Time to add screening for financial hardship as a quality measure?

Cancer treatment is associated with financial hardship for many patients and families. Screening for financial hardship and referrals to appropriate resources for mitigation are not currently part of most clinical practices. In fact, discussions regarding the cost of treatment occur infrequently in clinical practice. As the cost of cancer treatment continues to rise, the need to mitigate adverse consequences of financial hardship grows more urgent. The introduction of quality measurement and reporting has been successful in establishing standards of care, reducing disparities in receipt of care, and improving other aspects of cancer care outcomes within and across providers. The authors propose the development and adoption of financial hardship screening and management as an additional quality metric for oncology practices. They suggest relevant stakeholders, conveners, and approaches for developing, testing, and implementing a screening and management tool and advocate for endorsement by organizations such as the National Quality Forum and professional societies for oncology care clinicians. The confluence of increasingly high-cost care and widening disparities in ability to pay because of underinsurance and lack of health insurance coverage makes a strong argument to take steps to mitigate the financial consequences of cancer.

Health Care Lobbying and Oncology.

BACKGROUND: The health care industry spends more on lobbying than any other industry, with more than $700 million spent in 2022. However, health care lobbying related to cancer has not been characterized. In this study, we sought to describe overall health sector lobbying spending and oncology-related lobbying spending across patient and clinician organizations. METHODS: We obtained lobbying data from OpenSecrets.org and the Federal Election Commission. Overall health sector lobbying spending was categorized by OpenSecrets into 4 groups: pharmaceuticals/health products, health services/health maintenance organizations (HMOs), hospitals/nursing homes, and health professionals. We then identified and categorized 4 oncology-related lobbying groups: oncology physician professional organizations (OPPOs), prospective payment system (PPS)-exempt cancer hospitals, patient advocacy organizations, and provider networks (eg, US Oncology Network). We described temporal trends in lobbying spending from 2014 to 2022, in both overall dollar value (inflation-adjusted 2023 dollars) and in per-physician spending (using American Association of Medical Colleges [AAMC] data for number of hematologists/oncologists) using a Mann-Kendall trend test. RESULTS: Among the overall health sector lobbying, pharmaceuticals/health products had the greatest increase in lobbying spending, with an increase from $294 million in 2014 to >$376 million in 2022 (P=.0006). In contrast, lobbying spending by health professionals did not change, remaining at $96 million (P=.35). Regarding oncology-related lobbying, OPPOs and PPS-exempt cancer hospitals had a significant increase of 170% (P=.016) and 62% (P=.009), respectively. Per-physician spending also demonstrated an increase from $60 to $134 for OPPOs and from $168 to $226 for PPS-exempt cancer hospitals. Overall, OPPO lobbying increased as a percentage of overall physician lobbying from 1.16% in 2014 to 3.76% in 2022. CONCLUSIONS: Although overall health sector lobbying has increased, physician/health professional lobbying has remained relatively stable in recent years, spending for lobbying by OPPOs has increased. Continued efforts to understand the utility and value of lobbying in health care and across oncology are needed as the costs of care continue to increase.

Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Next-Generation Sequencing as a Biomarker Testing Approach in Oncology and Policy Implications: A Literature Review.

OBJECTIVE: A key hurdle in broader next-generation sequencing (NGS) biomarker testing access in oncology is the ongoing debate on NGS's cost-effectiveness. We conducted a systematic review of existing evidence of the costs of NGS as a biomarker testing strategy in oncology and developed policy suggestions. METHODS: We searched multiple databases for studies reporting cost comparisons and cost-effectiveness of NGS across oncology indications and geographies between 2017 and 2022, inclusive. Inclusion criteria were established based on indication and type of cost-effectiveness analysis provided. We validated analyses and policy recommendations with 5 payer/policy maker interviews in the United States, Europe, and United Kingdom. RESULTS: Of the 634 identified studies, 29 met inclusion criteria, spanning 12 countries and 6 indications. Cost comparisons of NGS were evaluated using 3 methodologies: (1) comparison of direct testing costs, (2) comparison of holistic testing costs, and (3) comparison of long-term patient outcomes and costs. Targeted panel testing (2-52 genes) was considered cost-effective when 4+ genes were assessed, and larger panels (hundreds of genes) were generally not cost-effective. Holistic analysis demonstrated that NGS reduces turnaround time, healthcare staff requirements, number of hospital visits, and hospital costs. Finally, studies evaluating NGS testing including the cost of targeted therapies generally found the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to be above common thresholds but highlighted valuable patient benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Current literature supports NGS's cost-effectiveness as an oncology biomarker testing strategy under specific conditions. These findings underscore the need to develop policies to support holistic assessment of NGS to ensure appropriate reimbursement and access.

Real-world evidence in the reassessment of oncology therapies: payer perceptions from five countries.

Aim: This study explored the perceived value of real-world evidence (RWE) in the reassessment of oncology therapies by collecting the perspectives of health technology assessment/payer decision-makers.Materials & methods: A web-based survey was conducted using the Market Access Transformation Rapid Payer Response online portal. 30 participants from France, Germany, Spain, the UK and the USA were recruited based on their expertise.Results: Participants agreed that the most common uses of RWE are to confirm efficacy and safety results from randomized controlled trials and to reevaluate the projected utilization of an oncology therapy. We found variability in other reported uses of RWE.Conclusion: The organizations developing RWE should ensure that their plans recognize the heterogeneity in payer perceptions.

A survey from the Market Access Transformation RPR portal queried decision-makers from five countries about the value of real-world evidence in oncology therapy reassessment. Participants agreed that RWE can confirm efficacy/safety and reevaluate utilization, but other uses varied.

The need for economic evaluations for neuro-oncology in low- and middleincome: the Pakistan perspective.

The incidence and prevalence of brain tumours have steadily increased within low- and middle-income countries, similar to patterns seen in high-income countries. In addition to the epidemiological landscape of brain tumours in Pakistan, it is important to consider the economics of brain tumour diagnosis and management to inform policy on neuro-oncological healthcare service delivery. The challenges associated with conducting economic evaluations in LMICs include the ability to receive funding for country-specific estimates, dearth of existing data and methodological development, and the need for investment in economic evaluations of health. Economic evaluations are most useful when funding support is given to country-specific initiatives to allocate resources. Cost and cost components must also be meticulously collected to enable accurate calculations of economic evidence for the decision-making process. To put neuro-oncological care at the forefront of the national health agenda, it is crucial for vigorous epidemiological and economic evidence to be available for policymakers.

Trends in treatment patterns and survival outcomes in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a Canadian population-based real-world analysis.

BACKGROUND: As part of the multi-country I-O Optimise research initiative, this population-based study evaluated real-world treatment patterns and overall survival (OS) in patients treated for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) before and after public reimbursement of immuno-oncology (I-O) therapies in Alberta province, Canada. METHODS: This study used data from the Oncology Outcomes (O2) database, which holds information for ~ 4.5 million residents of Alberta. Eligible patients were adults newly diagnosed with NSCLC between January 2010 and December 2017 and receiving first-line therapy for advanced NSCLC (stage IIIB or IV) either in January 2010-March 2016 (pre-I-O period) or April 2016-June 2019 (post-I-O period). Time periods were based on the first public reimbursement of I-O therapy in Alberta (April 2017), with a built-in 1-year lag time before this date to allow progression to second-line therapy, for which the I-O therapy was indicated. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate OS. RESULTS: Of 2244 analyzed patients, 1501 (66.9%) and 743 (33.1%) received first-line treatment in the pre-I-O and post-I-O periods, respectively. Between the pre-I-O and post-I-O periods, proportions of patients receiving chemotherapy decreased, with parallel increases in proportions receiving I-O therapies in both the first-line (from < 0.5% to 17%) and second-line (from 8% to 47%) settings. Increased use of I-O therapies in the post-I-O period was observed in subgroups with non-squamous (first line, 15%; second line, 39%) and squamous (first line, 25%; second line, 65%) histology. First-line use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors also increased among patients with non-squamous histology (from 26% to 30%). In parallel with these evolving treatment patterns, median OS increased from 10.2 to 12.1 months for all patients (P < 0.001), from 11.8 to 13.7 months for patients with non-squamous histology (P = 0.022) and from 7.8 to 9.4 months for patients with squamous histology (P = 0.215). CONCLUSIONS: Following public reimbursement, there was a rapid and profound adoption of I-O therapies for advanced NSCLC in Alberta, Canada. In addition, OS outcomes were significantly improved for patients treated in the post-I-O versus pre-I-O periods. These data lend support to the emerging body of evidence for the potential real-world benefits of I-O therapies for treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC.

Costs associated with United States pharmacopeia compliant infusion clinics.

PURPOSE: As costs continue to rise in oncology, a strategy that has been implemented to limit these costs is use of alternative sites of care. However, there are differences in regulatory standards between common sites of care such as freestanding infusion clinics and hospital outpatient departments. The costs associated with United States Pharmacopeia compliance were evaluated in order to better understand the cost of universally compliant hospital outpatient departments. METHODS: Annual operational costs associated with United States Pharmacopeia compliance were estimated for a 30-chair infusion clinic with United States Pharmacopeia <797> and <800> pharmacy cleanrooms for non-hazardous and hazardous drugs, respectively. Annual United States Pharmacopeia compliance costs included: competency assessments, personal protective equipment, closed system transfer devices, labels, cleaning supplies, and environmental monitoring. One-time costs included initial cleanroom construction and renovations. Published information and benchmarks provided baseline assumptions for patient volume, staffing, and unit costs. If no published data was available, prices were estimated based on a similarly sized clinic. RESULTS: Recurring annual costs for a 30-chair fully compliant infusion clinic were calculated to be $785,207. One-time costs associated with initial construction and renovations were estimated to be $1,365,207-$1,535,207 and $965,207-$1,005,207, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Costs associated with increased operational oversight and regulatory standards are a major contributing factor to the facility fee of hospital outpatient departments. Ultimately, all sites of care share in the goal to provide optimal patient care while considering all aspects of patient care, including cost. Therefore, a move towards consistent regulatory standards across all settings would aid in preventing discrepancies in care.

Conflicts of interest in oncology expanded access studies.

Expanded access is a treatment use of investigational drugs, biologicals or medical devices outside of clinical trials. The purpose of our study was to assess self-reported conflicts of interest (COIs) in oncology expanded access studies. One hundred fifty-eight oncology expanded access studies published from 2013 through 2020 were included. The pharmaceutical industry funded either completely or in part 94 studies (59.49%). The authors disclosed mostly financial COIs, while the number of the reported nonfinancial conflicts was relatively small (3528 and 57 COIs, respectively). The number of articles in which at least one author had a financial COI was 118 (74.68%). The most common financial COI types included advisory board membership/consulting (1471 COIs; 41.7%), followed by honoraria (570 COIs; 16.16%) and research funding (441 COIs; 12.5%). Logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of disclosing financial COIs and positive study's conclusions. On univariate analysis, financial COIs were more likely to occur in studies with at least one center located in the United States (odds ratio [OR], 5.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.57-35.98; P = .02). We also found that positive conclusions about the studied treatments were less likely in studies without industry funding (OR, 0.26; CI, 0.08-0.77; P = .01). Most of the research on COIs in oncology performed to date focused on other types of studies, especially clinical trials. To our knowledge, our study is the first to evaluate COIs in oncology expanded access studies.

Financial relationships between industry and principal investigators of US cooperative group randomized cancer clinical trials.

Financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) could bias the potentially practice-changing oncologic randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of tomorrow. This investigation characterized the FCOIs of the principal investigators (PIs) of all currently accruing trials of the four (adult) cooperative groups of the National Clinical Trials Network. For our study, the PI list was first compiled, and each name was then searched in the CMS Open Payments database. For each transaction (general payments (GPs) or research funding (RF)), the amount/number/source of payments was recorded. Results showed that from 2014 to 2019, the 91 PIs collectively accepted nearly one-third of a billion dollars ($10 477 023 GPs and $320 096 233 RF). The mean and median GP was $6505 and $945, respectively, and $301 693 and $49 824 RF, respectively. Multivariable Gamma regression analysis revealed that higher GP sums were associated with RCTs involving any type of systemic therapy, and higher RF sums with medical oncologist PIs, trials with phase III components, and RCTs involving radiotherapy (P < .05 for all). Both higher-volume GPs and RF were predicted by PIs having accepted payment(s) from the manufacturer of the drug utilized in their RCT (P < .001 GP, P = .008 RF). Taken together, the main message of this investigation is that FCOIs may be particularly high in PIs of phase III systemic therapy trials, especially if the PI accepted payments from the manufacturer of the drug utilized in their trial. Such RCTs should be thoroughly scrutinized by medical journals, the FDA, and insurance companies for potential "industry bias" that could influence the integrity of their conclusions.

Establishment and implementation of Cancer Genomic Medicine in Japan.

Approximately 1 in 2 Japanese people are estimated to be diagnosed with cancer during their lifetime. Cancer still remains the leading cause of death in Japan, therefore the government of Japan has decided to develop a better cancer control policy and launched the Cancer Genomic Medicine (CGM) program. The Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare (MHLW) held a consortium at their headquarters with leading academic authorities and the representatives of related organizations to discuss ways to advance CGM in Japan. Based on the report of the consortium, the CGM system under the national health insurance system has gradually been realized. Eleven hospitals were designated in February 2018 as core hospitals for CGM; subsequently, the MHLW built the Center for Cancer Genomics and Advanced Therapeutics (C-CAT) as an institution to aggregate and manage genomic and clinical information on cancer patients, and support appropriate secondary use of the aggregated information to develop research aimed at medical innovation. As the first step in Japan's CGM in routine practice, in June 2019 the MHLW started reimbursement of 2 types of tumor profiling tests for advanced solid cancer patients using the national insurance system. Japan's CGM has swiftly been spreading nationwide with the collaboration of 167 hospitals and patients. The health and research authorities are expected to embody personalized cancer medicine and promote CGM utilizing state-of-the-art technologies.

An urgent call to raise the bar in oncology.

Important breakthroughs in medical treatments have improved outcomes for patients suffering from several types of cancer. However, many oncological treatments approved by regulatory agencies are of low value and do not contribute significantly to cancer mortality reduction, but lead to unrealistic patient expectations and push even affluent societies to unsustainable health care costs. Several factors that contribute to approvals of low-value oncology treatments are addressed, including issues with clinical trials, bias in reporting, regulatory agency shortcomings and drug pricing. With the COVID-19 pandemic enforcing the elimination of low-value interventions in all fields of medicine, efforts should urgently be made by all involved in cancer care to select only high-value and sustainable interventions. Transformation of medical education, improvement in clinical trial design, quality, conduct and reporting, strict adherence to scientific norms by regulatory agencies and use of value-based scales can all contribute to raising the bar for oncology drug approvals and influence drug pricing and availability.

Discrepancies between author- and industry-reported disclosures of financial relationships at an annual gynecologic oncology research meeting.

OBJECTIVE: Trillions of dollars pass to physicians from industry-related businesses annually, leading to many opportunities for financial conflicts of interest. The Open Payments Database (OPD) was created to ensure transparency. We describe the industry relationships as reported in the OPD for presenters at the 2019 Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) Annual Meeting and evaluate concordance between author disclosures of their financial interests and information provided by the OPD. METHODS: This is an observational, cross-sectional study. Disclosure data were collected from authors with oral and featured abstract presentations in the 2019 SGO annual conference. These disclosures were compared to data available for each author in the 2018 OPD, which included the amount and nature of industry payments. RESULTS: We examined the disclosures of 301 authors who met inclusion criteria. Of 161 authors who had disclosure statements on their presentations,147 reported "no disclosures," and 14 disclosed industry relationships. The remaining 140 did not list any disclosure information. Sixty percent (184/301) of authors had industry relationships in the 2018 OPD, including 173 of 287 (60.3%) of authors who either reported no disclosures or did not have disclosure data available in their presentations. These transactions totaled over 43 million USD from 122 different companies, with most payments (46%) categorized as "Research or Associated Research." Accurate disclosure reporting was associated with receiving higher payments or research payments, and being a presenting author. CONCLUSIONS: Most authors at the SGO annual conference did not correctly disclose their industry relationships when compared with their entries in the OPD.

Gynecologic oncology treatment modifications or delays in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in a publicly funded versus privately funded North American tertiary cancer center.

OBJECTIVE: To compare gynecologic oncology surgical treatment modifications and delays during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic between a publicly funded Canadian versus a privately funded American cancer center. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of all planned gynecologic oncology surgeries at University Health Network (UHN) in Toronto, Canada and Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) in Boston, USA, between March 22,020 and July 302,020. Surgical treatment delays and modifications at both centers were compared to standard recommendations. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: A total of 450 surgical gynecologic oncology patients were included; 215 at UHN and 235 at BWH. There was a significant difference in median time from decision-to-treat to treatment (23 vs 15 days, p < 0.01) between UHN and BWH and a significant difference in treatment delays (32.56% vs 18.29%; p < 0.01) and modifications (8.37% vs 0.85%; p < 0.01), respectively. On multivariable analysis adjusting for age, race, treatment site and surgical priority status, treatment at UHN was an independent predictor of treatment modification (OR = 9.43,95% CI 1.81-49.05, p < 0.01). Treatment delays were higher at UHN (OR = 1.96,95% CI 1.14-3.36 p = 0.03) and for uterine disease (OR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.11-5.33, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: During the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic, gynecologic oncology patients treated at a publicly funded Canadian center were 9.43 times more likely to have a surgical treatment modification and 1.96 times more likely to have a surgical delay compared to an equal volume privately funded center in the United States.

Factors Contributing to Delay in Specialist Care After Colorectal Cancer Diagnosis in Kentucky.

BACKGROUND: Abundant studies have associated colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment delay with advanced diagnosis and worse mortality. Delay in seeking specialist is a contributor to CRC treatment delay. The goal of this study is to investigate contributing factors to 14-d delay from diagnosis of CRC on colonoscopy to the first specialist visit in the state of Kentucky. METHODS: The Kentucky Cancer Registry (KCR) database linked with health administrative claims data was queried to include adult patients diagnosed with stage I-IV CRC from January 2007 to December 2012. The dates of the last colonoscopy and the first specialist visit were identified through the claims. Bivariate and logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with delay to CRC specialist visit. RESULTS: A total of 3927 patients from 100 hospitals in Kentucky were included. Approximately, 19% of patients with CRC visited a specialist more than 14 d after CRC detection on colonoscopy. Delay to specialist (DTS) was found more likely in patients with Medicaid insurance (OR 3.1, P < 0.0001), low and moderate education level (OR 1.4 and 1.3, respectively, P = 0.0127), and stage I CRC (OR 1.5, P < 0.0001). There was a higher percentage of delay to specialist among Medicaid patients (44.0%) than Medicare (18.0%) and privately insured patients (18.8%). CONCLUSIONS: We identified Medicaid insurance, low education attainment, and early stage CRC diagnosis as independent risk factors associated with 14-d delay in seeking specialist care after CRC detection on colonoscopy.

Reaching Across the Aisle: Cardio-Oncology Advocacy and Program Building.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This study aims to assess the current state of cardio-oncology in reference to advocacy efforts, access to care, and perspective of stakeholders in their ability to provide patient care as well as development of "across the aisle" synergy among cardiologists and oncologists and academic and non-academic centers in various worldwide locations. RECENT FINDINGS: During the last decade, there has been a significant and diverse growth in cardio-oncology. We reviewed the experience from cardiologists and oncologists across different healthcare systems, the global trends, the role of collaborative networks, and the importance of advocacy efforts. Cardio-oncology will continue to grow, but there is an unmet need to increase awareness, improve education, and expand access to care to larger segments of the cancer population in order to have a more significant impact on their health. The growing collaboration through professional societies and collaborative networks provides an opportunity to advance the cardiovascular care of cancer patients to meet the projected needs in a growing and more diverse population.

Direct costs of antineoplastic and supportive treatment for progressive multiple myeloma in a tax-based health system.

Aim: To estimate current real-world costs of drugs and supportive care for the treatment of multiple myeloma in a tax-based health system. Methods: Forty-one patients were included from a personalized medicine study (2016-2019). Detailed information was collected from patient journals and hospital registries to estimate the total and mean costs using inverse probability weighting of censored data. Results: Total observed (censored) costs for the 41 patients was €8.84 million during 125 treatment years, with antineoplastic drugs as the main cost driver (€5.6 million). Individual costs showed large variations. Mean 3-year cost per patient from first progression was €182,103 (€131,800-232,405). Conclusion: Prediction of real-world costs is hindered by the availability of detailed costing data. Micro-costing analyses are needed for budgeting and real-world evaluation of cost-effectiveness.

Lay abstract In recent years, there has been a dramatic improvement in the treatment of multiple myeloma due to the introduction of new drugs. These drugs have significantly increased survival but have also had an immense impact on healthcare budgets. In this study, we used detailed treatment information for multiple myeloma patients in combination with billing data from the hospital pharmacy at a Danish hospital to calculate individual cost histories for both drugs and supportive care. Using these data, we estimated the mean 3-year cost of a multiple myeloma patient to be €182.103, but we also found large variation between patients, causing an uncertainty of €50.000 in either direction. We believe that detailed costing studies, similar to the present one, are necessary for evaluation of cost-effectiveness of drugs in clinical practice.

What Is the Value of Undergoing Surgery for Spinal Metastases at Dedicated Cancer Centers?

BACKGROUND: The Alliance of Dedicated Cancer Centers is an organization of 11 leading cancer institutions and affiliated hospitals that are exempt from the Medicare prospective system hospital reimbursement policies. Because of their focus on cancer care and participation in innovative cancer treatment methods and protocols, these hospitals are reimbursed based on their actual billings. The perceived lack of incentive to meet a predetermined target price and reduce costs has spurred criticism of the value of cancer care at these institutions. The rationale of our study was to better understand whether dedicated cancer centers (DCCs) deliver high-value care for patients undergoing surgical treatment of spinal metastases. QUESTION/PURPOSE: Is there a difference in 90-day complications and reimbursements between patients undergoing surgical treatment (decompression or fusion) for spinal metastases at DCCs and those treated at nonDCC hospitals? METHODS: The 2005 to 2014 100% Medicare Standard Analytical Files database was queried using ICD-9 procedure and diagnosis codes to identify patients undergoing decompression (03.0, 03.09, and 03.4) and/or fusion (81.0X) for spinal metastases (198.5). The database does not allow us to exclude the possibility that some patients were treated with fusion for stabilization of the spine without decompression, although this is likely an uncommon event. Patients undergoing vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty for metastatic disease were excluded. The Medicare hospital provider identification numbers were used to identify the 11 DCCs. The study cohort was categorized into two groups: DCCs and nonDCCs. Although spinal metastases are known to occur among nonMedicare and younger patients, the payment policies of these DCCs are only applicable to Medicare beneficiaries. Therefore, to keep the study objective relevant to current policy and value-based discussions, we performed the analysis using the Medicare dataset. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we included 17,776 patients in the study, 6% (1138 of 17,776) of whom underwent surgery at one of the 11 DCCs. Compared with the nonDCC group, DCC group hospitals operated on a younger patient population and on more patients with primary renal cancers. In addition, DCCs were more likely to be high-volume facilities with National Cancer Institute designations and have a voluntary or government ownership model. Patients undergoing surgery for spinal metastases at DCCs were more likely to have spinal decompression with fusion than those at nonDCCs (40% versus 22%; p < 0.001) and had a greater length and extent of fusion (at least four levels of fusion; 34% versus 29%; p = 0.001). Patients at DCCs were also more likely than those at nonDCCs to receive postoperative adjunct treatments such as radiation (16% versus 13.5%; p = 0.008) and chemotherapy (17% versus 9%; p < 0.001), although this difference is small and we do not know if this meets a minimum clinically important difference. To account for differences in patients presenting at both types of facilities, multivariate logistic regression mixed-model analyses were used to compare rates of 90-day complications and 90-day mortality between DCC and nonDCC hospitals. Controls were implemented for baseline clinical characteristics, procedural factors, and hospital-level factors (such as random effects). Generalized linear regression mixed-modeling was used to evaluate differences in total 90-day reimbursements between DCCs and nonDCCs. RESULTS: After adjusting for differences in baseline demographics, procedural factors, and hospital-level factors, patients undergoing surgery at DCCs had lower odds of experiencing sepsis (6.5% versus 10%; odds ratio 0.54 [95% confidence interval 0.40 to 0.74]; p < 0.001), urinary tract infections (19% versus 28%; OR 0.61 [95% CI 0.50 to 0.74]; p < 0.001), renal complications (9% versus 13%; OR 0.55 [95% CI 0.42 to 0.72]; p < 0.001), emergency department visits (27% versus 31%; OR 0.78 [95% CI 0.64 to 0.93]; p = 0.01), and mortality (39% versus 49%; OR 0.75 [95% CI 0.62 to 0.89]; p = 0.001) within 90 days of the procedure compared with patients treated at nonDCCs. Undergoing surgery at a DCC (90-day reimbursement of USD 54,588 ± USD 42,914) compared with nonDCCs (90-day reimbursement of USD 49,454 ± USD 38,174) was also associated with reduced 90-day risk-adjusted reimbursements (USD -14,802 [standard error 1362] ; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Based on our findings, it appears that DCCs offer high-value care, as evidenced by lower complication rates and reduced reimbursements after surgery for spinal metastases. A better understanding of the processes of care adopted at these institutions is needed so that additional cancer centers may also be able to deliver similar care for patients with metastatic spine disease. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Prices and clinical benefit of cancer drugs in the USA and Europe: a cost-benefit analysis.

BACKGROUND: Increasing cancer drug prices are a challenge for patients and health systems in the USA and Europe. By contrast with the USA, national authorities in European countries often directly negotiate drug prices with manufacturers. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) developed frameworks to evaluate the clinical value of cancer therapies: the ASCO-Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). We aimed to assess the association between the clinical benefit of approved cancer drugs based on these frameworks and their drug prices in the USA and four European countries (England, Switzerland, Germany, and France). METHODS: For this cost-benefit analysis, we identified all new drugs with initial indications for adult cancers that were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration between Jan 1, 2009, and Dec 31, 2017, and by the European Medicines Agency up until Sept 1, 2019. For drugs indicated for solid tumours, we assessed clinical benefit using ASCO-VF and ESMO-MCBS. We compared monthly drug treatment costs between benefit levels using hierarchical linear regression models, and calculated Spearman's correlation coefficients between costs and benefit levels for individual countries. FINDINGS: Our cohort included 65 drugs: 47 (72%) drugs were approved for solid tumours and 18 (28%) were approved for haematological malignancies. The monthly drug treatment costs in the USA were a median of 2·31 times (IQR 1·79-3·17) as high as in the assessed European countries. There were no significant associations between monthly treatment costs for solid tumours and clinical benefit in all assessed countries, using the ESMO-MCBS (p=0·16 for the USA, p=0·98 for England, p=0·54 for Switzerland, p=0·52 for Germany, and p=0·40 for France), and for all assessed countries except France using ASCO-VF (p=0·56 for the USA, p=0·47 for England, p=0·26 for Switzerland, p=0·23 for Germany, and p=0·037 for France). INTERPRETATION: Cancer drugs with low or uncertain clinical benefit might be prioritised for price negotiations. Value frameworks could help identify therapies providing high clinical benefit that should be made rapidly available across countries. FUNDING: Swiss Cancer Research Foundation (Krebsforschung Schweiz).

Cancer in Syrian refugees in Jordan and Lebanon between 2015 and 2017.

Protracted conflicts in the Middle East have led to successive waves of refugees crossing borders. Chronic, non-communicable diseases are now recognised as diseases that need to be addressed in such crises. Cancer, in particular, with its costly, multidisciplinary care, poses considerable financial and ethical challenges for policy makers. In 2014 and with funding from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, we reported on cancer cases among Iraqi refugees in Jordan (2010-12) and Syria (2009-11). In this Policy Review, we provide data on 733 refugees referred to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Lebanon (2015-17) and Jordan (2016-17), analysed by cancer type, demographic risk factors, treatment coverage status, and cost. Results show the need for increased funding and evidence-based standard operating procedures across countries to ensure that patients have equitable access to care. We recommend a holistic response to humanitarian crises that includes education, screening, treatment, and palliative care for refugees and nationals and prioritises breast cancer and childhood cancers.

Value assessment of oncology drugs using a weighted criterion-based approach.

BACKGROUND: Globally, the rising cost of anticancer therapy has motivated efforts to quantify the overall value of new cancer treatments. Multicriteria decision analysis offers a novel approach to incorporate multiple criteria and perspectives into value assessment. METHODS: The authors recruited a diverse, multistakeholder group who identified and weighted key criteria to establish the drug assessment framework (DAF). Construct validity assessed the degree to which DAF scores were associated with past pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) funding recommendations and European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS; version 1.1) scores. RESULTS: The final DAF included 10 criteria: overall survival, progression-free survival, response rate, quality of life, toxicity, unmet need, equity, feasibility, disease severity, and caregiver well-being. The first 5 clinical benefit criteria represent approximately 64% of the total weight. DAF scores ranged from 0 to 300, reflecting both the expected impact of the drug and the quality of supporting evidence. When the DAF was applied to the last 60 drugs (with reviewers blinded) reviewed by pCODR (2015-2018), those drugs with positive pCODR funding recommendations were found to have higher DAF scores compared with drugs not recommended (103 vs 63; Student t test P = .0007). DAF clinical benefit criteria mildly correlated with ESMO-MCBS scores (correlation coefficient, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.009-0.59). Sensitivity analyses that varied the criteria scores did not change the results. CONCLUSIONS: Using a structured and explicit approach, a criterion-based valuation framework was designed to provide a transparent and consistent method with which to value and prioritize cancer drugs to facilitate the delivery of affordable cancer care.