Entries in Surveys & Reports (102)

Friday
Jun242016

Millennials Are (Not) So Different

By Kim Bellard, June 24, 2016

If we believe conventional wisdom about them, they like to live with their parents, at least until they can move into their urban-center condo.  They hate to drive.  They're maddening in the workplace, demanding lots of frills and constant praise yet returning little loyalty.  They're hyperconnected through their various digital devices.  And, when they deign to think about health care, which isn't often, they want all digital, all the time. 

There's some truth to the conventional wisdom, but not as much as you'd think.  A new study from Credit Karma flatly asserts that "everything you thought you knew about Millennials may be wrong," finding that they still have aspirations to much of the same "American Dream" as previous generations.   

The hyperconnected part is certainly true.  Millennials are much more likely to have a smartphone,  and -- jawdroppingly -- on an average day they interact with it much more than with anyone else, even their parents or significant other.  

Things get really interesting when it comes to health.  Millennials are often viewed as not very interested in health care, but it is the second most important social issue for them, right after education and ahead of the economy. 

deep dive on millennials and health care by the Transamerica Center for Health Studies had some results that also don't necessarily fit the stereotypes. Taking care of their health was tied with getting/keeping a job as their top priority. 70% have been to a doctor's office within the last year, although for minor issues they're more likely to head to urgent care/a retail clinic. When it comes to getting health information, this supremely digital generation still relies most heavily on health care professionals and friends/family (especially their mothers!).

There has been a dramatic drop in being uninsured -- 11% versus 23% as recently as 2013 -- but millennials don't like much about health insurance.  They feel much more informed about their health and how to improve it than they do about how to find health care services or their health insurance options.  

Perhaps that is why two-thirds have never comparison shopped for health insurance.

Lastly, TCHS found that millennials rate affordability as the most important aspect of the health care system, but many don't find it affordable.  About 20% can't afford routine health expenses, even though millennials' median health expenses are under $100 per month.  Nearly half have skipped care to reduce their expenses. Similarly, most millennials view monthly premiums over $200 as unaffordable.

If there is a key difference with millennials' health care, it may be in their emphasis on technology.  A report from Salesforce.com found that 76% of millennials valued online reviews in choosing a doctor, and 73% want doctors to use mobile devices during appointments to share information. 60% are interested in telehealth options in lieu of office visits.

It is perhaps no wonder millennials are turning to technology when it comes to their health.  They highly value face time with their doctor, but they may not be getting it.  According to the Salesforce report, 40% of millennials don't think their primary care doctor would recognize them on the street. 

Many of us might suspect the same thing, and that should trouble us all.

When it comes to health care, as with many other aspects of life, it may be less that millennials are different in what they want as it is that they're quicker to adopt newer options for getting it.  The rest of us should learn from that, not shake our heads at it.

This post is an abridged version of the posting in Kim Bellard’s blogsite. Click here to read the full posting

Thursday
Jun162016

Two Thirds of Healthcare Stakeholders Have Faith in Consumers Using Online Tools to Engage With Their Doctor

By Clive Riddle, June 16, 2016

MCOL has conducted an e-poll, co-sponsored by Keenan, of healthcare business stakeholders regarding their opinion on consumer tools involved with healthcare costs or quality. Key questions were asked regarding consumer healthcare cost and quality tools; and ranking of applicable items with respect to overall effectiveness.

68.5% of stakeholders believe it is likely or very likely that a typical consumer will use online data/comparisons to discuss options and costs with a provider. Stakeholders not involved with online tools have a greater belief that consumers are very likely to do so (34.8% compared to 18.6% of stakeholders that are involved with online tools). However, stakeholders involved with tools have an overall greater belief that consumers are likely to do so – combining likely plus very likely responses (72.1% for involved stakeholders compared to 65.2% for stakeholder not involved with tools.)

44.4% of stakeholders feel a smartphone is the optimal vehicle to deliver such tools, while 34.7% feel a computer desktop is the optimal vehicle, and 13.9% listed a tablet such as an iPad as the optimal vehicle. Stakeholders not involved with online tools were less likely to list a computer desktop (21.7% compared to 38.1% for stakeholders involved with tools and 57.1% for stakeholders not sure if they are involved). However smartphones were the top choice for both stakeholders involved with online tools, or not involved with online tools.

Given five types of tools to rank for effectiveness, stakeholders preferred health insurance out-of-pocket costs calculators and healthcare service price estimator/comparisons. Given seven issues to rank by level of concern, relating to consumer tools, stakeholders were most concerned by accuracy/credibility of data sources, and consumer ability to understand/use tool correctly.

58.9% of stakeholders indicated they are involved with consumer tools, while 31.5% responded they are not involved, and 9.5% were not sure. The online survey of healthcare business stakeholders was conducted during May 2016 by MCOL.  Survey participants received a detailed report on the survey results.

As Tim Crawford, a Vice President from Keenan puts it, “if we want to bend the healthcare cost trend downward by making patients and their families more effective consumers, we will need to equip them with the information they need to make informed decisions. Consumers of medical services will need to know about the quality of their providers and understand the total costs involved. More than two-thirds of those responding to the survey believe that consumers will use tools that give them this information and will use the knowledge to discuss options and costs with their providers. Ideally, such tools can provide the common ground needed for patients and physicians to have a transparent dialog about medical decisions.”

Thursday
Jun022016

IMS Institute on the Global Oncology Market

By Clive Riddle, June 2, 2016

The IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics this week released their new study: Global Oncology Trend Report: A Review of 2015 and Outlook to 2020, which examines the current and future global oncology market. Their 42-page report tells us that “more than 20 tumor types are being treated with one or more of the 70 new cancer treatments that have been launched in the past five years, with the sustained surge in innovative therapies driving the global oncology market to $107 billion in 2015. However, many of these drugs are not yet available to patients in most countries, and even when registered they may not be reimbursed under public insurance programs.”

The study finds that growth in global spending on oncology therapeutics and supportive care drugs increased 11.5 percent on a constant-dollar basis last year, with more than 500 companies actively pursuing oncology drug development around the world. Collectively, they are advancing nearly 600 new molecules through late-stage clinical development, most frequently for non-small cell lung cancer and breast, prostate, ovarian and colorectal cancers.

And as for the future, “annual global growth in the oncology drug market is expected to be 7.5 – 10.5 percent through 2020, reaching $150 billion. Wider utilization of new products—especially immunotherapies —will drive much of the growth, offset by reduced use of some existing treatments with inferior clinical outcomes. Payers also are expected to tighten their negotiation stance with manufacturers and adopt new payment models in an effort to drive greater value from their expenditures on these drugs.”

The report also shares that:

  • The pipeline of oncology drugs in clinical development has expanded by more than 60 percent during the past decade, with almost 90 percent of the focus on targeted agents.
  • The median time from patent filing to approval for oncology drugs in 2015 was 9.5 years, down from 10.3 years in 2013.
  • Of the 49 oncology New Active Substances analyzed that were initially launched between 2010 and 2014, fewer than half were available to patients by the end of 2015 in all but six countries: the U.S., Germany, UK, Italy, France and Canada.
  • Targeted immunotherapies are available in most developed countries, but none of the emerging markets outside of the European Union has yet registered these treatments.
  • Of the drugs approved in 2014 and 2015 by a set of developed countries analyzed, only the U.S., France and Scotland have more than half included on reimbursement lists at the end of 2015.
  • The annual growth rate in cancer drug costs has risen from 3.8 percent in 2011 to 11.5 percent in 2015, at constant exchange rates. Growth in the U.S. market increased from 2.0 percent to 13.9 percent in the same period.
  • The U.S. now accounts for about 45 percent of the global total market for therapeutics, up from 39 percent in 2011, due in part to the strengthening of the U.S. dollar and more rapid adoption of newer therapies.
  • In the U.S., cancer drugs now make up 11.5 percent of total drug costs, up from 10.5 percent in 2011
  • Net price growth in the U.S. on existing branded oncology drugs have averaged an estimated 4.8 percent in 2015, compared with 6.4 percent invoice price growth
  • In the U.S., cancer drugs dispensed through retail channels now account for more than one-third of total costs, up from 25 percent ten years ago and typically covered by pharmacy benefits. This reflects a shift in the mix of new therapies toward oral medicines, eliminating the need for injection or infusion in a physician’s office or outpatient facility.
  • Nearly 40 percent of the total costs of targeted therapies in the U.S. are now for oral formulations, up from 26 percent in 2010.
  • Only 17 percent of U.S. oncologists are in independent practices, unaffiliated with some type of integrated delivery network or corporate parent, down from 28 percent in 2010.
  • Average total treatment costs for patients in commercial insurance plans with a cancer diagnosis who are receiving active treatment reached $58,000 in 2014, up 19 percent from 2013.
  • Patients with commercial insurance who were treated in 2014 with cancer drugs received by injection or infusion were responsible for more than $7,000 of costs on average, compared to $3,000 for those patients receiving only oral medicines.
  • Some type of coupon or patient cost offset was used for more than a quarter of cancer drug retail prescriptions filled by patients with commercial insurance in 2015, up from 5 percent in 2011 and reflecting efforts by manufacturers to reduce patient out-of-pocket costs. The average cost offset has averaged about $750 per prescription over the past five years.
Thursday
May192016

Patients Happy With PCPs But Not Always Following Their Advice Due to Costs

By Clive Riddle, May 19, 2016

The Physicians Foundation has just released a 74-page report with results from their Physicians Foundation Patient Survey conducted by Harris Poll. The report findings state that “95 percent of patients surveyed are satisfied or very satisfied with their PCP’s ability to explain information in a manner they understand, while 96 percent feel their physicians are respectful of them. Moreover, 93 percent were satisfied or very satisfied with how well their PCP listened to them during their most recent exam, with 92 percent noting high levels of satisfaction relative to how well their doctor knew their medical history.”

But the report notes that “patients who saw a primary care physician for their most recent routine exam are not fully adhering to treatment plans, avoiding routine check-ups or opting not to take prescription medication due to rising healthcare costs.”

They cite that “ sixty-two percent of U.S. adults are concerned with being able to pay for medical treatment if they get sick or injured. Almost half (48 percent) are not confident they could afford care should they become seriously ill. In addition, more than a quarter of U.S. adults (28 percent) have skipped a medical test, treatment or follow-up or avoided a visit to the doctor for a medical problem in the past 12 months because of costs. Twenty-seven percent of patients have avoided filling a prescription in the past 12 months, noting costs as a primary factor.”

Who do patients feel are driving these costs? The report says that “59 percent of patients surveyed say it’s the cost of prescription drugs. One-third (33 percent) of patients cited fraud as another contributor factor, followed by social conditions and poverty (28 percent), government mandates (26 percent) and an aging population (25 percent).”

Rip Hollister, MD, a Physicians Foundation board member tells us “patients recognize that there is an array of stakeholders and external influences that affect treatment options and, in effect, clinical autonomy. Historically, treatment plans have been developed between the doctor and patient. Yet, patients understand that there are now many other parties ‘in the room,’ so to speak, which complicates and challenges the manner in which physicians practice medicine.”

In this regard, the report cites how much patients felt each of the following stakeholder groups, as a whole, impacts treatment options available to them:

  • Health insurance companies (83 percent)
  • Physicians (79 percent)
  • Pharmaceutical companies (68 percent)
  • Federal legislature (60 percent)
  • State legislatures (54 percent)
Friday
Apr012016

The Biosimilar Opportunity

By Clive Riddle, April 1, 2016

Biosimilars hold considerable future opportunity for helping address rapidly rising prescription costs. They also hold considerable opportunity for pharmaceutical companies seeking to offer them, as well as challenges for pharmaceutical holders of brand drugs that they would impact.

PwC listed Biosimilars as one of their top ten health industry issues of 2016. They stated that “Finally entering the US market, biosimilar drugs have the potential to be as disruptive as generic drugs following the Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984. The first US biosimilar - Sandoz’s Zarxio, which prevents infections in cancer patients – received FDA approval in 2015, and entered the market at a 15% discount. At least four biosimilar applications are pending FDA review in 2016, with another 50 in the FDA review process.”

PwC also another challenge in that U.S> consumers don’t know what the heck a Biosimilar is: citing a survey in which only 17% of consumers chose a correct definition of Biosimilar when offered multiple choice answers.

Biosimilars are of course much further along the path in Europe, but in addition to consumer confusion and provider and purchaser lack of familiarity as well, there is of course continued regulatory morass as well as lobbying from pharmaceutical companies trying to protect specific brand drug turf. The NCSL (National Conference of State Legislatures) has a page dedicated to the topic of State Laws and Legislation Related to Biologic Medications and Substitution of BioSimilars.

In addition to monitoring and summarizing this activity, NCSL provides easy to understand background information. They tell us “Biologic medicines are much more complex than traditional chemically synthesized drugs. Biologics are manufactured from living organisms by programming cell lines to produce the desired therapeutic substances and consist of large molecules….Regulating biologics raises new issues for both state and federal policymakers. Because of their complexity, biologic drugs are much more difficult to replicate than the chemically produced generics for other drugs. The cell lines used and modifications in the manufacturing process affect biologic medicines. As a result, truly identical “generic” versions are currently virtually impossible to produce. However, once patents expire for the existing brand-name biologic drugs, “biosimilar” medicines can be produced, which is an occurrence that raises regulatory issues in the states. Currently, there is concern that traditional statutes regulating ‘generic drugs’ may be misapplied to new products that are not identical. This has led to a recent move to amend older state laws to address the medical and chemical characteristics of these ‘biologics,’ as well as any future generic-style ‘follow-on biologics’ or ‘biosimilars.’ “

This week the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics released a 36 page report: Delivering on the Potential of Biosimilar Medicines -The Role of Functioning Competitive Markets, telling us that “Greater acceptance of biosimilar medicines in a growing number of therapy areas and an active pipeline of 56 new products in clinical development are expected to deliver total savings of as much as $110 billion to health systems across Europe and the U.S. through 2020.”

IMS offer considerable research into Biosimilar adoption and issues in Europe, and counsels that “As these medicines also become available in the U.S., stakeholder education and incentives will play a vital role in ensuring biosimilars deliver their full potential.” Their report finding include:

  • Considerable variations across the EU in payer policy approaches are limiting the biosimilar opportunity.
  • Biosimilars use in the EU and U.S. may yield total savings of $56-110 billion over the next five years.
  • Patient access to biologic treatments has grown by as much as 100 percent following the availability of biosimilars.
  • Intensifying competition and greater choice are expected as new biosimilars reach the market.
  • Capturing the benefits of biosimilar medicines requires a balance between controlling price and ensuring a sustainable, competitive marketplace.

IMS emphasizes the need for education and incentivization in order for Biosimilars to fulfill their potential.  They tell us that “Payers need to ensure that they are keeping themselves informed. The variation in policies adopted, as well as in biosimilar prices and uptake, across the EU, suggests that some payers do not understand the potential offered by biosimilar medicines. Physicians need to trust that biosimilar medicines offer a safe and efficacious alternative to original biologics…..Patients are expected to accept new technologies, about which they may have only limited information….Payers need to ensure that doctors see a tangible benefit to prescribing biosimilar medicines. Physicians need to understand that prescribing biosimilar products delivers clinical benefits across the market as a whole, and that the cost-savings that result from biosimilar uptake enable more patients to access needed treatment.”