A new study examining the use of high-cost drugs among patients with colorectal cancer and non-small cell lung cancer found those insured through Medicare Advantage received less expensive cancer drugs compared to others on Traditional Medicare.

The findings were published today in JAMA Health Forum.

"Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States and colorectal cancer ranks third. Gaining a better understanding of treatment options and their costs under different insurance plans is important for assessing the overall healthcare landscape and how insurances manage patient costs,” said the study’s first author Cathy Bradley, PhD, Dean of the Colorado School of Public Health.

The study found Medicare Advantage patients received less expensive cancer drugs, particularly for colorectal cancer, when compared to Traditional Medicare. But this was not the case for non-small cell lung cancer. The researchers found there are less low-cost treatment alternatives available, resulting in high-cost drugs regardless of insurance.

Weill Cornell Medicine researchers have found that pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs)—organizations that negotiate access to medicines for most patients in the United States—steer patients to use their own pharmacies. However, these pharmacies appear less used in Medicare than in other market segments. These PBMs are part of integrated health care conglomerates that own insurance companies and pharmacies, which may create conflicts of interest.

About The Study: This cohort study suggests that higher radon exposure is associated with greater odds of gestational diabetes in nulliparous pregnant individuals. Further studies are needed to confirm the results and elucidate the underlying mechanisms, especially with individual-level residential radon exposure assessment. 

The Joint International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) Working Group and the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry (IFCC) Committee on Bone Metabolism have published important updated guidelines for the correct use of biochemical indices of bone status. The position paper marks a significant advancement in bone health diagnostics and addresses longstanding challenges in research caused by inconsistent terminology, which has hindered data sharing, standardization, and collaborative progress.