An assessment of the direct and indirect costs of breast cancer treatment in leading cancer hospitals in Ghana.

BACKGROUND: In Ghana, breast cancer remains the most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer deaths among women. The cost of treating cancer is huge and poses a great challenge for patients, their families, and health care systems. While comprehensive studies have been conducted on the economic burden of cancers in developed economies such as the EU and the US, there are limited studies in Africa, and Ghana, in particular. This study quantitatively assessed Ghana's direct and indirect costs of breast cancer treatment. METHODS: Primary data were collected using a questionnaire administered to 217 breast cancer patients at the Korle-Bu and Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospitals, Ghana's two leading hospitals, and Sweden Ghana Medical Centre. Direct and indirect costs were computed using the Cost-of-Illness Approach. Quantitative analysis was done using multivariate linear regression. RESULTS: The findings showed that the breast cancer patients studied paid a median amount of Ghana cedis (GHC) 31,021.0 (IQR; 25,262.5-42,147.0), approximating USD 5,500.2 (IQR: 4,477.0-7,469.2 USD) for their treatment within one year of active treatment in 2019. About 61.9% (95% CI: 61.8-62.0%) of this cost was direct cost, while the remaining 38.1% (95% CI: 38.0-38.1%) was indirect cost. Patients who sought care from public facilities for breast cancer paid a median amount of GHC 29,606.3 (USD 5,249.3), while those who sought care from private facilities paid GHC 55,071.2 (USD 9,744.4). Findings from the multivariate linear regression indicate that being married/cohabiting, divorced/separated and having tertiary level education predicted higher cost of breast cancer treatment while patients on retirement and patients in the middle stage (Stage II) of breast cancer diagnoses were associated with lower cost of breast cancer treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of breast cancer treatment poses a significant burden on patients and their families. There is a need for increased public funding for breast cancer treatment to reduce the huge economic burden its treatment poses for patients and their families.

Childhood cancer hospital resource utilization and costs in Egypt, 2013-2017; patterns, trends, and associated factors for 8886 patients from Children's Cancer Hospital, Egypt.

INTRODUCTION: There is a lack ofevidence about resource use and costs of childhood cancer care in Egypt. Knowledge about resource use/costs can help in better resource planning to improve care and outcomes efficiently. In this study, we estimated patterns and trends of hospital resource use and costs for children with cancer (n = 8886, aged 0-18 years) treated at Children's Cancer Hospital, Egypt (CCHE), between 2013 and 2017, by ICCC-3 groups, at one and three years post-diagnosis. METHODS: We estimated costs from the healthcare provider perspective, expressed in USD 2019. We also studied resource use/cost trends, and factors associated with inpatient days and costs. RESULTS: For all cancers combined, median costs were $14,774 (IQR: $6,559-$23,738) at one year and $19,799 (IQR: $8,921-$34,204) at three years post-diagnosis. Median inpatient days were 38 days (IQR: 17-60) at one year, and 43 days (IQR: 20-74) at three years post-diagnosis. Patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and neuroblastoma imposed the greatest financial burden on CCHE, representing 53.1% of total costs. AML patients had the highest costs/resource use of all childhood cancers. Cost trends decreased by 2.9% (P < 0.001) for all cancers combined, due to economic instability in Egypt between 2013 and 2017. The use of IV supportive drugs increased by 24.3% (P < 0.001) over time for children with solid tumors. CONCLUSION: These findings will inform hospital resource planning and budgeting to promote value in care delivery, with implications for pediatric oncology practice and policy in Egypt/CCHE. Estimated costs provide the foundation for cost-effectiveness analysis.

Assessing Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems Use at NCI-Designated Cancer Centers in the Cancer Moonshot-funded Cancer Center Cessation Initiative.

Assessing tobacco product use and delivering tobacco dependence treatment is an essential part of cancer care; however, little is known about electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) or e-cigarette use assessment in cancer treatment settings. Given the importance of tailoring tobacco treatment, it is critical to understand how ENDS use is assessed in the electronic health record (EHR) in cancer care settings. Two questionnaires were completed by tobacco treatment program leads at 42 NCI-Designated Cancer Centers in the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (January 1 to June 30 and July 1 to December 31, 2019). Items assessed how often smoking status and ENDS use were recorded in the EHR. An open-ended item recorded the text and response categories of each center's ENDS assessment question. All 42 centers assessed smoking status at both time periods. Twenty-five centers (59.5%) assessed ENDS use in the first half of 2019, increasing to 30 (71.4%) in the last half of 2019. By the end of 2019, 17 centers assessed smoking status at every patient visit while six assessed ENDS use at every visit. A checkbox/drop-down menu rather than scripted text was used at 30 centers (73.2%) for assessing smoking status and at 18 centers (42.9%) for assessing ENDS use. Our findings underscore the gap in systematic ENDS use screening in cancer treatment settings. Requiring ENDS use measures in the EHR as part of quality measures and providing scripted text scripts to providers may increase rates of ENDS use assessment at more cancer centers. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: This study identifies a gap in the systematic assessment of ENDS use among patients seen at 42 NCI-Designated cancer centers. Requiring the systematic assessment of both ENDS use and use of other tobacco products can inform evidence-based treatment of tobacco dependence and lead to improved cancer treatment outcomes.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Cancer Care in the Post Pandemic World: Five Major Lessons Learnt from Challenges and Countermeasures of Major Asian Cancer Centres.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically affected healthcare services around Asia. The Asian National Cancer Centres Alliance and the Asia-Pacific Organisation for Cancer Prevention collaborated to assess the mid- and long- term impact of COVID-19 to cancer care in Asia. METHODS: The two entities organised a combined symposium and post-meeting interactions among representatives of major cancer centres from seventeen Asian countries to outlining major challenges and countermeasures. RESULTS: Participating stakeholders distilled five big questions. 1) "Will there be an explosion of late-stage cancers after the pandemic?" To address and recover from perceived delayed prevention, screening, treatment and care challenges, collaboration of key stakeholders in the region and alignment in cancer care management, policy intervention and cancer registry initiatives would be of essential value. 2) "Operations and Finance" The pandemic has resulted in significant material and financial casualties. Flagged acute challenges (shortages of supplies, imposition of lockdown) as well as longer-standing reduction of financial revenue, manpower, international collaboration, and training should also be addressed. 3) "Will telemedicine and technological innovations revolutionize cancer care?" Deploying and implementing telemedicine such as teleconsultation and virtual tumour boards were considered invaluable. These innovations could become a new regular practice, leading to expansion of tele-collaboration through collaboration of institutions in the region. 4) "Will virtual conferences continue after the pandemic?" Virtual conferences during the pandemic have opened new doors for knowledge sharing, especially for representatives of low- and middle-income countries in the region, while saving time and costs of travel. 5) "How do we prepare for the next pandemic or international emergency?" Roadmaps for action to improve access to appropriate patient care and research were identified and scrutinised. CONCLUSION: Through addressing these five big questions, focused collaboration among members and with international organisations such as City Cancer Challenge will allow enhanced preparedness for future international emergencies.
.

Potential reduction of hospital stay length with outpatient management of low-risk febrile neutropenia in a regional cancer center.

BACKGROUND: Febrile neutropenia is a serious complication of chemotherapy. The Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) risk index score identifies patients at low risk of serious complications. Outpatient management programs have been successfully piloted in other Australian metropolitan cancer centers. AIM: To assess current management of febrile neutropenia at our regional cancer center and determine potential impacts of an outpatient management program. METHOD: We performed a retrospective review of medical records for all patients admitted at our regional institution with febrile neutropenia between 1 January 2016, and 31 December 2018. We collected information regarding patient characteristics, determined the MASCC risk index score, and if low risk, we determined the eligibility for outpatient care and potential reduction in length of stay and cost benefit. RESULTS: A total of 98 hospital admissions were identified. Of these, 66 had a MASCC low-risk index score. Fifty-eight patients met the eligibility criteria for outpatient management. Seventy-one percent were female. The most common tumor type was breast cancer. Forty-eight percent were treated with curative intent. The median length of stay was 3 days. The median potential reduction in length of stay for each admission was 2 days. The total potential reduction in length of stay was 198 days. No admission resulted in serious complications. CONCLUSION: This review demonstrates a significant number of hospital admission days can be avoided. We intend to conduct a prospective pilot study at our center to institute an outpatient management program for such low-risk patients with potential reduction in hospital length of stay. This will have significant implications on health resource usage, service provision planning, and patient quality of life.

Impact of cancer center accreditation on outcomes of patients undergoing resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: A SEER-Medicare analysis.

BACKGROUND: We sought to assess variations in outcomes among patients undergoing resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at centers with varied accreditation status. METHODS: Patients undergoing resection for HCC from 2004 to 2016 were identified from the linked SEER-Medicare database. Short- and long-term outcomes as well as expenditures associated with receipt of surgery were examined based on cancer center accreditation. RESULTS: Among 1390 patients, 46.1% (n = 641) were treated at unaccredited centers, 39.3% (n = 546) at CoC-accredited and 14.6% (n = 203) at NCI-designated centers. Patients undergoing resection of HCC at NCI-designated hospitals had lower odds of complications (OR = 0.66, 95%CI: 0.45-0.98) and 90-day mortality (OR = 0.31, 95%CI: 0.11-0.85) after major liver resection compared with individuals treated at CoC-accredited centers. Receipt of surgery at NCI-designated hospitals (ref: CoC-accredited; HR = 0.81, 95%CI: 0.66-0.99) was an independent predictor of improved survival. Medicare payments for liver resection were comparable at different accreditation status centers (NCI: $21,760 vs CoC: $24,059 vs unaccredited: $24,724, p = 0.18). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing resection of HCC at NCI-designated hospitals had improved outcomes for the same level of Medicare expenditure compared with patients treated at CoC-accredited centers.

Expenditures among young adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia by site of care.

BACKGROUND: Individuals diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) between the ages of 22 and 39 years experience worse outcomes than those diagnosed when they are 21 years old or younger. Treatment at National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCC) mitigates these disparities but may be associated with higher expenditures. METHODS: Using deidentified administrative claims data (OptumLabs Data Warehouse), the cancer-related expenditures were examined among patients with ALL diagnosed between 2001 and 2014. Multivariable generalized linear model with log-link modeled average monthly health-plan-paid (HPP) expenditures and amount owed by the patient (out-of-pocket [OOP]). Cost ratios were used to calculate excess expenditures (CCC vs non-CCC). Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) compared CCC and non-CCC monthly visit rates. Models adjusted for sociodemographics, comorbidities, adverse events, and months enrolled. RESULTS: Clinical and sociodemographic characteristics were comparable between CCC (n = 160) and non-CCC (n = 139) patients. Higher monthly outpatient expenditures in CCC patients ($15,792 vs $6404; P < .001) were driven by outpatient hospital HPP expenditures. Monthly visit rates and per visit expenditures for nonchemotherapy visits (IRR = 1.6; P = .001; CCC = $8247, non-CCC = $1191) drove higher outpatient hospital expenditures among CCCs. Monthly OOP expenditures were higher at CCCs for outpatient care (P = .02). Inpatient HPP expenditures were significantly higher at CCCs ($25,918 vs $13,881; ꞵ = 0.9; P < .001) before accounting for adverse events but were no longer significant after adjusting for adverse events (ꞵ = 0.4; P = .1). Hospitalizations and length of stay were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Young adults with ALL at CCCs have higher expenditures, likely reflecting differences in facility structure, billing practices, and comprehensive patient care. It would be reasonable to consider CCCs comparable to the oncology care model and incentivize the framework to achieve superior outcomes and long-term cost savings. LAY SUMMARY: Health care expenditures in young adults (aged 22-39 years) with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are higher among patients at National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCC) than those at non-CCCs. The CCC/non-CCC differences are significant among outpatient expenditures, which are driven by higher rates of outpatient hospital visits and outpatient hospital expenditures per visit at CCCs. Higher expenditures and visit rates of outpatient hospital visits among CCCs may also reflect how facility structure and billing patterns influence spending or comprehensive care. Young adults at CCCs face higher inpatient HPP expenditures; these are driven by serious adverse events.

Implementation and Outcomes of Virtual Care Across a Tertiary Cancer Center During COVID-19.

Importance: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has burdened health care resources and disrupted care of patients with cancer. Virtual care (VC) represents a potential solution. However, few quantitative data support its rapid implementation and positive associations with service capacity and quality. Objective: To examine the outcomes of a cancer center-wide virtual care program in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study applied a hospitalwide agile service design to map gaps and develop a customized digital solution to enable at-scale VC across a publicly funded comprehensive cancer center. Data were collected from a high-volume cancer center in Ontario, Canada, from March 23 to May 22, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcome measures were care delivery volumes, quality of care, patient and practitioner experiences, and cost savings to patients. Results: The VC solution was developed and launched 12 days after the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 22 085 VC visits (mean, 514 visits per day) were conducted, comprising 68.4% (range, 18.8%-100%) of daily visits compared with 0.8% before launch (P < .001). Ambulatory clinic volumes recovered a month after deployment (3714-4091 patients per week), whereas chemotherapy and radiotherapy caseloads (1943-2461 patients per week) remained stable throughout. No changes in institutional or provincial quality-of-care indexes were observed. A total of 3791 surveys (3507 patients and 284 practitioners) were completed; 2207 patients (82%) and 92 practitioners (72%) indicated overall satisfaction with VC. The direct cost of this initiative was CAD$ 202 537, and displacement-related cost savings to patients totaled CAD$ 3 155 946. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that implementation of VC at scale at a high-volume cancer center may be feasible. An agile service design approach was able to preserve outpatient caseloads and maintain care quality, while rendering high patient and practitioner satisfaction. These findings may help guide the transformation of telemedicine in the post COVID-19 era.

A cost analysis of a community-based support centre for cancer patients and their families in Ireland: the EVeCANs study.

Cancer patients and their families experience a range of physical, psychological and financial adverse effects. Community-based cancer centres offer a range of services and interventions, free of charge, to support those affected by cancer. While shown to be effective, there is a lack of information on the costs of these services. Our aim was to estimate the resource impact of a community-based cancer support centre. Over a 7-month period, there were 2032 contacts with 238 clients whose average age was 60 years. The most frequently used services were transport to treatment (20%), complementary therapies (48%), exercise classes (10%) and counselling (9%). This cost analysis estimated total annual cost to provide all services was €313,744. Average annual cost per person was €1138. Current uptake at the centre represents 8% of all cancer incidences in seven counties surrounding the centre. If uptake increases by 10%, scenario analyses predict an increase in total costs increase to €429,043 and a decrease in costs per patient to €915. As cancer incidences increase, the need for supportive care is growing. Community-based services have been established to meet these needs and fill this gap in national health services. Long-term sustainability of these centres is uncertain as they are entirely reliant on donations and volunteers. This analysis estimates the costs of one such community-based cancer support centre, for the first time in Ireland. Findings can be used to inform future planning of cancer supportive care services, including establishing links between tertiary and community-based centres, and cost effectiveness analyses, nationally and internationally.

"Absurd" Contract Dodge Rejected: Court Lets Cancer Center's Debt-Collection Suit Proceed.

Appeals court denies "free speech" challenge to cancer center's debt-collection suit.

Implications of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and COVID-19 Crisis on Clinical Cancer Care: Report of the University Cancer Center Hamburg.

With the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemia, routine clinical work was immediately, deeply, and sustainably impacted in Germany and worldwide. The infrastructure of almost all hospitals is currently redirected to provide a maximum of intensive care resources, including the necessary staff. In parallel, routine as well as emergency clinical care for all patients in need has to be secured. This challenge becomes particularly evident in cancer care. In order to maintain adequate oncological care at all levels of provision and to conduct especially curative and intensive treatments with a maximum of safety, continuous adaption of the oncology care system has to be ensured. Intensive communication with colleagues and patients is needed as is consequent expert networking and continuous reflection of the own developed strategies. In parallel, it is of high importance to actively avoid cessation of innovation in order not to endanger the continuous improvement in prognosis of cancer patients. This includes sustained conduction of clinical trials as well as ongoing translational research. Here, we describe measures taken at the University Cancer Center Hamburg (UCCH) - a recognized comprehensive oncology center of excellence - during the COVID-19 crisis. We aim to provide support and potential perspectives to generate a discussion basis on how to maintain high-end cancer care during such a crisis and how to conduct patients safely into the future.

Dedicated Cancer Centers are More Likely to Achieve a Textbook Outcome Following Hepatopancreatic Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the current study is to assess rates of textbook outcome (TO) among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing hepatopancreatic (HP) surgery for cancer at dedicated cancer centers (DCCs) and National Cancer Institute affiliated cancer centers (NCI-CCs) versus non-DCC non-NCI hospitals. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Medicare Inpatient Standard Analytic Files were utilized to identify patients undergoing HP surgery between 2013 and 2017. TO was defined as no postoperative surgical complications, no 90-day mortality, no prolonged length of hospital stay, and no 90-day readmission after discharge. RESULTS: Among 21,234 Medicare patients, 8.2% patients underwent surgery at DCCs whereas 32.1% underwent surgery at NCI-CCs and 59.7% underwent an operation at neither DCCs nor NCI-CCs. Although DCCs more often cared for patients with severe comorbidities [Charlson score > 5: DCCs, 1195 (68.9%), NCI-CCs, 3687 (54.1%), others, 3970 (31.3%); p < 0.001], DCCs achieved higher rates of TO compared with NCI-CCs and other US hospitals. Interestingly, DCCs were more likely to perform surgery with a minimally invasive approach versus NCI-CCs and other US hospitals (17.0%, n = 295, vs. 12.6%, n = 856 vs. 11.9%, n = 1504, p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, patients undergoing liver surgery at DCCs had 31% and 36% higher odds of achieving TO compared with NCI-CCs and other US hospitals, respectively. Medicare expenditure was substantially lower for patients achieving TO at DCCs compared with patients who achieved a TO at NCI-CCs. CONCLUSIONS: Even though DCCs more frequently took care of patients with high comorbidity burden, the likelihood of achieving TO for HP surgery at DCCs was higher compared with NCI-CCs and other US hospitals. The data suggest that DCCs provide higher-value surgical care for patients with HP malignancies.

Physician and facility drivers of spending variation in locoregional prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is the most common male cancer, with a wide range of treatment options. Payment reform to reduce unnecessary spending variation is an important strategy for reducing waste, but its magnitude and drivers within prostate cancer are unknown. METHODS: In total, 38,971 men aged ≥66 years with localized prostate cancer who were enrolled in Medicare fee-for-service and were included in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database from 2009 to 2014 were included. Multilevel linear regression with physician and facility random effects was used to examine the contributions of urologists, radiation oncologists, and their affiliated facilities to variation in total patient spending in the year after diagnosis within geographic region. The authors assessed whether spending variation was driven by patient characteristics, disease risk, or treatments. Physicians and facilities were sorted into quintiles of adjusted patient-level spending, and differences between those that were high-spending and low-spending were examined. RESULTS: Substantial variation in spending was driven by physician and facility factors. Differences in cancer treatment modalities drove more variation across physicians than differences in patient and disease characteristics (72% vs 2% for urologists, 20% vs 18% for radiation oncologists). The highest spending physicians spent 46% more than the lowest and had more imaging tests, inpatient care, and radiotherapy spending. There were no differences across spending quintiles in the use of robotic surgery by urologists or the use of brachytherapy by radiation oncologists. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences were observed for patients with similar demographics and disease characteristics. This variation across both physicians and facilities suggests that efforts to reduce unnecessary spending must address decision making at both levels.

Analysis of Price Transparency via National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers' Chargemasters for Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy.

Importance: A January 2019 price transparency mandate by the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) allows patients to look up the prices of cancer treatment services at hospitals across the United States. Objective: To investigate the value of the CMS price transparency rule in allowing patients with prostate cancer to comparison shop by price for radiation treatment services among National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers. Design, Setting, and Participants: We identified the February 2019 publicly available price-containing chargemasters for National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers. We isolated the charge per fraction of intensity-modulated radiation therapy used in standard prostate radiation treatment. We then calculated the mean (SD) charges of a 28-fraction course of prostate irradiation at all included hospitals. No human participants were included in this study. Main Outcomes and Measures: We analyzed the degree of price variation, the association of the mean price to the price paid by Medicare, and the association of the prices with the practice expense geographic practice cost index, as determined by Medicare. Results: Of the 63 designated hospitals, 52 (84%) listed a price for simple intensity-modulated radiation therapy that is associated with standard prostate cancer radiation treatment. For a standard 28-fraction treatment, the charges ranged from $18 368 to $399 056, with a mean of $111 728.80 (10.1 times the price paid by Medicare). There was a weak positive association between price and geographic practice cost index, with an r2 value of 0.13 (P = .008). Conclusions and Relevance: The availability of CMS-mandated hospital chargemasters and the descriptors used for simple intensity-modulated radiation therapy are not uniform, and the listed charges are highly variable. The association between listed charges and actual prices paid by patients or insurers is unclear, mitigating the value of the CMS rule for patients with prostate cancer who are receiving radiation therapy. This study suggests that implementation of the CMS price transparency policy may be insufficient to enable patients to estimate or compare prices for prostate cancer radiation treatment.

Baseline Resilience and Posttraumatic Symptoms in Dyads of Neurocritical Patients and Their Informal Caregivers: A Prospective Dyadic Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Admission to a neuroscience intensive care unit (Neuro-ICU) is sudden and often traumatic for both patients and their informal caregivers. No prior studies have assessed prospectively risk and resiliency factors for chronic posttraumatic symptoms, as well as the potential interdependence between patients' and caregivers' symptoms over time. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the impact of baseline resiliency factors on symptoms of posttraumatic stress (PTS) longitudinally in dyads of patients admitted to the Neuro-ICU and their primary family caregivers. METHODS: We recruited dyads (M = 108) of patients admitted to the Neuro-ICU (total N = 102) and their family caregivers (total N = 103). Dyads completed self-report assessments of PTS and resiliency factors (mindfulness and coping) at baseline in the Neuro-ICU. PTS was measured again at 3- and 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: Clinically significant PTS symptoms were high at baseline in both patients (20%) and caregivers (16%) and remained high through 6 months (25% in patients; 14% in caregivers). Actor-partner interdependence modeling demonstrated that severity of PTS symptoms was predictive of PTS symptoms at subsequent time points (P < 0.001). High baseline mindfulness and coping predicted less severe PTS symptoms in patients and caregivers (P < 0.001) at all time points. Own degree of PTS symptoms at 3 months predicted worse PTS symptoms in one's partner at 6 months, for both patients and caregivers (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the need to prioritize assessment and treatment of PTS in Neuro-ICU patients and their informal caregivers through a dyadic approach.

Use of High-Cost Cancer Treatments in Academic and Nonacademic Practice.

BACKGROUND: Academic physicians, such as those affiliated with National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers, may have different practice patterns regarding the use of high-cost cancer drugs than nonacademic physicians. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this cohort study, we linked cancer registry, administrative, and demographic data for patients with newly diagnosed cancer in North Carolina from 2004 to 2011. We selected cancer types with multiple U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved, National Comprehensive Cancer Network-recommended treatment options and large differences in reimbursement between higher-priced and lower-priced options (stage IV colorectal, stage IV lung, and stage II-IV head-and-neck cancers). We assessed whether provider's practice setting-NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center ("NCI") versus other location ("non-NCI")-was associated with use of higher-cost treatment options. We used inverse probability of exposure weighting to control for patient characteristics. RESULTS: Of 800 eligible patients, 79.6% were treated in non-NCI settings. Patients treated in non-NCI settings were more likely to receive high-cost treatment than patients treated in NCI settings (36.0% vs. 23.2%), with an unadjusted prevalence difference of 12.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.1%-20.0%). After controlling for potential confounding factors, non-NCI patients remained more likely to receive high-cost treatment, although the strength of association was attenuated (adjusted prevalence difference, 9.6%; 95% CI -0.1%-18.7%). Exploratory analyses suggested potential heterogeneity across cancer type and insurance status. CONCLUSION: Use of higher-cost cancer treatments may be more common in non-NCI than NCI settings. This may reflect differential implementation of clinical evidence, local practice variation, or possibly a response to the reimbursement incentives presented by chemotherapy billing. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Oncology care delivery and practice patterns may vary between care settings. By comparing otherwise similar patients treated in National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers with those treated elsewhere, this study suggests that patients may be more likely to receive treatment with certain expensive cancer drugs if treated in the non-NCI setting. These practice differences may result in differences in patient costs and outcomes as a result of where they receive treatment.

Evaluating the appropriateness of chemotherapy in a low-resource cancer centre in sub-Saharan Africa.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the appropriateness of chemotherapy use at the Oncology Department of the Bugando Medical Centre of Mwanza, Tanzania. METHODS: The study was an observational prevalence-based study designed to evaluate a single-chemotherapy cycle during a defined time period for a cross-section of patients at varying stages of their clinical history. The sample included 103 consecutive subjects who were treated during January-March 2017 and had at least one previous cycle. Chemotherapy treatment omissions, cycle delays, and dose reductions and their causes were recorded using a standard form that included demographic, anthropometric, and clinical items. The data were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: There were 59 males (57.3%) and 44 females (42.7%). Ninety-four patients were aged ≥18 years. Considering cancer type/site, there were 23 distinct groups of patients. The recorded number of drugs in the chemotherapy regimens varied between one and five. The median cycle number was three (range: 2-11). Sixty-eight (66.0%) patients were treated in a standard fashion. For the remaining, cycle delay and dose reduction were the most common cause for nonstandard treatment. Hematologic toxicity was responsible for the greater part of cycle delays, whereas dose reductions were accounted for by a larger spectrum of causes. Overall, toxicity explained 21/35 (60.0%) patients receiving nonstandard treatment. The distribution of toxic events was skewed toward grade 1 and grade 2. CONCLUSIONS: The observed level of appropriateness of chemotherapy was encouraging. The proportion of patients experiencing severe toxic effects was lower than expected.

Impact of Psychiatric Comorbidities on Health Care Costs Among Patients With Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Psychiatric disorders are common in cancer patients and impact outcomes. Impact on cancer care cost needs study to develop business case for psychosocial interventions. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of preexisting psychiatric comorbidities on total cost of care during 6 months after cancer diagnosis. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study examined patients diagnosed with cancer between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2014, at one National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center. Patients who received all cancer treatment at the study site (6598 of 11,035 patients) were included. Patients were divided into 2 groups, with or without psychiatric comorbidity, based on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) diagnosis codes. Total costs of care during the first 6 months of treatment were based on standardized costs adjusted to 2014 dollars, determined by assigning Medicare reimbursement rates to professional billed services and applying appropriate cost-to-charge ratios. Quantile regression models with covariate adjustments were developed to assess the effect of psychiatric comorbidity across the distribution of costs. RESULTS: Six hundred ninety-eight (10.6%) of 6598 eligible patients had at least one psychiatric comorbidity. These patients had more nonpsychiatric Elixhauser comorbidities (mean 4 vs. 3). Unadjusted total cancer care costs were higher for patients with psychiatric comorbidity (mean [standard deviation]: $51,798 [$74,549] vs. $32,186 [$45,240]; median [quartiles]: $23,871 [$10,705-$57,338] vs. $19,073 [$8120-$38,230]). Quantile regression models demonstrated that psychiatric comorbidity had significant incremental effects at higher levels of cost: 75th percentile $8629 (95% confidence interval: $3617-13,642) and 90th percentile $42,586 (95% confidence interval: $25,843-59,330). CONCLUSIONS: Psychiatric comorbidities are associated with increased total cancer costs, especially in patients with very high cancer care costs, representing an opportunity to develop mitigation strategies.