.
Conclusions: The patient cost responsibility for MM care increased over time. The type of cost-sharing assistance and area deprivation affect treatment receipt, although not across all quintiles. LIS receipt did not confer a survival benefit.