Exploring access to care from the perspective of patients with breast cancer: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Patients face a myriad of personal and system-based challenges in accessing breast cancer care, but less is known about access as expressed and experienced by patients themselves. The objective of this qualitative study was to further explore the breadth of issues related to access from the perspective of patients with breast cancer across their care journey. METHODS: Twelve women participated in 1-h semi-structured interviews and 48 women participated in 2-h focus groups at six oncology practices in 2018. Grounded theory was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Six primary themes emerged concerning access to care: information, psychosocial support, health insurance, financial resources, timeliness, and emotions. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified six core dimensions of access to care. Access encompassed not only gaining entrée to care services-in the traditional sense of access-but also the continuing support needed to effectively use those services throughout the cancer care journey. Future strategies aimed at improving access to breast cancer care should attend to these ongoing patient-centric and system-based issues which are mostly amenable to change.

Parkinson disease among patients treated for benign prostatic hyperplasia with α1 adrenergic receptor antagonists.

BACKGROUNDRecently the α1 adrenergic receptor antagonist terazosin was shown to activate PGK1, a possible target for the mitochondrial deficits in Parkinson disease related to its function as the initial enzyme in ATP synthesis during glycolysis. An epidemiological study of terazosin users showed a lower incidence of Parkinson disease when compared with users of tamsulosin, an α1 adrenergic receptor antagonist of a different class that does not activate PGK1. However, prior research on tamsulosin has suggested that it may in fact potentiate neurodegeneration, raising the question of whether it is an appropriate control group.METHODSTo address this question, we undertook an epidemiological study on Parkinson disease occurrence rate in 113,450 individuals from the United States with 5 or more years of follow-up. Patients were classified as tamsulosin users (n = 45,380), terazosin/alfuzosin/doxazosin users (n = 22,690), or controls matched for age, sex, and Charlson comorbidity index score (n = 45,380).RESULTSIncidence of Parkinson disease in tamsulosin users was 1.53%, which was significantly higher than that in both terazosin/alfuzosin/doxazosin users (1.10%, P < 0.0001) and matched controls (1.01%, P < 0.0001). Terazosin/alfuzosin/doxazosin users did not differ in Parkinson disease risk from matched controls (P = 0.29).CONCLUSIONThese results suggest that zosins may not confer a protective effect against Parkinson disease, but rather that tamsulosin may in some way potentiate Parkinson disease progression.FUNDINGThis work was supported by Cerevel Therapeutics.

Evaluation of access to care issues in patients with breast cancer.

AIMS: System-level efforts have been deployed to improve oncology care and access while reducing utilization and costs. Understanding the nature of access to care from the perspective of patients themselves is an unmet need. This study examined access to care in a population of women with breast cancer and its relationship to overall patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with breast cancer from six oncology clinics in five states completed a survey during routine office visits. Access to care (higher scores indicated increasing access barriers), overall patient satisfaction, and patient demographic/clinical characteristics were measured. The relationships between access (composite and factor scores) and satisfaction were assessed using multivariable analyses controlling for age (the only significant characteristic from bivariate analyses). RESULTS: A total of 180 patients completed the survey. Factor analysis of access to care items revealed an 8-factor measure - Insurance, Health System, Emotional, Holistic Treatment, Family Support, Knowledge/Understanding, Information Quality, and Financial Support - with high reliability (Composite: Cronbach alpha = 0.93; Factors: Cronbach alpha range = 0.85-0.91). Access composite score was moderately low (mean = 1.90), indicating an overall low level of access barriers, and overall patient satisfaction was high (mean = 4.59). The composite score (p < .001) and the Health System and Knowledge/Understanding factors (p < .01) were significant and negative predictors of overall satisfaction. LIMITATIONS: Study sites were high functioning clinics and all, but one, are Oncology Care Model practices. Thus, the scope of access to care issues for patients of under-resourced clinics might not be well addressed. CONCLUSIONS: Access to care overall and by factor was significantly predictive of patient satisfaction with care. In addition, access to care factors varied across several demographic and clinical characteristics. Future strategies that address access to care challenges should consider these modifiable, patient-centric, and system-based issues.

Drug Treatment Value in a Changing Oncology Landscape: A Literature and Provider Perspective.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. health care system's transition to a value-based reimbursement model holds important implications for medical innovation, care delivery, and value-based assessments of therapeutic interventions. This transition has been especially noteworthy in oncology, with substantial ongoing changes to payer reimbursement and the provider landscape, as well as the introduction of value frameworks to guide drug treatment decision making. The implications of these changes for provider assessments of drug value and evidence needs remain unclear. OBJECTIVES: To understand provider perspectives on drug value assessment and the utility of existing oncology value frameworks by identifying (a) key value-based trends in the evolving oncology landscape, (b) provider definitions of drug value, (c) the role of existing value frameworks in provider decision making, and (d) future provider evidence needs for making value-based treatment decisions. METHODS: We conducted a literature review to identify existing oncology value frameworks and definitions of drug treatment value in oncology. Using a structured discussion guide informed by this literature review, we conducted 12 telephone-based in-depth interviews in November and December 2017 with U.S. oncology providers involved in organizational drug treatment and formulary decision making within their practices. Responses to interview questions were analyzed and reported as averages and percentages across participants. RESULTS: Of 293 publications identified by keyword searches, 35 relevant articles were identified. Among these, the literature review identified no common definition for providers to assess drug value. Interview research participants described large ongoing changes in the oncology provider landscape, with economic pressures from payers as the foremost leading factor. Although 5 value frameworks were found in the literature, interviews found that in practice few providers consider these value frameworks to be key influences when evaluating treatment or formulary decisions. Furthermore, while 83% of participants' organizations employed some form of internal clinical pathways, only the minority (25%) with pathways integrated in their electronic medical record (EMR) systems saw these pathways as significantly affecting clinicians' drug treatment decision making. To aid the ongoing shift from volume-based to value-based care, we found that, rather than value frameworks, providers are looking for patient-level tools to make more appropriate drug decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Payer reimbursement pressures are leading to radical changes in the oncology provider landscape, and there is a need for improved guidance for providers in assessing drug value. In particular, this study identifies the need for a timely and multifaceted summary of information required to assess the value of alternative treatment options for a given patient. Manufacturers also need to make significant strides to help generate and improve the dissemination of evidence to support the value of their therapies. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this work was provided by Novartis Pharmaceuticals. The study sponsor was involved in study design, data interpretation, and data review. All authors contributed to the development of the manuscript and maintained control over the final content. Sasane, Howe, Wong, and Zacker were employees of Novartis at the time of this study. Frois, Jarvis, and Grice are or have been employed by Analysis Group, which received a grant from Novartis for this research. At the time of this study, Analysis Group received funding from multiple manufacturers with oncology products in their portfolio during this time period, including, but not limited to, Astellas and Genentech.