NCCN Virtual Policy Summit: Defining the "New Normal" - 2021 and the State of Cancer Care in America Following 2020.

US healthcare systems have been deeply impacted by significant societal shifts over the past several years. The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way we interact with healthcare, political narratives have impacted how healthcare is perceived and engaged with by the public, and the United States has become increasingly aware of historic and ongoing racial injustices across all health and social systems. The watershed events experienced during the last several years play a critical role in shaping the future of cancer care for payers, providers, manufacturers, and, most importantly, patients and survivors. To explore these issues, in June 2021 NCCN convened a virtual policy summit: Defining the "New Normal" - 2021 and the State of Cancer Care in America Following 2020. This summit offered the opportunity for a varied group of stakeholders to begin to explore the impact of recent events on the current and future state of oncology in the United States. Topics included the impact of COVID-19 on cancer detection and treatment, the role of innovation in ensuring continuity of care, and efforts to create more equitable systems of care.

Advancing More Equitable Care Through the Development of a Health Equity Report Card.

The root causes of racial disparities in access to optimal cancer care and related cancer outcomes are complex, multifactorial, and not rooted in biology. Contributing factors to racial disparities in care delivery include implicit and explicit bias, lack of representation of people of color in the oncology care and research workforce, and homogenous research participants that are not representative of the larger community. Systemic and structural barriers include policies leading to lack of insurance and underinsurance, costs of cancer treatment and associated ancillary costs of care, disparate access to clinical trials, and social determinants of health, including exposure to environmental hazards, access to housing, childcare, and economic injustices. To address these issues, ACS CAN, NCCN, and NMQF convened the Elevating Cancer Equity (ECE) initiative. The ECE Working Group developed the Health Equity Report Card (HERC). In this manuscript, we describe the process taken by the ECE Working Group to develop the HERC recommendations, the strategies employed by NCCN to develop an implementation plan and scoring methodology for the HERC, and next steps to pilot the HERC tool in practice settings.

Plenary Session-The Patient Journey: Equity of Cancer Care.

Although many people with cancer have benefited from the host of therapeutic and research advances across many different tumor types over the past decades. Not every patient with cancer is afforded the opportunity for such treatments, and there is an assortment of notable barriers to the delivery of equitable care for all. To address the complexity of this important issue in contemporary cancer care, a distinguished panel at the NCCN 2022 Annual Conference explored this topic from several different vantage points, including the patient perspective and the view from inside the LGBTQ+ community. In addition, several panel members explored the constructive steps and initiatives being taken in the clinical, research, and policy realms to improve access to care for all patients with cancer, as well as overall health equity.

Patient, Caregiver, and Oncologist Experiences With and Perceptions of Racial Bias and Discrimination in Cancer Care Delivery.

BACKGROUND: Cancer prevention and treatment systems are significantly impacted by interpersonal, organizational, and structural and systemic racism. A wide body of research has found that racial disparities in access to guideline-adherent cancer care are pervasive throughout the United States and contributing factors include social determinants of health, insurance status, and bias and discrimination in care delivery. Although the existence of racial disparities in cancer care and outcomes is well established, there has been limited research exploring the patient and caregiver experience with bias and discrimination in cancer care. METHODS: Two national surveys were conducted, one of patients and caregivers and one of oncologists. The surveys examined patient and caregiver experiences with and oncologist perceptions of racial disparities in cancer care. RESULTS: The surveys found that when patients and caregivers were asked about negative care experiences, differences across race were observed. Patients and caregivers identifying as African American/Black (AA/B) or Hispanic/Latino (H/L) were more likely to report at least one negative care experience than patients and caregivers identifying as White (W). Patients who were AA/B or H/L were also more likely than W patients to report that the healthcare system treats people unfairly based on their racial or ethnic background and that racial bias occurs often or very often when a patient and doctor are of different racial/ethnic background. A slight majority of oncologists reported that the healthcare system treats people unfairly based on their racial or ethnic background. CONCLUSIONS: The survey results highlight a need for improved racial representation in the oncology professional workforce, improved implicit bias training, and improved clinical trial recruitment efforts.

NCCN Virtual Patient Advocacy Summit: Cancer Across the Lifespan.

Patients with cancer have widely divergent experiences throughout their care from screening through survivorship. Differences in care delivery and outcomes may be due to varying patient preferences, patient needs according to stage of life, access to care, and implicit or explicit bias in care according to patient age. NCCN convened a series of stakeholder meetings with patients, caregivers, and patient advocacy groups to discuss the complex challenges and robust opportunities in this space. These meetings informed the NCCN Virtual Patient Advocacy Summit: Cancer Across the Lifespan held on December 10, 2020, which featured a keynote presentation, multidisciplinary panels, and presentations from patient advocacy organizations. This article encapsulates and expounds upon the findings from the stakeholder meetings and discussions during the summit.

NCCN Policy Summit: Defining, Measuring, and Applying Quality in an Evolving Health Policy Landscape and the Implications for Cancer Care.

Quality measurement is a critical component of advancing a health system that pays for performance over volume. Although there has been significant attention paid to quality measurement within health systems in recent years, significant challenges to meaningful measurement of quality care outcomes remain. Defining cost can be challenging, but is arguably not as elusive as quality, which lacks standard measurement methods and units. To identify industry standards and recommendations for the future, NCCN recently hosted the NCCN Oncology Policy Summit: Defining, Measuring, and Applying Quality in an Evolving Health Policy Landscape and the Implications for Cancer Care. Key stakeholders including physicians, payers, policymakers, patient advocates, and technology partners reviewed current quality measurement programs to identify success and challenges, including the Oncology Care Model. Speakers and panelists identified gaps in quality measurement and provided insights and suggestions for further advancing quality measurement in oncology. This article provides insights and recommendations; however, the goal of this program was to highlight key issues and not to obtain consensus.

Bridging the Gap Among Clinical Practice Guidelines for Pain Management in Cancer and Sickle Cell Disease.

Opioids are a critical component of pain relief strategies for the management of patients with cancer and sickle cell disease. The escalation of opioid addiction and overdose in the United States has led to increased scrutiny of opioid prescribing practices. Multiple reports have revealed that regulatory and coverage policies, intended to curb inappropriate opioid use, have created significant barriers for many patients. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and American Society of Clinical Oncology each publish clinical practice guidelines for the management of chronic pain. A recent JAMA Oncology article highlighted perceived variability in recommendations among these guidelines. In response, leadership from guideline organizations, government representatives, and authors of the original article met to discuss challenges and solutions. The meeting featured remarks by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, presentations on each clinical practice guideline, an overview of the pain management needs of patients with sickle cell disease, an overview of perceived differences among guidelines, and a discussion of differences and commonalities among the guidelines. The meeting revealed that although each guideline varies in the intended patient population, target audience, and methodology, there is no disagreement among recommendations when applied to the appropriate patient and clinical situation. It was determined that clarification and education are needed regarding the intent, patient population, and scope of each clinical practice guideline, rather than harmonization of guideline recommendations. Clinical practice guidelines can serve as a resource for policymakers and payers to inform policy and coverage determinations.

Policy Strategies for the "New Normal" in Healthcare to Ensure Access to High-Quality Cancer Care.

In recent years, oncology has seen a rapid increase in the introduction of high-cost innovative therapies while scrutiny around drug pricing has simultaneously amplified. Significant policy shifts impacting health coverage and benefit design are also being implemented, including narrow network health plans, uncertainty around the Affordable Care Act insurance exchanges, and threats to preexisting condition protections. Shifting health coverage policy combined with high drug prices and outdated reimbursement systems may create barriers to patient access to innovation and high-quality cancer care. To understand how trends in health policy are impacting the oncology ecosystem, NCCN convened the NCCN Policy Summit: Policy Strategies for the "New Normal" in Healthcare to Ensure Access to High-Quality Cancer Care on June 25, 2018. The summit included discussion of how innovation is changing cancer treatment, care delivery, and ways health systems are responding; the impact of narrow networks on access to academic cancer centers; and how the evolving health policy landscape is affecting access to high-quality cancer care for patients.

Policy Challenges and Opportunities to Address Changing Paradigms in Cancer Care Delivery.

Multiple factors are forcing the healthcare delivery system to change. A movement toward value-based payment models is shifting these systems to team-based integration and coordination of care for better efficiencies and outcomes. Workforce shortages are stressing access and quality of care for patients with cancer and survivors, and their families and caregivers. Innovative therapies are expensive, forcing payers and employers to prioritize resources. Patients are advocating for care models centered on their needs rather than those of providers. In response, payment policies have recently focused on the promotion of alternative payment models that incentivize coordinated, high-quality care with consideration for value and controlling the increasing overall costs associated with cancer and its treatment. Given the multitude of factors confounding cancer care, NCCN convened a multistakeholder working group to examine the challenges and opportunities presented by changing paradigms in cancer care delivery. The group identified key challenges and developed policy recommendations to address 4 high-visibility topics in cancer care delivery. The findings and recommendations were then presented at the NCCN Policy Summit: Policy Challenges and Opportunities to Address Changing Paradigms in Cancer Care Delivery in September 2018, and multistakeholder roundtable panel discussions explored these findings and recommendations along with additional items. This article encapsulates the discussion from the NCCN Working Group meetings and the NCCN Policy Summit, including multistakeholder policy recommendations on delivery issues in cancer care designed to help inform national policies moving forward.

Redefining Quality Measurement in Cancer Care.

Quality measurement in oncology is increasing in significance as payment schemes shift from volume to value. As demand for quality measures increases, challenges in the development of quality measures, standardization across measures, and the limitations of health information technology have become apparent. Moreover, the time and financial burden associated with developing, tracking, and reporting quality measures are substantial. Despite these challenges, best practices and leaders in the field of quality measurement in oncology have emerged. To understand the current challenges and promising practices in quality measurement and to explore future considerations for measure development and measure reporting in oncology, NCCN convened the NCCN Policy Summit: Redefining Quality Measurement in Oncology. The summit included discussion of the current quality landscape and efforts to develop quality measures, use of quality measures in various programs, patient perspective of quality, and challenges and best practices for quality reporting.

Addressing Survivorship in Cancer Care.

As a disease, cancer can affect an individual's well-being, from physical to psychological, social, and even spiritual wellness. The cancer survivor population must navigate a complex, constantly evolving field, with the assistance of their care team, to conquer the disease. To address the unmet needs of the cancer survivorship community, NCCN conducted an environmental scan of existing and emerging aspects of survivorship cancer care through stakeholder meetings with survivors and patient advocacy groups to discuss needs, opportunities, and challenges in providing high-quality, patient-centered cancer survivorship care. The findings of this environmental scan directly informed the corresponding NCCN Patient Advocacy Summit: Addressing Survivorship in Cancer Care, held in Washington, DC, on December 1, 2017. In addition to the many patient advocacy groups, the summit featured stakeholders from all relevant areas of survivorship care. This article encapsulates the findings of the thorough environmental scan and the discussion from the NCCN Patient Advocacy Summit, including identified gaps and needs in addressing survivorship in cancer care.

Bridging the Gap Among Clinical Practice Guidelines for Pain Management in Cancer and Sickle Cell Disease.

Opioids are a critical component of pain relief strategies for the management of patients with cancer and sickle cell disease. The escalation of opioid addiction and overdose in the United States has led to increased scrutiny of opioid prescribing practices. Multiple reports have revealed that regulatory and coverage policies, intended to curb inappropriate opioid use, have created significant barriers for many patients. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and ASCO each publish clinical practice guidelines for the management of chronic pain. A recent JAMA Oncology article highlighted perceived variability in recommendations among these guidelines. In response, leadership from guideline organizations, government representatives, and authors of the original article met to discuss challenges and solutions. The meeting featured remarks by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, presentations on each clinical practice guideline, an overview of the pain management needs of patients with sickle cell disease, an overview of perceived differences among guidelines, and a discussion of differences and commonalities among the guidelines. The meeting revealed that although each guideline varies in the intended patient population, target audience, and methodology, there is no disagreement among recommendations when applied to the appropriate patient and clinical situation. It was determined that clarification and education are needed regarding the intent, patient population, and scope of each clinical practice guideline, rather than harmonization of guideline recommendations. Clinical practice guidelines can serve as a resource for policymakers and payers to inform policy and coverage determinations.