ArticleHealth policy OPEN2026
Price transparency & out-of-pocket payments for medications: Implications of associated delivery fees in the United States.
Article in Health policy OPEN, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Price transparency has been cited as a tool to reduce out-of-pocket (OOP) payments to patients. These tools for prescription drugs often focus on the price to patients for the drug alone. However, costs associated with drug delivery (i.e. infusion center fees, labs, etc) are often unknown and could impact the effectiveness of price transparency tools. Objective: To examine total OOP payments on day of drug receipt ("full day", i.e. drug + drug administration fees) out-of-pocket (OOP) payments associated with six first-line treatments for metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer and compare these with payments for drug alone and by insurance type. Methods: Using the IBM Marketscan databases, we identify male patients who initiated treatment with one of six focus drugs (docetaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide, sipuleucel-T, cabazitaxel, and radium-223) used to treat mCRPC from 07/01/2013-06/30/2019. We calculated total OOP payments on day of drug receipt (full day OOP payments) by drug type for six first line treatments. We then used a two-part model to assess the association of first-line therapy with OOP payments for the four most frequently prescribed during the study time period. Results: We find that there is variation in the proportion of payments for drug alone relative to full day payments across first-line treatments. However, regression-adjusted mean full day OOP payments are not statistically different across first-line treatments for mCRPC for the four most frequently prescribed drugs. There are differences in the likelihood that an individual will incur any OOP payment by first-line treatment type and by health plan type. Conclusion: These analyses suggest that when accounting for additional services required on the day of drug receipt, the amount a patient pays to receive a medication for mCRPC can be very different from the OOP payment for the drug alone; these payments also vary by drug and health plan type. Therefore, price transparency for drug alone may not lead to reduced OOP payments for patients.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.