Differences in Antimyeloma Treatment Between Medicare Advantage and Traditional Medicare Beneficiaries

PURPOSE Self- and clinician-administered combination therapy is the standard of care for multiple myeloma. Unlike traditional Medicare (TM), Medicare Advantage (MA) plans use utilization management for clinician-administered drugs, which could limit access to these novel regimens. Our objectives were to assess differences in the initiation and type of antimyeloma treatment between MA and TM beneficiaries. METHODS We used the SEER-Medicare–linked database to identify and classify initial antimyeloma treatment into one of the following mutually exclusive categories: self-administered, clinician-administered, or combination of self- and clinician-administered. We used modified Poisson regression models to assess the probability of initiating antimyeloma treatment in the 12 months after diagnosis and, among those treated, the likelihood of starting specific types of treatment (eg, combination v self-administered). RESULTS Among the 15,049 beneficiaries studied, 43.6% were enrolled in MA. Initiation of antimyeloma treatment was similar between MA (74.65%) and TM (73.22%) beneficiaries; however, a larger proportion of TM beneficiaries started combination therapy relative to their MA counterparts (52.45% v 48.64%). Type of Medicare coverage was not associated with antimyeloma treatment initiation (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.02 [95% CI, 1 to 1.04]). Compared with TM beneficiaries, MA beneficiaries had a higher likelihood of starting self- versus clinician-administered treatment (aRR, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.08 to 1.25]), but a lower probability of starting combination therapy versus self-administered treatment (aRR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.90 to 0.95]). CONCLUSION Antimyeloma treatment initiation did not differ by type of Medicare coverage; however, MA beneficiaries were less likely than TM beneficiaries to initiate combination therapy—the standard of care. Future research is needed to examine the clinical outcomes associated with the type of antimyeloma treatment initiated by beneficiaries.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
JCO Oncology Practice
Published
2026-06-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1200/op-26-00087
Primary Topic
Multiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Differences in Antimyeloma Treatment Between Medicare Advantage and Traditional Medicare Beneficiaries

William A. Wood, Stacie B. Dusetzina, Shelley A. Jazowski
JCO Oncology Practice
Multiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
article

Differences in Antimyeloma Treatment Between Medicare Advantage and Traditional Medicare Beneficiaries

William A. Wood, Stacie B. Dusetzina, Shelley A. Jazowski
article en

Abstract

PURPOSE Self- and clinician-administered combination therapy is the standard of care for multiple myeloma. Unlike traditional Medicare (TM), Medicare Advantage (MA) plans use utilization management for clinician-administered drugs, which could limit access to these novel regimens. Our objectives were to assess differences in the initiation and type of antimyeloma treatment between MA and TM beneficiaries. METHODS We used the SEER-Medicare–linked database to identify and classify initial antimyeloma treatment into one of the following mutually exclusive categories: self-administered, clinician-administered, or combination of self- and clinician-administered. We used modified Poisson regression models to assess the probability of initiating antimyeloma treatment in the 12 months after diagnosis and, among those treated, the likelihood of starting specific types of treatment (eg, combination v self-administered). RESULTS Among the 15,049 beneficiaries studied, 43.6% were enrolled in MA. Initiation of antimyeloma treatment was similar between MA (74.65%) and TM (73.22%) beneficiaries; however, a larger proportion of TM beneficiaries started combination therapy relative to their MA counterparts (52.45% v 48.64%). Type of Medicare coverage was not associated with antimyeloma treatment initiation (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.02 [95% CI, 1 to 1.04]). Compared with TM beneficiaries, MA beneficiaries had a higher likelihood of starting self- versus clinician-administered treatment (aRR, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.08 to 1.25]), but a lower probability of starting combination therapy versus self-administered treatment (aRR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.90 to 0.95]). CONCLUSION Antimyeloma treatment initiation did not differ by type of Medicare coverage; however, MA beneficiaries were less likely than TM beneficiaries to initiate combination therapy—the standard of care. Future research is needed to examine the clinical outcomes associated with the type of antimyeloma treatment initiated by beneficiaries.

JCO Oncology Practice
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US), Vanderbilt University (US), Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Wake Forest University (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Multiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.