Evaluation of Practice Patterns Among Oncologists Participating in the Oncology Care Model.

Importance: Health insurers reimburse clinicians in many ways, including the ubiquitous fee-for-service model and the emergent shared-savings models. Evidence on the effects of these emergent models in oncological treatment remains limited. Objectives: To analyze the early use and cost associations of a recent Medicare payment program, the Oncology Care Model (OCM), which included a shared savings-like component. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nonrandomized controlled study used a difference-in-differences approach on 2 years of data, from July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2017-1 year before and 1 year after launch of the OCM-to compare the differences between participating and nonparticipating practices, controlling for patient, clinician, and practice factors. Participation in the OCM began on July 1, 2016. Associations of participation with care use and cost were estimated for care directly managed by clinicians from a large network within their Medicare populations for breast, lung, colon, and prostate cancers. Data were analyzed from September 2019 to March 2020. Exposures: Participating practices were paid a monthly management fee of $160 per beneficiary and a potential risk-adjusted performance-based payment for eligible patients who received chemotherapy treatment, in addition to standard fee-for-service payments. Main Outcomes and Measures: Office visits, drug administrations, patient hydrations, drug costs, and total costs. Results: Monthly means data at the physician-level were evaluated for 11 869 physician-months for breast cancers, 11 135 physician-months for lung cancers, 8592 physician-months for colon cancers, and 9045 physician-months for prostate cancers. Patients at OCM practices had a mean (SD) age of 63.4 (3.1) years, and a mean (SD) of 59% (7 percentage points) of their patients were women. Participation in the OCM was associated with less physician-administered prostate cancer drug use (difference, 0.29 [95% CI, -0.47 to -0.11] percentage points, or 24.0%) translating to a mean of $706 (95% CI, -$1383 to -$29) less in drug costs per month. Monthly drug costs were also lower, at $558 (95% CI, -$1173 to $58) less for treatment for lung cancer. Total costs were lower by 9.7% or $233 (95% CI, -$495 to $30) for breast cancer, 9.9% or $337 (95% CI, -$618 to -$55) for lung cancer, 14.2% or $385 (95% CI, -$780 to $10) for colon cancer, and 29.2% or $610 (95% CI, -$1095 to -$125) for prostate cancer; however, these differences were largely offset by program costs. Clinician visits were also lower by 11.2% or 0.11 (95% CI, -0.20 to -0.01) percentage points among patients with breast cancer and by 14.4% or 0.19 (95% CI, -0.37 to -0.02) among patients with colon cancer. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that payment models with shared-savings components can be associated with fewer visits and lower costs in certain cancer settings in the first year, but the savings can be modest given the costs of program administration.

Uncertainty from COVID-19 delays progress on the road to value-based cancer care.

COVID-19 has created a significant distraction from normal practice operations. The uncertainty that comes along with the pandemic is a huge worry, and can distract from practice transformation.

Hospice or Hospital: The Costs of Dying of Cancer in the Oncology Care Model.

Background: End-of-life management is a difficult aspect of cancer care. With the oncology care model (OCM), we have data to assess both clinical outcomes and total cost of care (TCOC). Objective: To measure and characterize the TCOC for those who received less than three days of hospice care (HC) at the end of life compared with those who received three days or more. Design: Assess data on costs and site and date of death from Medicare claims on patients identified in the OCM who received chemotherapy in the six months before death. Standard statistical methods were used to characterize both populations. Setting/Subjects: Subjects were Medicare patients with cancer who died while managed by U.S. oncology practices in the OCM. Measurements were TCOC in 30-day intervals for the last months of life, cost by site of care at the end of life, and demographic characteristics of the population and association with HC. Results: There were 7329 deaths. Dying in the hospital was twice the cost of dying at home under HC ($20,113 vs. $10,803). Of demographic groups measured, only black race and a lymphoma diagnosis had <50% hospice enrollment for three days or more before death. Conclusions: This study reinforces previous studies regarding costs in the last 30 days of life. The graphic representation highlights the dollar cost and the costs of lost opportunity. Using these data to improve communication, addressing socioeconomic support, and formal palliative care integration are potential strategies to improve care.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Oncology Care Model Halfway Through: Perspectives from Diverse Participants.

The Oncology Care Model (OCM) is a 5-year model developed and tested by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that uses an episode-based payment model triggered by the receipt of chemotherapy to test if changing payment mechanisms, in conjunction with a requirement for enhanced patient services, can generate clinical transformation that will orient practices toward more patient-centered, high-value care to reduce expenditures and preserve or enhance quality of care for beneficiaries. The model is geographically diverse with practices in 34 states and encompasses practices ranging in size from 1 to more than 400 practitioners, with a multitude of business structures. Given these varied clinical and business environments, we believe that OCM-participating practices will have different opportunities and challenges as they work toward practice transformation, but they will likely share similarities with other practices in similar clinical and business settings. This commentary shares the experiences of four diverse groups participating in OCM-three practices and one network of practices-halfway through the model's projected 5-year life cycle in the expectation that these experiences will be of value to other practices embarking toward patient-centered, high-value practice transformation.

Three-Year Results of a Medicare Advantage Cancer Management Program.

PURPOSE: Reform of cancer care delivery seeks to control costs while improving quality. Texas Oncology collaborated with Aetna to conduct a payer-sponsored program that used evidence-based treatment pathways, a disease management call center, and an introduction to advance care planning to improve patient care and reduce total costs. METHODS: From June 1, 2013, to May 31, 2016, 746 Medicare Advantage patients with nine common cancer diagnoses were enrolled. Patients electing for patient support services were telephoned by oncology nurses who assessed symptoms and quality of life and introduced advance care planning. Shared cost savings were determined by comparing the costs of drugs, hospitalization, and emergency room use for 509 eligible patients in the study group with a matched cohort of 900 Medicare Advantage patients treated by non-Texas Oncology providers. Physician adherence to treatment pathways and performance and quality metrics were evaluated. RESULTS: During the 3 years of the study, the cumulative cost savings were $3,033,248, and savings continued to increase each year. Drug cost savings per patient per treatment month were $1,874 (95% CI, $1,373 to $2,376; P < .001) after adjusting for age, diagnosis, and study year. Solid tumors contributed most of the savings; hematologic cancers showed little savings. For years 1, 2, and 3, adherence to treatment pathways was 81%, 84%, and 90%, patient satisfaction with patient support services was 94%, 93%, and 94%, and hospice enrollment was 55%, 57%, and 64%, respectively. CONCLUSION: A practice-based program supported by a payer sponsor can reduce costs while maintaining high adherence to treatment pathways and patient satisfaction in older patients.

Opening the black box: the impact of an oncology management program consisting of level I pathways and an outbound nurse call system.

PURPOSE: The Innovent Oncology Program aims to improve the value of cancer care delivered to patients. McKesson Specialty Health and Texas Oncology (TXO) collaborated with Aetna to launch a pilot program. The study objectives were to evaluate the impact of Innovent on Level I Pathway compliance, implement the Patient Support Services program, and measure the rate and costs associated with chemotherapy-related emergency room (ER) visits and hospital admissions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, nonrandomized evaluation of patients enrolled in Innovent from June 1, 2010, through May 31, 2012. Data from the iKnowMed electronic health record, the McKesson Specialty Health financial data warehouse, and Aetna claims data warehouse were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 221 patients were included and stratified according to disease and age groups; 76% of ordered regimens were on pathway; 24% were off pathway. Pathway adherence improved from TXO baseline adherence of 63%. Of the 221 patients, 81% enrolled in PSS. Within the breast, colorectal, and lung cancer groups, 14% and 24% of patients had an ER visit and in-patient admission (IPA; baseline) versus 10% and 18% in Innovent, respectively; average in-patient days decreased from 2.1 to 1.2 days, respectively. Total savings combined for the program was $506,481. CONCLUSION: Implementation of Innovent positively affected patient care in several ways: Fewer ER visits and IPAs occurred, in-patient days decreased, cancer-related use costs were reduced, and on-pathway adherence increased.

Pathways, outcomes, and costs in colon cancer: retrospective evaluations in two distinct databases.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to use two separate databases to evaluate the clinical outcomes and the economic impact of adherence to Level I Pathways, an evidence-based oncology treatment program in the treatment of colon cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The first study used clinical records from an electronic health record (EHR) database to evaluate survival according to pathway status in patients with colon cancer. Disease-free survival in patients receiving adjuvant treatment and overall survival in patients receiving first-line therapy for metastatic disease was calculated. The second study used claims data from a national administrative claims database to examine direct medical costs and use, including the cost of chemotherapy and of chemotherapy-related hospitalizations according to pathway status. RESULTS: Overall costs from the national claims database-including total cost per case and chemotherapy costs-were lower for patients treated according to Level I Pathways (on-Pathway) compared with patients not treated according to Level I Pathways. Use of pathways was also associated with a shorter duration of therapy and lower rate of chemotherapy-related hospital admissions. Survival for patients on-Pathway in the EHR database was comparable with those in the published literature. CONCLUSION: Results from two distinct databases suggest that treatment of patients with colon cancer on-Pathway costs less; use of these pathways demonstrates clinical outcomes consistent with published evidence.

Pathways, outcomes, and costs in colon cancer: retrospective evaluations in 2 distinct databases.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to use 2 separate databases to evaluate the clinical outcomes and the economic impact of adherence to Level I Pathways, an evidence-based oncology treatment program in the treatment of colon cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The first study used clinical records from an electronic health record (EHR) database to evaluate survival according to pathway status in patients with colon cancer. Disease-free survival in patients receiving adjuvant treatment and overall survival in patients receiving first-line therapy for metastatic disease was calculated. The second study used claims data from a national administrative claims database to examine direct medical costs and use, including the cost of chemotherapy and of chemotherapy-related hospitalizations according to pathway status. RESULTS: Overall costs from the national claims database-including total cost per case and chemotherapy costs-were lower for patients treated according to Level I Pathways (on- Pathway) compared with patients not treated according to Level I Pathways. Use of pathways was also associated with a shorter duration of therapy and lower rate of chemotherapy-related hospital admissions. Survival for patients on- Pathways in the EHR database was comparable with that in the published literature. CONCLUSION: Results from 2 distinct databases suggest that treatment of patients with colon cancer on-Pathways costs less; use of these pathways demonstrates clinical outcomes consistent with published evidence.

Cost effectiveness of evidence-based treatment guidelines for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer in the community setting.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Level I Pathways, a program designed to ensure the delivery of evidence-based care, among patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated in the outpatient community setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included patients with NSCLC initiating a chemotherapy regimen between July 1, 2006, and December 31, 2007, at eight practices in the US Oncology network. Patients were characterized with respect to age, sex, stage, performance status, and line of therapy and were classified by whether they were treated according to Level I Pathways guidelines. Twelve-month cost of care and overall survival were compared between patients treated on Pathway and off Pathway. A net monetary benefit approach and corresponding cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Level I Pathways. RESULTS: Overall, outpatient costs were 35% lower for on-Pathway versus off-Pathway patients (average 12-month cost, $18,042 v $27,737, respectively). Costs remained significantly less for patients treated on Pathway versus off Pathway in the adjuvant and first-line settings, whereas no difference in overall cost was observed in patients in the second-line setting. No difference in overall survival was observed overall or by line of therapy. In the net monetary benefit analysis, after adjusting for potential confounders, we found that treating patients on Pathway was cost effective across a plausible range of willingness-to-pay thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study suggest that treating patients according to evidence-based guidelines is a cost-effective strategy for delivering care to those with NSCLC.