Purpose: Previous studies suggest that adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) for patients with breast cancer is suboptimal, especially among minorities, and is associated with out-of-pocket medication costs. This study aimed to determine whether there are racial/ethnic differences in 1-year adherence to AET and whether out-of-pocket costs explain the racial/ethnic disparities in adherence. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used the SEER-Medicare linked database to identify patients ≥ 65 years of age with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer who were enrolled in Medicare Part D from 2007 to 2009. The cohort included non-Hispanic whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. Out-of-pocket costs for AET medications were standardized for a 30-day supply. Adherence to tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors (AIs), and overall AET (tamoxifen or AIs) was assessed using the medication possession ratio (≥ 80%) during the 12-month period. Results: Of 8,688 patients, 3,197 (36.8%) were nonadherent to AET. Out-of-pocket costs for AET medication were associated with lower adjusted odds of adherence for all four cost categories compared with the lowest category of ≤ $2.65 ( P < .01). In the univariable analysis, Hispanics had higher odds of adherence to any AET at initiation (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.57), and blacks had higher odds of adherence to AIs at initiation (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.54) compared with non-Hispanic whites. After adjusting for copayments, poverty status, and comorbidities, the association was no longer significant for Hispanics (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.17) or blacks (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.19). Blacks had significantly lower adjusted odds of adherence than non-Hispanic whites when they initiated AET therapy with tamoxifen (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.93) after adjusting for socioeconomic, clinic, and prognostic factors. Conclusion: Racial/ethnic disparities in AET adherence were largely explained by women's differences in socioeconomic status and out-of-pocket medication costs.

Background: Patient experiences with health care have been widely used as benchmark indicators of quality for providers, health care practices, and health plans. Objective: The objective of this study was to summarize the literature regarding the associations between Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) patient experiences and clinical and quality outcomes. Research Design: A systematic review of the literature was completed using PubMed, Embase, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature on December 14, 2019. Separate searches were conducted to query terms identifying CAHPS surveys with clinical and quality outcomes of care. Two reviewers completed all components of the search process. Study Selection: Studies investigating associations between CAHPS composite ratings and health care sensitive clinical outcomes or quality measures of care were included in this review. Studies were excluded if they did not investigate patient experiences using CAHPS composite ratings or if CAHPS composites were not treated as the independent variable. Results: Nineteen studies met inclusion criteria, 10 investigating associations of CAHPS composite ratings with clinical outcomes and 9 investigating these associations with quality measures. Patient-provider communication was the most studied CAHPS composite rating and was significantly associated with self-reported physical and mental health, frequency of emergency room visits and inpatient hospital stays, hospitalization length, and CAHPS personal physician global ratings. Conclusions: Ratings of patient experience with care may influence clinical and quality outcomes of care. However, key inconsistencies between studies affirm that more research is needed to solidify this conclusion and investigate how patient experiences differentially relate to outcomes for various patient groups.

Objective: To determine how out-of-pocket costs for adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) medication affects adherence among newly diagnosed breast cancer survivors with private health insurance who initiate therapy. Materials and Methods: We examined medical and pharmacy claims for the 1-year period after initiating AET using the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan database. Adherence was defined as ≥80% proportion of days covered. Mean out-of-pocket costs for AET fill were measured as the sum of copayments, coinsurance, and deductibles and adjusted to 30-day amounts. Using a multivariable logistic regression model we calculated adjusted risk ratios controlling for age, comorbidities, type of surgery, use of chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy, average out-of-pocket costs for other services, and pharmacy use characteristics. Results: Of the 6863 women 64 years and younger who were diagnosed with breast cancer and initiated AET, 73.9% were adherent (proportion of days covered≥80%). A total of 19% of patients had <$5 monthly out-of-pocket costs for AET, 30% had $5 to $9.99, 17% had $10 to $14.99, 10% had $15 to $19.99, and 25% had $20 or greater. Patients with out-of-pocket costs for AET between $10 and $14.99, $15 and $19.99, and >$20 were 6% to 8% less likely to be adherent compared with patients paying <$5.00, after controlling for covariates (P<0.05). Out-of-pocket costs for inpatient, outpatient, and other pharmacy services were not associated with adherence. Conclusions: A substantial proportion of privately insured patients are nonadherent to AET and out-of-pocket costs for AET medication are significantly associated with a greater likelihood of nonadherence.