Practice radiation patterns among oncologists in the Oncology Care Model.

OBJECTIVES: CMS created the Oncology Care Model (OCM) to increase the delivery of cost-efficient cancer care, but in linking medical oncologist compensation to total costs of care, the model also prompted concerns about reductions in radiation therapy utilization. We compare practices that participated in the model with those that did not through its launch to estimate whether radiation therapy utilization was reduced under the OCM. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of a secondary claims-based data set. METHODS: We used 5 years of reimbursement claims data from a large community oncology network in which approximately half of the practices participated in the OCM to measure the relative change in utilization following OCM participation compared with practices that did not participate in the OCM. We evaluated use of radiation therapy for all cancer diagnoses and, more specifically, bone metastases, lung cancer, and breast cancer to assess whether effects varied by setting using 3 quasi-experimental estimation techniques (difference-in-differences, event study, and triple differences regressions). RESULTS: We found no evidence of reductions in radiation therapy utilization associated with the OCM between participant and nonparticipant practices in any of the specifications or subpopulations analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the potential incentives for medical oncologists to reduce radiation therapy utilization, we found no evidence that such reduction occurred.

Secret Sauce-How Diverse Practices Succeed in Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Oncology Care Model.

PURPOSE: CMS' Oncology Care Model (OCM) is an episode-based alternative payment model designed to incent high-value care through the use of monthly payments for enhanced services and performance-based payments on the basis of decreases in spending compared with risk-adjusted historical benchmarks. Transitioning from a fee-for-service model to a value-based, alternative payment model in oncology can be difficult; some practices will perform better than others. We present detailed experiences of four successful OCM practices, each operating under diverse business models and in different geographic areas. METHODS: Practices that achieved success in OCM, on the basis of financial metrics, describe pathways to success. The practices represent distinct business models: a medium-sized community oncology practice, a large statewide community oncology practice, a hospital-affiliated practice, and a large academic medical center. RESULTS: Practices describe effective changes in practice culture such as new administrative flexibilities, physician champions, improved communication, changes in physician compensation, and increased physician-level transparency. New or improved clinical services include acute care clinics, care coordination, phone triage, end-of-life care programs, and adoption of treatment pathways that identify high-value drug use, including better use of supportive care drugs. CONCLUSION: There is no one thing that will ensure success in OCM. Success requires whole practice transformation, encompassing both administrative and clinical changes. Communication between administrative and clinical teams is vital, along with improved data sharing and transparency. Clinical support services must expand to manage problems and symptoms in a timely way to prevent costly emergency department visits and hospitalizations, while constant attention must be paid to making high-value therapeutic choices in both oncolytic and supportive drug categories.

Implementation of the Institute of Medicine Treatment Plan in Oncology Practice.

Participation in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) value-based payment reform, the Oncology Care Model (OCM), requires that every beneficiary has a documented 13-point Institute of Medicine treatment plan (TP) when commencing antineoplastic therapy. The intent is to enhance shared decision-making between the patient and care team by providing transparent treatment recommendations and engaging patients and caregivers in meaningful discussion. There is limited discussion in the literature about how to adapt the CMS recommendations to diverse practice settings while maintaining fidelity to the intent of the TP. Here, the authors compare how 3 clinically and geographically unique OCM participating institutions implemented the TP in their respective institutions within the domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Similar themes in implementation are identified, including engaging stakeholders, leveraging information technology, and considering scalability. Adaptations that are unique to the culture and setting of each site are also described.

Practice patterns among oncologists participating in the oncology care model after three years.

BACKGROUND: The Oncology Care Model (OCM) incentivized care coordination and cost-efficiency and has been associated with short-term care reductions, but its multi-year associations are less well-studied. METHODS: We used monthly provider-level claims data spanning nearly five years between July 1 st, 2014 and May 30th, 2019 from a large community oncology practice network where roughly half of the practices participated in the OCM. The key outcome measures were monthly mean office visits, costs, and buy-and-bill drug costs among prostate, colon, breast, and lung cancers. We conducted two quasi-experimental analyses: an event study, which measures the monthly association of providing care in an OCM relative to a non-participating practice, and a difference-in-differences model, which summarizes the event study results into post-launch average estimates. We controlled for mean differences between practices, providers, and patient. RESULTS: The event study analysis shows similar pre-period estimates and trends for each cancer. The difference-in-differences estimates for office visits are statistically significant for each cancer: 33 percentage point reductions in prostate cancer (95 % CI: -0.66 to 0.00; p = 0.05), 22 percentage point reductions in colon cancer (95 % CI: -0.48 to 0.04; p = 0.09), 21 percentage point reductions in breast cancer (95 % CI: -0.45 to 0.02; p = 0.08), and 24 percentage point reductions in lung cancer (95 % CI: -0.49 to 0.00; p = 0.05). Monthly prostate cancer costs also reduced by $505 (95 % CI: -$1108 to $99; p = 0.10). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the OCM was associated with relative reductions in office visits and, for prostate cancer, in overall costs too. These associations generally decreased within the first year of launch and sustained through roughly two years. POLICY SUMMARY: Novel payment models that incentivize care coordination and cost-efficiency like the OCM may modestly yet sustainably reduce office visits and overall costs.

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.

Telemedicine for cancer care: implementation across a multicenter community oncology practice.

PURPOSE: To describe onboarding and utilization of telemedicine across a large statewide community oncology practice and to evaluate trends, barriers, and opportunities in care delivery during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. METHODS: We describe telemedicine onboarding and utilization across a statewide oncology practice, covering 221 sites of service and more than 650 practitioners. We describe qualitatively the onboarding process of a diverse set of administrative, technical, and clinical partners. We describe quantitatively utilization throughout the practice. We describe a survey conducted to enlighten barriers and opportunities for optimal utilization. RESULTS: Multistakeholder education was directed to clinical teams, administrative and technical support staff, and patients through webinars and team meetings. Utilization was high from April through October 2020, representing 15% to 20% of new-patient visits and 20% to 25% of established-patient visits. In a survey offered to all clinicians, 96% of respondents indicated they are using telemedicine, with 33% using it for more than 25% of patient encounters. Among respondents, 59% reported that the use of telemedicine helps expedite diagnosis and treatment more than seeing patients in person in the clinic, 55% of respondents managed urgent issues by telemedicine, 80% believed that patients benefited From urgent assessment by telemedicine, and 57% believed an emergency department visit or a hospitalization was avoided because of a telemedicine visit. Most clinicians reported that patients enjoy benefits of telemedicine because of decreased exposure risk, decreased transportation requirements, and ease of including caregivers in the visit with the treating clinician. The most common barriers to patients accessing telemedicine were technical challenges and broadband access. Despite this, less than 5% of respondents routinely use telephone-only communication, as most typically use bimodal audio/video communication. Many clinicians have expansion ideas on how telemedicine can further expand the longitudinal care delivery for our patient population. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine can be implemented successfully across a large statewide oncology practice and service a high volume of patients. Clinicians utilize telemedicine for new and established patients with minimal dysfunction. Clinicians believe patients benefit From telemedicine For new, established, and urgent care visits. Broadband access functionality should be explored to optimally serve our patient population.