Payer and provider solutions to utilization management challenges in the management of rare hematologic cancers.

Patients with rare diseases such as Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph+ ALL), a hematologic malignancy affecting approximately 1500 new patients per year, experience barriers to care involving both clinical and administrative factors. Optimal patient outcomes depend on timely identification, diagnosis of disease, and treatment initiation. For patients living with Ph+ ALL, the process can be delayed by limited treatment options approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and administrative hurdles that often delay treatment initiation. An overhaul of utilization management processes, such as the requirement for prior authorization (PA) for treatment, are needed to ensure patients have access to appropriate treatments in a timely manner. An AJMC Roundtable in November 2022 brought together a panel of payers and providers to discuss the challenges and shortcomings of current PA processes and to present ideas for potential solutions for improving them. Panelists at the roundtable discussed approaches including the use of guideline-concordant electronic PAs and other digital solutions, expedited approval pathways for use in specific conditions, use of real-world evidence in decision-making, issuance of PA "Gold Cards" to select providers, and a shift to value-based care agreements. Roundtable attendees agreed that, regardless of the strategy for PA-process improvement, there is a need for improved communication between providers and payers to ensure that the decision-making system meets the essential need for timely patient access to optimal care. This article reviews utilization management and guideline-concordant care through the lens of rare diseases and then presents solutions to utilization.

Development and Feasibility of Bundled Payments for the Multidisciplinary Treatment of Head and Neck Cancer: A Pilot Program.

PURPOSE: Despite growing interest in bundled payments to reduce the costs of care, this payment method remains largely untested in cancer. This 3-year pilot tested the feasibility of a 1-year bundled payment for the multidisciplinary treatment of head and neck cancers. METHODS: Four prospective treatment-based bundles were developed for patients with selected head and neck cancers. These risk-adjusted bundles covered 1 year of care that began with primary cancer treatment. Manual processes were developed for patient identification, enrollment, billing, and payment. Patients were prospectively identified and enrolled, and bundled payments were made at treatment start. Operational metrics tracked incremental effort for pilot processes and average payment cycle time compared with fee-for-service (FFS) payments. RESULTS: This pilot confirmed the feasibility of a 1-year prospective bundled payment for head and neck cancers. Between November 2014 and October 2016, 88 patients were enrolled successfully with prospective bundled payments. Through September 2017, 94% of patients completed the pilot with 6% still enrolled. Manual pilot processes required more effort than anticipated; claims processing was the most time-consuming activity. The production of a bundle bill took an additional 15 minutes versus FFS billing. The average payment cycle time was 37 days (range, 15 to 141 days) compared with a 15-day average under FFS. CONCLUSION: Prospective bundled payments were successfully implemented in this pilot. Additional pilots should study this payment method in higher-volume cancers. Robust systems are needed to automate patient identification, enrollment, billing, and payment along with policies that reduce administrative burden and allow for the introduction of novel cancer therapies.

Value-Based Breast Cancer Care: A Multidisciplinary Approach for Defining Patient-Centered Outcomes.

PURPOSE: Value in healthcare-i.e., patient-centered outcomes achieved per healthcare dollar spent-can define quality and unify performance improvement goals with health outcomes of importance to patients across the entire cycle of care. We describe the process through which value-based measures for breast cancer patients and dynamic capture of these metrics via our new electronic health record (EHR) were developed at our institution. METHODS: Contemporary breast cancer literature on treatment options, expected outcomes, and potential complications was extensively reviewed. Patient perspective was obtained via focus groups. Multidisciplinary physician teams met to inform a 3-phase process of (1) concept development, (2) measure specification, and (3) implementation via EHR integration. RESULTS: Outcomes were divided into 3 tiers that reflect the entire cycle of care: (1) health status achieved, (2) process of recovery, and (3) sustainability of health. Within these tiers, 22 patient-centered outcomes were defined with inclusion/exclusion criteria and specifications for reporting. Patient data sources will include the Epic Systems EHR and validated patient-reported outcome questionnaires administered via our institution's patient portal. CONCLUSIONS: As healthcare costs continue to rise in the United States and around the world, a value-based approach with explicit, transparently reported patient outcomes will not only create opportunities for performance improvement but will also enable benchmarking across providers, healthcare systems, and even countries. Similar value-based breast cancer care frameworks are also being pursued internationally.

Defining the value framework for prostate brachytherapy using patient-centered outcome metrics and time-driven activity-based costing.

PURPOSE: Value, defined as outcomes over costs, has been proposed as a measure to evaluate prostate cancer (PCa) treatments. We analyzed standardized outcomes and time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) for prostate brachytherapy (PBT) to define a value framework. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with low-risk PCa treated with low-dose-rate PBT between 1998 and 2009 were included. Outcomes were recorded according to the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement standard set, which includes acute toxicity, patient-reported outcomes, and recurrence and survival outcomes. Patient-level costs to 1 year after PBT were collected using TDABC. Process mapping and radar chart analyses were conducted to visualize this value framework. RESULTS: A total of 238 men were eligible for analysis. Median age was 64 (range, 46-81). Median followup was 5 years (0.5-12.1). There were no acute Grade 3-5 complications. Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite 50 scores were favorable, with no clinically significant changes from baseline to last followup at 48 months for urinary incontinence/bother, bowel bother, sexual function, and vitality. Ten-year outcomes were favorable, including biochemical failure-free survival of 84.1%, metastasis-free survival 99.6%, PCa-specific survival 100%, and overall survival 88.6%. TDABC analysis demonstrated low resource utilization for PBT, with 41% and 10% of costs occurring in the operating room and with the MRI scan, respectively. The radar chart allowed direct visualization of outcomes and costs. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully created a visual framework to define the value of PBT using the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement standard set and TDABC costs. PBT is associated with excellent outcomes and low costs. Widespread adoption of this methodology will enable value comparisons across providers, institutions, and treatment modalities.

Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care: The Critical Role of Quality Measurement.

In 1999, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) published Ensuring Quality Cancer Care, an influential report that described an ideal cancer care system and issued ten recommendations to address pervasive gaps in the understanding and delivery of quality cancer care. Despite generating much fervor, the report's recommendations-including two recommendations related to quality measurement-remain largely unfulfilled. Amidst continuing concerns regarding increasing costs and questionable quality of care, the IOM charged a new committee with revisiting the 1999 report and with reassessing national cancer care, with a focus on the aging US population. The committee identified high-quality patient-clinician relationships and interactions as central drivers of quality and attributed existing quality gaps, in part, to the nation's inability to measure and improve cancer care delivery in a systematic way. In 2013, the committee published its findings in Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care: Charting a New Course for a System in Crisis, which included two recommendations that emphasize coordinated, patient-centered quality measurement and information technology enhancements: Develop a national quality reporting program for cancer care as part of a learning health care system; and,Develop an ethically sound learning health care information technology system for cancer that enables real-time analysis of data from cancer patients in a variety of care settings. These recommendations underscore the need for independent national oversight, public-private collaboration, and substantial funding to create robust, patient-centered quality measurement and learning enterprises to improve the quality, accessibility, and affordability of cancer care in America.

Ensuring quality cancer care: a follow-up review of the Institute of Medicine's 10 recommendations for improving the quality of cancer care in America.

Responding to growing concerns regarding the safety, quality, and efficacy of cancer care in the United States, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academy of Sciences commissioned a comprehensive review of cancer care delivery in the US health care system in the late 1990s. The National Cancer Policy Board (NCPB), a 20-member board with broad representation, performed this review. In its review, the NCPB focused on the state of cancer care delivery at that time, its shortcomings, and ways to measure and improve the quality of cancer care. The NCPB described an ideal cancer care system in which patients would have equitable access to coordinated, guideline-based care and novel therapies throughout the course of their disease. In 1999, the IOM published the results of this review in its influential report, Ensuring Quality Cancer Care. The report outlined 10 recommendations, which, when implemented, would: 1) improve the quality of cancer care, 2) increase the current understanding of quality cancer care, and 3) reduce or eliminate access barriers to quality cancer care. Despite the fervor generated by this report, there are lingering doubts regarding the safety and quality of cancer care in the United States today. Increased awareness of medical errors and barriers to quality care, coupled with escalating health care costs, has prompted national efforts to reform the health care system. These efforts by health care providers and policymakers should bridge the gap between the ideal state described in Ensuring Quality Cancer Care and the current state of cancer care in the United States.

Improving cancer care through public reporting of meaningful quality measures.

Historically, quality measures for cancer have followed a different route than overall quality measures in the health care system. Many specialized cancer treatment centers were exempt from standard reporting on quality measures because of the complexity of cancer. Additionally, it has been difficult to create meaningful quality measures for cancer because the disease can strike so many different organs; is discovered at and progresses through different stages; and is treated using different modalities, such as surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. Over the past decade the National Quality Forum, a nonprofit organization dedicated to bettering the quality of US health care, has endorsed measures of quality for cancer providers and patients. The Affordable Care Act of 2010, which has sections specific to cancer reporting, will also further the development and public reporting of cancer quality measures-important steps in improving the delivery of cancer care.