Financial toxicity in patients with cancer: a cross-sectional study at an oncology hospital in central Vietnam.

PURPOSE: Cancer imposes a substantial financial burden on patients because of the high out-of-pocket expenses and the significant hardships. Financial toxicity describes the impact of cancer care costs at the patient level. Although the financial impact of cancer has been recognized, understanding the extent and determinants of financial toxicity in specific contexts is crucial. This study investigated the level of financial toxicity and its associated factors among patients with cancer at an oncology hospital in central Vietnam. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 334 patients with cancer. Direct interviews and medical record reviews were used for data collection. Financial toxicity was assessed using the 11-item Comprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST). A logistic regression model was used to determine factors associated with financial toxicity. RESULTS: A notable 87.7% of patients experienced financial toxicity due to cancer cost, with 37.7% experiencing mild financial toxicity and 49.7% suffering from moderate financial toxicity, 0.3% reporting severe financial toxicity. Individuals with low household income exhibited a higher proportion of financial toxicity compared to that of those with higher income (odds ratio (OR) = 5.78, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.29-25.68). Compared with that of participants in the early stages, a higher burden was found in patients with advanced-stage cancer (OR = 3.88, 95% CI: 1.36-11.11). CONCLUSION: Our study indicates that patients with cancer in Vietnam facefinancial toxicity. It is thus necessary for interventions to mitigate the financial burden on patients with cancer, focusing on vulnerable individuals and patients in the advanced stages.

Trends in financial payments from industry to US cancer centers, 2014-2021.

BACKGROUND: Industry payments to US cancer centers are poorly understood. METHODS: US National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated comprehensive cancer centers were identified (n = 51). Industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers from 2014 to 2021 were obtained from Open Payments and National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant funding from NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT). Given our focus on cancer centers, we measured the subset of industry payments related to cancer drugs specifically and the subset of NIH funding from the NCI. RESULTS: Despite a pandemic-related decline in 2020-2021, cancer-related industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers increased from $482 million in 2014 to $972 million in 2021. Over the same period, NCI research grant funding increased from $2 481  million to $2 724  million. The large majority of nonresearch payments were royalties and licensing payments. CONCLUSION: Industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers increased substantially more than NCI funding in recent years but were also more variable. These trends raise concerns regarding the influence and instability of industry payments.

An assessment of the direct and indirect costs of breast cancer treatment in leading cancer hospitals in Ghana.

BACKGROUND: In Ghana, breast cancer remains the most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer deaths among women. The cost of treating cancer is huge and poses a great challenge for patients, their families, and health care systems. While comprehensive studies have been conducted on the economic burden of cancers in developed economies such as the EU and the US, there are limited studies in Africa, and Ghana, in particular. This study quantitatively assessed Ghana's direct and indirect costs of breast cancer treatment. METHODS: Primary data were collected using a questionnaire administered to 217 breast cancer patients at the Korle-Bu and Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospitals, Ghana's two leading hospitals, and Sweden Ghana Medical Centre. Direct and indirect costs were computed using the Cost-of-Illness Approach. Quantitative analysis was done using multivariate linear regression. RESULTS: The findings showed that the breast cancer patients studied paid a median amount of Ghana cedis (GHC) 31,021.0 (IQR; 25,262.5-42,147.0), approximating USD 5,500.2 (IQR: 4,477.0-7,469.2 USD) for their treatment within one year of active treatment in 2019. About 61.9% (95% CI: 61.8-62.0%) of this cost was direct cost, while the remaining 38.1% (95% CI: 38.0-38.1%) was indirect cost. Patients who sought care from public facilities for breast cancer paid a median amount of GHC 29,606.3 (USD 5,249.3), while those who sought care from private facilities paid GHC 55,071.2 (USD 9,744.4). Findings from the multivariate linear regression indicate that being married/cohabiting, divorced/separated and having tertiary level education predicted higher cost of breast cancer treatment while patients on retirement and patients in the middle stage (Stage II) of breast cancer diagnoses were associated with lower cost of breast cancer treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of breast cancer treatment poses a significant burden on patients and their families. There is a need for increased public funding for breast cancer treatment to reduce the huge economic burden its treatment poses for patients and their families.

Payer-Negotiated Price Variation and Relationship to Surgical Outcomes for the Most Common Cancers at NCI-Designated Cancer Centers.

BACKGROUND: Federal rules mandate that hospitals publish payer-specific negotiated prices for all services. Little is known about variation in payer-negotiated prices for surgical oncology services or their relationship to clinical outcomes. We assessed variation in payer-negotiated prices associated with surgical care for common cancers at National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers and determined the effect of increasing payer-negotiated prices on the odds of morbidity and mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of 63 NCI-designated cancer center websites was employed to assess variation in payer-negotiated prices. A retrospective cohort study of 15,013 Medicare beneficiaries undergoing surgery for colon, pancreas, or lung cancers at an NCI-designated cancer center between 2014 and 2018 was conducted to determine the relationship between payer-negotiated prices and clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was the effect of median payer-negotiated price on odds of a composite outcome of 30 days mortality and serious postoperative complications for each cancer cohort. RESULTS: Within-center prices differed by up to 48.8-fold, and between-center prices differed by up to 675-fold after accounting for geographic variation in costs of providing care. Among the 15,013 patients discharged from 20 different NCI-designated cancer centers, the effect of normalized median payer-negotiated price on the composite outcome was clinically negligible, but statistically significantly positive for colon [aOR 1.0094 (95% CI 1.0051-1.0138)], lung [aOR 1.0145 (1.0083-1.0206)], and pancreas [aOR 1.0080 (1.0040-1.0120)] cancer cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Payer-negotiated prices are statistically significantly but not clinically meaningfully related to morbidity and mortality for the surgical treatment of common cancers. Higher payer-negotiated prices are likely due to factors other than clinical quality.

Economic burden attributable to hospital-acquired infections among tumor patients from a large regional cancer center in Southern China.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the economic loss of hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) among tumor patients so as to help policymakers to allocate health care resources and address the issue. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, 1:1 matched case-control study in a large region cancer hospital between January 1 and December 31, 2022. The economic burden was estimated as the median of the 1:1 pair differences of various hospitalization fees and hospital length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: In this study of 329 matched pairs, the patients with HAIs incurred higher hospitalization cost (ie, $16,927) and experienced longer hospital LOS (ie, 22 days), compared to the non-HAI groups. The extra hospitalization cost and the prolonged hospital LOS caused by HAIs were $4,919 and 9 days, respectively. Accordingly, the direct nonmedical economic loss attributable to HAI was approximately $478 to 835 per case. Furthermore, the increment of hospitalization costs varied by sites of infection, types of tumors, and stratum of age. CONCLUSIONS: HAIs lead to the increment of direct economic burden and hospital LOS in tumor patients. Our findings highlight the importance of implementing effective infection control measures in hospitals to reduce the financial burden on tumor patients.

Childhood cancer hospital resource utilization and costs in Egypt, 2013-2017; patterns, trends, and associated factors for 8886 patients from Children's Cancer Hospital, Egypt.

INTRODUCTION: There is a lack ofevidence about resource use and costs of childhood cancer care in Egypt. Knowledge about resource use/costs can help in better resource planning to improve care and outcomes efficiently. In this study, we estimated patterns and trends of hospital resource use and costs for children with cancer (n = 8886, aged 0-18 years) treated at Children's Cancer Hospital, Egypt (CCHE), between 2013 and 2017, by ICCC-3 groups, at one and three years post-diagnosis. METHODS: We estimated costs from the healthcare provider perspective, expressed in USD 2019. We also studied resource use/cost trends, and factors associated with inpatient days and costs. RESULTS: For all cancers combined, median costs were $14,774 (IQR: $6,559-$23,738) at one year and $19,799 (IQR: $8,921-$34,204) at three years post-diagnosis. Median inpatient days were 38 days (IQR: 17-60) at one year, and 43 days (IQR: 20-74) at three years post-diagnosis. Patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and neuroblastoma imposed the greatest financial burden on CCHE, representing 53.1% of total costs. AML patients had the highest costs/resource use of all childhood cancers. Cost trends decreased by 2.9% (P < 0.001) for all cancers combined, due to economic instability in Egypt between 2013 and 2017. The use of IV supportive drugs increased by 24.3% (P < 0.001) over time for children with solid tumors. CONCLUSION: These findings will inform hospital resource planning and budgeting to promote value in care delivery, with implications for pediatric oncology practice and policy in Egypt/CCHE. Estimated costs provide the foundation for cost-effectiveness analysis.

Assessing Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems Use at NCI-Designated Cancer Centers in the Cancer Moonshot-funded Cancer Center Cessation Initiative.

Assessing tobacco product use and delivering tobacco dependence treatment is an essential part of cancer care; however, little is known about electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) or e-cigarette use assessment in cancer treatment settings. Given the importance of tailoring tobacco treatment, it is critical to understand how ENDS use is assessed in the electronic health record (EHR) in cancer care settings. Two questionnaires were completed by tobacco treatment program leads at 42 NCI-Designated Cancer Centers in the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (January 1 to June 30 and July 1 to December 31, 2019). Items assessed how often smoking status and ENDS use were recorded in the EHR. An open-ended item recorded the text and response categories of each center's ENDS assessment question. All 42 centers assessed smoking status at both time periods. Twenty-five centers (59.5%) assessed ENDS use in the first half of 2019, increasing to 30 (71.4%) in the last half of 2019. By the end of 2019, 17 centers assessed smoking status at every patient visit while six assessed ENDS use at every visit. A checkbox/drop-down menu rather than scripted text was used at 30 centers (73.2%) for assessing smoking status and at 18 centers (42.9%) for assessing ENDS use. Our findings underscore the gap in systematic ENDS use screening in cancer treatment settings. Requiring ENDS use measures in the EHR as part of quality measures and providing scripted text scripts to providers may increase rates of ENDS use assessment at more cancer centers. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: This study identifies a gap in the systematic assessment of ENDS use among patients seen at 42 NCI-Designated cancer centers. Requiring the systematic assessment of both ENDS use and use of other tobacco products can inform evidence-based treatment of tobacco dependence and lead to improved cancer treatment outcomes.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Cancer Care in the Post Pandemic World: Five Major Lessons Learnt from Challenges and Countermeasures of Major Asian Cancer Centres.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically affected healthcare services around Asia. The Asian National Cancer Centres Alliance and the Asia-Pacific Organisation for Cancer Prevention collaborated to assess the mid- and long- term impact of COVID-19 to cancer care in Asia. METHODS: The two entities organised a combined symposium and post-meeting interactions among representatives of major cancer centres from seventeen Asian countries to outlining major challenges and countermeasures. RESULTS: Participating stakeholders distilled five big questions. 1) "Will there be an explosion of late-stage cancers after the pandemic?" To address and recover from perceived delayed prevention, screening, treatment and care challenges, collaboration of key stakeholders in the region and alignment in cancer care management, policy intervention and cancer registry initiatives would be of essential value. 2) "Operations and Finance" The pandemic has resulted in significant material and financial casualties. Flagged acute challenges (shortages of supplies, imposition of lockdown) as well as longer-standing reduction of financial revenue, manpower, international collaboration, and training should also be addressed. 3) "Will telemedicine and technological innovations revolutionize cancer care?" Deploying and implementing telemedicine such as teleconsultation and virtual tumour boards were considered invaluable. These innovations could become a new regular practice, leading to expansion of tele-collaboration through collaboration of institutions in the region. 4) "Will virtual conferences continue after the pandemic?" Virtual conferences during the pandemic have opened new doors for knowledge sharing, especially for representatives of low- and middle-income countries in the region, while saving time and costs of travel. 5) "How do we prepare for the next pandemic or international emergency?" Roadmaps for action to improve access to appropriate patient care and research were identified and scrutinised. CONCLUSION: Through addressing these five big questions, focused collaboration among members and with international organisations such as City Cancer Challenge will allow enhanced preparedness for future international emergencies.
.

Potential reduction of hospital stay length with outpatient management of low-risk febrile neutropenia in a regional cancer center.

BACKGROUND: Febrile neutropenia is a serious complication of chemotherapy. The Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) risk index score identifies patients at low risk of serious complications. Outpatient management programs have been successfully piloted in other Australian metropolitan cancer centers. AIM: To assess current management of febrile neutropenia at our regional cancer center and determine potential impacts of an outpatient management program. METHOD: We performed a retrospective review of medical records for all patients admitted at our regional institution with febrile neutropenia between 1 January 2016, and 31 December 2018. We collected information regarding patient characteristics, determined the MASCC risk index score, and if low risk, we determined the eligibility for outpatient care and potential reduction in length of stay and cost benefit. RESULTS: A total of 98 hospital admissions were identified. Of these, 66 had a MASCC low-risk index score. Fifty-eight patients met the eligibility criteria for outpatient management. Seventy-one percent were female. The most common tumor type was breast cancer. Forty-eight percent were treated with curative intent. The median length of stay was 3 days. The median potential reduction in length of stay for each admission was 2 days. The total potential reduction in length of stay was 198 days. No admission resulted in serious complications. CONCLUSION: This review demonstrates a significant number of hospital admission days can be avoided. We intend to conduct a prospective pilot study at our center to institute an outpatient management program for such low-risk patients with potential reduction in hospital length of stay. This will have significant implications on health resource usage, service provision planning, and patient quality of life.

Implementation and Outcomes of Virtual Care Across a Tertiary Cancer Center During COVID-19.

Importance: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has burdened health care resources and disrupted care of patients with cancer. Virtual care (VC) represents a potential solution. However, few quantitative data support its rapid implementation and positive associations with service capacity and quality. Objective: To examine the outcomes of a cancer center-wide virtual care program in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study applied a hospitalwide agile service design to map gaps and develop a customized digital solution to enable at-scale VC across a publicly funded comprehensive cancer center. Data were collected from a high-volume cancer center in Ontario, Canada, from March 23 to May 22, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcome measures were care delivery volumes, quality of care, patient and practitioner experiences, and cost savings to patients. Results: The VC solution was developed and launched 12 days after the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 22 085 VC visits (mean, 514 visits per day) were conducted, comprising 68.4% (range, 18.8%-100%) of daily visits compared with 0.8% before launch (P < .001). Ambulatory clinic volumes recovered a month after deployment (3714-4091 patients per week), whereas chemotherapy and radiotherapy caseloads (1943-2461 patients per week) remained stable throughout. No changes in institutional or provincial quality-of-care indexes were observed. A total of 3791 surveys (3507 patients and 284 practitioners) were completed; 2207 patients (82%) and 92 practitioners (72%) indicated overall satisfaction with VC. The direct cost of this initiative was CAD$ 202 537, and displacement-related cost savings to patients totaled CAD$ 3 155 946. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that implementation of VC at scale at a high-volume cancer center may be feasible. An agile service design approach was able to preserve outpatient caseloads and maintain care quality, while rendering high patient and practitioner satisfaction. These findings may help guide the transformation of telemedicine in the post COVID-19 era.

Expenditures among young adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia by site of care.

BACKGROUND: Individuals diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) between the ages of 22 and 39 years experience worse outcomes than those diagnosed when they are 21 years old or younger. Treatment at National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCC) mitigates these disparities but may be associated with higher expenditures. METHODS: Using deidentified administrative claims data (OptumLabs Data Warehouse), the cancer-related expenditures were examined among patients with ALL diagnosed between 2001 and 2014. Multivariable generalized linear model with log-link modeled average monthly health-plan-paid (HPP) expenditures and amount owed by the patient (out-of-pocket [OOP]). Cost ratios were used to calculate excess expenditures (CCC vs non-CCC). Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) compared CCC and non-CCC monthly visit rates. Models adjusted for sociodemographics, comorbidities, adverse events, and months enrolled. RESULTS: Clinical and sociodemographic characteristics were comparable between CCC (n = 160) and non-CCC (n = 139) patients. Higher monthly outpatient expenditures in CCC patients ($15,792 vs $6404; P < .001) were driven by outpatient hospital HPP expenditures. Monthly visit rates and per visit expenditures for nonchemotherapy visits (IRR = 1.6; P = .001; CCC = $8247, non-CCC = $1191) drove higher outpatient hospital expenditures among CCCs. Monthly OOP expenditures were higher at CCCs for outpatient care (P = .02). Inpatient HPP expenditures were significantly higher at CCCs ($25,918 vs $13,881; ꞵ = 0.9; P < .001) before accounting for adverse events but were no longer significant after adjusting for adverse events (ꞵ = 0.4; P = .1). Hospitalizations and length of stay were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Young adults with ALL at CCCs have higher expenditures, likely reflecting differences in facility structure, billing practices, and comprehensive patient care. It would be reasonable to consider CCCs comparable to the oncology care model and incentivize the framework to achieve superior outcomes and long-term cost savings. LAY SUMMARY: Health care expenditures in young adults (aged 22-39 years) with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are higher among patients at National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCC) than those at non-CCCs. The CCC/non-CCC differences are significant among outpatient expenditures, which are driven by higher rates of outpatient hospital visits and outpatient hospital expenditures per visit at CCCs. Higher expenditures and visit rates of outpatient hospital visits among CCCs may also reflect how facility structure and billing patterns influence spending or comprehensive care. Young adults at CCCs face higher inpatient HPP expenditures; these are driven by serious adverse events.

Impact of cancer center accreditation on outcomes of patients undergoing resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: A SEER-Medicare analysis.

BACKGROUND: We sought to assess variations in outcomes among patients undergoing resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at centers with varied accreditation status. METHODS: Patients undergoing resection for HCC from 2004 to 2016 were identified from the linked SEER-Medicare database. Short- and long-term outcomes as well as expenditures associated with receipt of surgery were examined based on cancer center accreditation. RESULTS: Among 1390 patients, 46.1% (n = 641) were treated at unaccredited centers, 39.3% (n = 546) at CoC-accredited and 14.6% (n = 203) at NCI-designated centers. Patients undergoing resection of HCC at NCI-designated hospitals had lower odds of complications (OR = 0.66, 95%CI: 0.45-0.98) and 90-day mortality (OR = 0.31, 95%CI: 0.11-0.85) after major liver resection compared with individuals treated at CoC-accredited centers. Receipt of surgery at NCI-designated hospitals (ref: CoC-accredited; HR = 0.81, 95%CI: 0.66-0.99) was an independent predictor of improved survival. Medicare payments for liver resection were comparable at different accreditation status centers (NCI: $21,760 vs CoC: $24,059 vs unaccredited: $24,724, p = 0.18). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing resection of HCC at NCI-designated hospitals had improved outcomes for the same level of Medicare expenditure compared with patients treated at CoC-accredited centers.

A cost analysis of a community-based support centre for cancer patients and their families in Ireland: the EVeCANs study.

Cancer patients and their families experience a range of physical, psychological and financial adverse effects. Community-based cancer centres offer a range of services and interventions, free of charge, to support those affected by cancer. While shown to be effective, there is a lack of information on the costs of these services. Our aim was to estimate the resource impact of a community-based cancer support centre. Over a 7-month period, there were 2032 contacts with 238 clients whose average age was 60 years. The most frequently used services were transport to treatment (20%), complementary therapies (48%), exercise classes (10%) and counselling (9%). This cost analysis estimated total annual cost to provide all services was €313,744. Average annual cost per person was €1138. Current uptake at the centre represents 8% of all cancer incidences in seven counties surrounding the centre. If uptake increases by 10%, scenario analyses predict an increase in total costs increase to €429,043 and a decrease in costs per patient to €915. As cancer incidences increase, the need for supportive care is growing. Community-based services have been established to meet these needs and fill this gap in national health services. Long-term sustainability of these centres is uncertain as they are entirely reliant on donations and volunteers. This analysis estimates the costs of one such community-based cancer support centre, for the first time in Ireland. Findings can be used to inform future planning of cancer supportive care services, including establishing links between tertiary and community-based centres, and cost effectiveness analyses, nationally and internationally.

"Absurd" Contract Dodge Rejected: Court Lets Cancer Center's Debt-Collection Suit Proceed.

Appeals court denies "free speech" challenge to cancer center's debt-collection suit.

Implications of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and COVID-19 Crisis on Clinical Cancer Care: Report of the University Cancer Center Hamburg.

With the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemia, routine clinical work was immediately, deeply, and sustainably impacted in Germany and worldwide. The infrastructure of almost all hospitals is currently redirected to provide a maximum of intensive care resources, including the necessary staff. In parallel, routine as well as emergency clinical care for all patients in need has to be secured. This challenge becomes particularly evident in cancer care. In order to maintain adequate oncological care at all levels of provision and to conduct especially curative and intensive treatments with a maximum of safety, continuous adaption of the oncology care system has to be ensured. Intensive communication with colleagues and patients is needed as is consequent expert networking and continuous reflection of the own developed strategies. In parallel, it is of high importance to actively avoid cessation of innovation in order not to endanger the continuous improvement in prognosis of cancer patients. This includes sustained conduction of clinical trials as well as ongoing translational research. Here, we describe measures taken at the University Cancer Center Hamburg (UCCH) - a recognized comprehensive oncology center of excellence - during the COVID-19 crisis. We aim to provide support and potential perspectives to generate a discussion basis on how to maintain high-end cancer care during such a crisis and how to conduct patients safely into the future.

Variation in value among hospitals performing complex cancer operations.

BACKGROUND: While variation in outcomes has driven centralization of complex cancer surgery, variation in cost and value remains unexplored. We evaluated outcomes relative to cost among hospitals performing esophageal and pancreatic resection for cancer. METHODS: Using 100% Medicare claims data, we identified fee-for-service Medicare patients undergoing elective esophagectomy and pancreatectomy for cancer from 2014 to 2016. Risk- and reliability-adjusted, price-standardized payments for the surgical episode from admission through 30 days post discharge, as well as risk- and reliability-adjusted complication rates for each hospital, were calculated. Hospitals were separated into quintiles relative to payments and outcomes. Highest-value hospitals were defined as hospitals in the top 2 quartiles for both cost and outcomes. RESULTS: Among 11,586 Medicare beneficiaries who underwent a complex oncologic operation between 2014 and 2016, 66% had a pancreatic neoplasm, while 33% had an esophageal neoplasm. Overall, 31.1% patients underwent an operation at a high-value hospital. Among patients who underwent pancreatectomy, the risk-adjusted postoperative complication rate was 31.4% at the lowest-value hospitals vs 22.7% at highest-value hospitals (odds ratio: 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.47-0.70). The esophagectomy, risk-adjusted postoperative complication rate was 48.3% at lowest-value hospitals versus 29.8% at highest-value hospitals (odds ratio: 0.36, 95% confidence interval 0.27-0.47). The average difference in episode cost of care for an esophagectomy at lowest- versus highest-value hospitals was $5,617; the difference for pancreatectomy was $2,748. CONCLUSION: There was wide variation in complication rates and average costs among lowest- versus highest-value hospitals performing esophagectomy and pancreatectomy for cancer. Even among highest quality hospitals, wide variation in average episode costs was noted. Surgeons should seek to better understand practice variation to standardize care and decrease variation in outcomes, utilization, and costs.

Dedicated Cancer Centers are More Likely to Achieve a Textbook Outcome Following Hepatopancreatic Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the current study is to assess rates of textbook outcome (TO) among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing hepatopancreatic (HP) surgery for cancer at dedicated cancer centers (DCCs) and National Cancer Institute affiliated cancer centers (NCI-CCs) versus non-DCC non-NCI hospitals. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Medicare Inpatient Standard Analytic Files were utilized to identify patients undergoing HP surgery between 2013 and 2017. TO was defined as no postoperative surgical complications, no 90-day mortality, no prolonged length of hospital stay, and no 90-day readmission after discharge. RESULTS: Among 21,234 Medicare patients, 8.2% patients underwent surgery at DCCs whereas 32.1% underwent surgery at NCI-CCs and 59.7% underwent an operation at neither DCCs nor NCI-CCs. Although DCCs more often cared for patients with severe comorbidities [Charlson score > 5: DCCs, 1195 (68.9%), NCI-CCs, 3687 (54.1%), others, 3970 (31.3%); p < 0.001], DCCs achieved higher rates of TO compared with NCI-CCs and other US hospitals. Interestingly, DCCs were more likely to perform surgery with a minimally invasive approach versus NCI-CCs and other US hospitals (17.0%, n = 295, vs. 12.6%, n = 856 vs. 11.9%, n = 1504, p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, patients undergoing liver surgery at DCCs had 31% and 36% higher odds of achieving TO compared with NCI-CCs and other US hospitals, respectively. Medicare expenditure was substantially lower for patients achieving TO at DCCs compared with patients who achieved a TO at NCI-CCs. CONCLUSIONS: Even though DCCs more frequently took care of patients with high comorbidity burden, the likelihood of achieving TO for HP surgery at DCCs was higher compared with NCI-CCs and other US hospitals. The data suggest that DCCs provide higher-value surgical care for patients with HP malignancies.