Creating a culture for change: Lessons from behavioral economics and complexity science to increase serious illness conversations for patients with cancer.

Patient-centered cancer care requires communication between patients and clinicians about patients' goals, values, and preferences. Serious illness communication improves patient and caregiver outcomes, the value and quality of cancer care, and the well-being of clinicians. Despite these benefits, there are competing factors including time, capacity, bandwidth, and resistance. Health systems and oncology practices have opportunities to invest in pathways that assist patients and clinicians to engage in serious illness conversations. We discuss how applying insights from behavioral economics and complexity science may help clinicians engage in serious illness conversation and improve patient-centered cancer care.

Behavioural economic interventions to embed palliative care in community oncology (BE-EPIC): study protocol for the BE-EPIC randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Palliative care (PC) is a medical specialty focusing on providing relief from the symptoms and stress of serious illnesses such as cancer. Early outpatient specialty PC concurrent with cancer-directed treatment improves quality of life and symptom burden, decreases aggressive end-of-life care and is an evidence-based practice endorsed by national guidelines. However, nearly half of patients with advanced cancer do not receive specialty PC prior to dying. The objective of this study is to test the impact of an oncologist-directed default PC referral orders on rates of PC utilisation and patient quality of life. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This single-centre two-arm pragmatic randomised trial randomises four clinician-led pods, caring for approximately 250 patients who meet guideline-based criteria for PC referral, in a 1:1 fashion into a control or intervention arm. Intervention oncologists receive a nudge consisting of an electronic health record message indicating a patient has a default pended order for PC. Intervention oncologists are given an opportunity to opt out of referral to PC. Oncologists in pods randomised to the control arm will receive no intervention beyond usual practice. The primary outcome is completed PC visits within 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes are change in quality of life and absolute quality of life scores between the two arms. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Pennsylvania. Study results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences using methods that describe the results in ways that key stakeholders can best understand and implement. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05365997.

The least costly pharmacy for cancer supportive care medications over time: the logistic toxicity of playing catch up.

PURPOSE: No single pharmacy in an urban zip code is consistently the least expensive across medications. If medication prices change differently across pharmacies, patients and clinicians will face challenges accessing affordable medications when refilling medications. This is especially pertinent to people with cancer with multiple fills of supportive care medications over time. We evaluated if the lowest-priced pharmacy for a formulation remains the lowest-priced over time. METHODS: We compiled generic medications used to manage nausea/vomiting (14 formulations) and anorexia/cachexia (12 formulations). We extracted discounted prices in October 2021 and again in March 2022 for a typical fill at 8 pharmacies in Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA (zip code 55,414) using GoodRx.com. We examined how prices changed across formulations and pharmacies over time. RESULTS: Data were available for all 208 possible pharmacy-formulation combinations (8 pharmacies × 26 formulations). For 172 (83%) of the 208 pharmacy-formulation combinations, the March 2022 price was within 20% of the October 2021 price. Across pharmacy-formulation combinations, the price change over time ranged from - 76 to + 292%. For 12 (46%) of the 26 formulations, at least one pharmacy with the lowest price in October 2021 no longer was the least costly in March 2022. For one formulation (dronabinol tablets), the least expensive pharmacy became the most expensive, with an absolute and relative price increase of a fill of $22 and 85%. CONCLUSION: For almost half of formulations studied, at least one pharmacy with the lowest price was no longer the least costly a few months later. The lowest price for a formulation (across pharmacies) could also change considerably. Thus, even if a patient accesses the least expensive pharmacy for a medication, they may need to re-check prices across all pharmacies with each subsequent fill to access the lowest prices. In addition to safety concerns, directing medications to and accessing medications at multiple pharmacies can add time and logistic toxicity to patients with cancer, their care partners, prescribers, and pharmacy teams.

Intermediate Strengths and Inflated Prices: The Story of Transdermal Fentanyl Patches.

In 2015, Mylan pharmaceuticals received final approval from the Food and Drug Administration for its Supplemental Abbreviated New Drug Application and introduced three new intermediate strengths of transdermal fentanyl patches to the U.S. drug market.1 With this approval, Mylan added 37.5 , 62.5, and 87.5 mcg/hr strength patches to existing 12, 25, 50, 75, and 100 mcg/hr strength patches. Today, these intermediate strength patches cost many times more than older strengths. In this commentary, we discuss the clinical implications of intermediate strengths of the fentanyl patch, explore mechanisms for price differences, and offer practice-based and policy solutions to address these differences.

Finding the Lowest-Cost Pharmacy for Cancer Supportive Care Medications: Not So Easy.

PURPOSE: To decrease the financial burden on people with cancer, clinicians and patients increasingly use medication price comparison websites to seek pharmacies where medications may be cheaper. Shopping around at different pharmacies can add additional time and logistic burden to patients and care partners. We sought to determine whether a single pharmacy consistently offered the lowest price for symptom control medications. METHODS: We compiled medications/formulations used to manage two common cancer-associated symptoms: nausea/vomiting and anorexia/cachexia. We extracted discounted, lowest price with coupon prices for a typical fill of these medications at nine pharmacies in Minneapolis, MN, using GoodRx. We compared prices across formulations and pharmacies to assess whether a pharmacy consistently offered the lowest price. RESULTS: We included 24 formulations for nausea/vomiting (14 generic and 10 brand-name) and 19 for anorexia/cachexia (12 generic and seven brand-name). Prices for brand-name formulations were similar across pharmacies, but prices of generic formulations varied widely across pharmacies. For example, the prices of a seven-unit fill of generic 5-mg olanzapine tablets ranged from $4 to $57 US dollars. No single pharmacy consistently offered the lowest price across the formulations studied. For example, for the 12 generic formulations for anorexia/cachexia, one pharmacy had the highest price for four formulations and the lowest price for two others. CONCLUSION: In this study of discounted medication prices, we found that no single pharmacy in an urban zip code consistently offered the lowest price for medications used to manage two common cancer-associated symptoms. Well-intentioned efforts to pursue the cheapest source of each medication by visiting multiple pharmacies may add extra time and logistic toxicity to patients and care partners. This approach can increase redundant scripts and expose patients to medication-related adverse events.

Financial Burden of Drugs Prescribed for Cancer-Associated Symptoms.

PURPOSE: The financial toxicity of anticancer drugs is well-documented, but little is known about the costs of drugs used to manage cancer-associated symptoms. METHODS: We reviewed relevant guidelines and compiled drugs used to manage seven cancer-associated symptoms (anorexia and cachexia, chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, constipation, diarrhea, exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, cancer-associated fatigue, and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting). Using GoodRx website, we identified the retail price (cash price at retail pharmacies) and lowest price (discounted, best-case scenario of out-of-pocket costs) for patients without insurance for each drug or formulation for a typical fill. We describe lowest prices here. RESULTS: For anorexia and cachexia, costs ranged from $5 US dollars (USD; generic olanzapine or mirtazapine tablets) to $1,156 USD (brand-name dronabinol solution) and varied widely by formulation of the same drug or dosage: for olanzapine 5 mg, $5 USD (generic tablet) to $239 USD (brand-name orally disintegrating tablet). For chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, costs of duloxetine varied from $12 USD (generic) to $529 USD (brand-name). For constipation, the cost of sennosides or polyethylene glycol was <$15 USD, whereas newer agents such as methylnaltrexone were expensive ($1,001 USD). For diarrhea, the cost of generic loperamide or diphenoxylate-atropine tablets was <$15 USD. For exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, only brand-name formulations were available, range of cost, $1,072 USD-$1,514 USD. For cancer-associated fatigue, the cost of generic dexamethasone or dexmethylphenidate was <$15 USD, whereas brand-name modafinil was more costly ($1,284 USD). For a 4-drug nausea and vomiting prophylaxis regimen, costs ranged from $181 USD to $1,430 USD. CONCLUSION: We highlight the high costs of many symptom control drugs and the wide variation in the costs of these drugs. These findings can guide patient-clinician discussions about cost-effectively managing symptoms, while promoting the use of less expensive formulations when possible.

How palliative care teams can mitigate financial toxicity in cancer care.

The disruption to patient and family well-being introduced by the rising costs of cancer care is a growing clinical problem. In addition to logistical questions, there is a compelling, existential one: "How should healthcare teams address patient and caregiver distress and uncertainty from financial toxicity?" We argue that the principles and practice of palliative care can help alleviate this element and often unaddressed component of human suffering.

Use of Peripheral µ-Opioid Receptor Antagonists for Treating Opioid-Induced Constipation among US Medicare Beneficiaries from 2014 to 2018.

Background: Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) remains the most common adverse event associated with opioid use. Treatment with more novel and costly agents (such as peripheral µ-opioid receptor antagonists [PAMORAs]) may be indicated in patients with laxative-refractory OIC. Three PAMORAs are U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved for managing OIC-methylnaltrexone (FDA approved in 2008), naloxegol (in 2014), and naldemedine (in 2017). These drugs are indicated only in limited scenarios. Their contemporary patterns of use and burden of spending remain unknown. Objective: To evaluate the trends in use and expenditures for the three PAMORAs approved for treating OIC. Design: Retrospective cross-sectional study using the 2014-2018 Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Event data and the 2018 Part D Prescriber Public Use File. Setting: Prescribers and beneficiaries using PAMORAs. Measurements: The annual spending, number of beneficiaries, number of claims, and spending per beneficiary and claim for each PAMORA. The distribution by prescriber specialty using PAMORA. Results: From 2014 to 2018, aggregate spending on PAMORAs increased, from $13.6 to $150.9 million, and use increased, from 4221 to 72,592 beneficiaries. After FDA approval in 2014, naloxegol overtook methylnaltrexone in the number of users in 2015 and spending in 2016. In 2018, 6989 unique prescribers used any PAMORA. Among them, the most common specialties/professions were family practice (20.2%), internal medicine (18.0%), and nurse practitioner (15.4%). Conclusions: Our findings-significant and increasing expenditure on PAMORAs, and broad use across specialties-serve as a call for defining and implementing appropriate use of PAMORAs.

Can Community Health Workers Increase Palliative Care Use for African American Patients? A Pilot Study.

PURPOSE: African American patients with cancer underutilize advance care planning (ACP) and palliative care (PC). This feasibility study investigated whether community health workers (CHWs) could improve ACP and PC utilization for African American patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: African American patients diagnosed with an advanced solid organ cancer (stage IV or stage III disease with a palliative performance score < 60%) were enrolled. Patients completed baseline surveys that assessed symptom burden and distress at baseline and 3 months post-CHW intervention. The CHW intervention consisted of a comprehensive assessment of multiple PC domains and social determinants of health. CHWs provided tailored support and education on the basis of iterative assessment of patient needs. Intervention feasibility was determined by patient and caregiver retention rate above 50% at 3 months. RESULTS: Over a 12-month period, 24 patients were screened, of which 21 were deemed eligible. Twelve patients participated in the study. Patient retention was high at 3 months (75%) and 6 months (66%). Following the CHW intervention, symptom assessment as measured by Edmonton Symptom Assessment System improved from 33.8 at baseline to 18.8 (P = .03). Psychological distress improved from 5.5 to 4.7 (P = .36), and depressive symptoms from 42.2 to 33.6 (P = .09), although this was not significant. ACP documentation improved from 25% at baseline to 75% at study completion. Sixty-seven percentage of patients were referred to PC, with 100% of three decedents using hospice. CONCLUSION: Utilization of CHWs to address PC domains and social determinants of health is feasible. Although study enrollment was identified as a potential barrier, most recruited patients were retained on study.

Physician Practice Variability in the Use of Extended-Fraction Radiation Therapy for Bone Metastases: Are We Choosing Wisely?

PURPOSE: Routine use of extended-fraction (> 10 fractions) radiation therapy (RT) for palliation of bone metastases is recognized as a low-value intervention by the American Society for Radiation Oncology. We examined contemporary practice patterns of, and physician characteristics associated with extended-fraction RT use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using Medicare fee-for-service data. We included patients who underwent 2- or 3-dimensional external-beam RT for bone metastases between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018. Physicians treating > 10 patients over the study period were analyzed for their individual practice. Hierarchic logistic regression modeling was used to identify patient- and physician-level factors associated with extended-fraction RT use. RESULTS: A total of 12,221 patients (median age, 75.6 years; 40.9% women, 87.6% white) were included. The rate of extended-fraction RT was 23.4%. A total of 1,432 physicians treated any patient. Among the 382 physicians treating > 10 patients, 127 (33.2%) used extended-fraction RT > 30% (consensus threshold). Physician factors associated with decreased odds of extended-fraction RT were years since medical school graduation (≤ 10 years and 11-20 years v ≥ 31 years: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.32 [95% CI, 0.20 to 0.51] and 0.64 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.93]) and practicing in the Northeast or Midwest versus the South (aOR, 0.36 [95% CI, 0.22 to 0.58] and 0.48 [95% CI, 0.31 to 0.74]). Physicians treating > 20 patients (v 11-14 patients) over the study period had increased odds of delivering extended-fraction RT (aOR, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.10 to 2.12]). CONCLUSION: In this study, almost one fourth of patients received extended-fraction RT, and one third of physicians had an extended-fraction RT use rate of > 30%. Personalized feedback of performance data, clinical pathways and peer review, and updated reimbursement models are potential mechanisms to address this low-value care.