Medical oncologists' willingness to participate in bundled payment programs.

BACKGROUND: Bundled payment programs play an increasingly important role in transforming reimbursement for oncologic care. We assessed determinants of oncologists' willingness to participate in bundled payment programs for breast cancer. We hypothesized that providers would be more likely to participate in bundled payment programs if offered higher levels of reimbursement for each episode of care. METHODS: Oncologists from Florida, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania were identified in the AMA database or by patients listed in state cancer registries. Providers were randomized to receive one of four versions of a survey describing bundled payment programs offering different levels of compensation for the first year of localized breast cancer treatment ($5000, $10,000, $15,000, or $20,000). Physicians rated their likelihood of participation in a bundled program on a Likert scale. Logistic regression was used to analyze determinants of likelihood of participation in bundling. RESULTS: Among 460 respondents, only 17% of oncologists were highly likely to participate in a bundled program paying $5000 for the first year of care, rising to 41% for the $15,000 program, but falling to 34% for the $20,000 program. Likelihood of participation was higher among oncologists who were male, older, and believed that cancer patients should not be offered high-cost drugs with minimal survival benefit. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that medical oncologists have limited enthusiasm for bundled payments, and higher payments may not overcome resistance to bundling among a substantial proportion of physicians.

Uptake of BRCA 1/2 and oncotype DX testing by medical and surgical oncologists.

PURPOSE: The diffusion of genomic testing is critical to the success of precision medicine, but there is limited information on oncologists' uptake of genetic technology. We aimed to assess the frequency with which medical oncologists and surgeons order BRCA 1/2 and Oncotype DX testing for breast cancer patients. METHODS: We surveyed 732 oncologists and surgeons treating breast cancer patients. Physicians were from Florida, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, and were listed in the 2010 AMA Masterfile or identified by patients. RESULTS: 80.6% of providers ordered BRCA 1/2 testing at least sometimes and 85.4% ordered Oncotype DX (p = 0.01). More frequent ordering of BRCA 1/2 was associated with more positive attitudes toward genetic innovation (OR 1.14, p = 0.001), a belief that testing was likely to be covered by patients' insurance (OR 2.84, p < 0.001), and more frequent ordering of Oncotype DX testing (OR 8.69, p < 0.001). More frequent use of Oncotype DX was associated with a belief that testing was likely to be covered by insurance (OR 7.33, p < 0.001), as well as with more frequent ordering of BRCA 1/2 testing (OR 9.48, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly one in five providers never or rarely ever ordered BRCA 1/2 testing for their breast cancer patients, and nearly 15% never or rarely ever ordered Oncotype DX. Less frequent ordering of BRCA 1/2 is associated with less frequent use of Oncotype DX testing, and vice versa. Those who do not order BRCA 1/2 testing report less positive attitudes toward genetic innovation. Further education of this subset of providers regarding the benefits of precision medicine may enable more rapid diffusion of genetic technology.

Health Care Segregation, Physician Recommendation, and Racial Disparities in BRCA1/2 Testing Among Women With Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Racial disparities in BRCA1/2 testing have been documented, but causes of these disparities are poorly understood. The study objective was to investigate whether the distribution of black and white patients across cancer providers contributes to disparities in BRCA1/2 testing. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a population-based study of women in Pennsylvania and Florida who were 18 to 64 years old and diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between 2007 and 2009, linking cancer registry data, the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile, and patient and physician surveys. The study included 3,016 women (69% white, 31% black), 808 medical oncologists, and 732 surgeons. RESULTS: Black women were less likely to undergo BRCA1/2 testing than white women (odds ratio [OR], 0.40; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.48; P < .001). This difference was attenuated but not eliminated by adjustment for mutation risk, clinical factors, sociodemographic characteristics, and attitudes about testing (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.81; P < .001). The care of black and white women was highly segregated across surgeons and oncologists (index of dissimilarity 64.1 and 61.9, respectively), but adjusting for clustering within physician or physician characteristics did not change the size of the testing disparity. Black women were less likely to report that they had received physician recommendation for BRCA1/2 testing even after adjusting for mutation risk (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.82; P < .001). Adjusting for physician recommendation further attenuated the testing disparity (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.02; P = .06). CONCLUSION: Although black and white patients with breast cancer tend to see different surgeons and oncologists, this distribution does not contribute to disparities in BRCA1/2 testing. Instead, residual racial differences in testing after accounting for patient and physician characteristics are largely attributable to differences in physician recommendations. Efforts to address these disparities should focus on ensuring equity in testing recommendations.

Impact of shortages of injectable oncology drugs on patient care.

PURPOSE: Results of a survey regarding shortages of injectable oncology drugs in U.S. hospitals and health systems are presented. METHODS: An online survey was sent to all members of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists self-identified as directors of pharmacy. Survey participants provided information on the extent to which their facilities were affected by oncology drug shortages, strategies for responding to shortages, and the effects of shortages on costs, patient safety, and outcomes. RESULTS: Ninety-eight percent of the 358 survey respondents reported at least one drug shortage during the previous 12 months, with 70% reporting instances of an inadequate supply to treat patients and 63% reporting that their facility had completely run out of at least one injectable oncology drug. Sixty-two percent of respondents reported using alternative drug regimens due to shortages; 46% reported drug dosage changes, 43% reported treatment delays, and 21% reported patient referrals to or from other facilities as a result of shortages. Survey respondents indicated the use of various strategies to manage oncology drug shortages (e.g., increasing inventories of certain drugs, identifying alternatives and substitution protocols, altered purchasing practices), all of which have led to cost increases. Twenty-five percent of respondents reported safety events resulting from oncology drug shortages. Only 40% of respondents agreed that currently available information is useful in mitigating the effects of shortages. CONCLUSION: Shortages of injectable oncology drugs appear to be widespread and to be having a significant impact on patient care. Currently available information about shortages does not meet administrative or clinical needs.