Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on specialty community practices: an oncology perspective.

OBJECTIVES: Typically, a community-based specialty practice is prepared for a limited public health crisis that is driven by a natural disaster or a localized environment event. This article describes the unexpected impact that the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had on community-based specialty practices across the United States, especially oncology practices. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted an electronic national survey of community-based specialty practice administrators to determine the impact of COVID-19 on their practices and their ability to manage through a global pandemic. The 22-question survey focused on an initial observation period of March 15, 2020, to May 15, 2020, compared with a second period of May 16, 2020, to August 15, 2020. RESULTS: Oncology practices accounted for 46% of the 155 specialty practices that participated in the survey. Overall, 57% of respondents saw at least a 30% decline in total patient volume and/or financial impact during the initial observation period, compared with a 38% decline for the oncology practices. More than 70% of all practices experienced improvement after May 15, 2020, with at least 60% improving regardless of specialty. The initial decline was primarily driven by declines in new patient volume and procedures. Approximately 62% of practices anticipate a moderate-to-significant impact on patient outcomes over the next 12 months. The impact expected was slightly higher in retina and ophthalmology practices than oncology. CONCLUSIONS: Although unexpectedly impacted in delivering care for their patients, specialty practices generally and oncology practices especially have been resilient by leveraging federal funds and adopting operational enhancements.

Cost differential of immuno-oncology therapy delivered at community versus hospital clinics.

OBJECTIVES: The site of cancer care delivery has been shown to be associated with the total cost of care. The magnitude of this effect in patients receiving expensive immuno-oncology (I-O) therapies has not been evaluated. We evaluated cost differentials between community-based and hospital-based outpatient clinics among patients receiving I-O therapies. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective analysis utilizing Truven MarketScan Commercial and Supplemental Medicare claims databases. METHODS: Cost data for 3135 patients with non-small cell lung cancer, squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, bladder cancer, renal cell carcinoma, or melanoma who received pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and/or ipilimumab between January 1, 2015, and February 14, 2017, were analyzed as cost per patient per month (PPPM). Patients treated within a community setting were matched 2:1 with those treated at a hospital clinic based on cancer type, specific I-O therapy, receipt of radiation therapy, evidence of metastatic disease, gender, age, and evidence of surgery in the preindex period. RESULTS: Mean (SD) total (medical plus pharmacy) PPPM cost was significantly lower for patients treated in a community- versus hospital-based clinic ($22,685 [$16,205] vs $26,343 [$22,832]; P <.001). Lower PPPM medical cost in the community versus hospital setting ($21,382 [$15,667] vs $24,831 [$22,102]; P <.001) was the major driver of this cost differential. Lower total cost was seen regardless of cancer type or I-O therapy administered. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with I-O therapies in community practice is associated with a lower total cost of care compared with that in hospital-based outpatient practices. With the expanding indications of these agents, future research is needed.

Cost Differences Associated With Oncology Care Delivered in a Community Setting Versus a Hospital Setting: A Matched-Claims Analysis of Patients With Breast, Colorectal, and Lung Cancers.

PURPOSE:: Access to high-quality cancer care remains a challenge for many patients. One such barrier is the increasing cost of treatment. With recent shifts in cancer care delivery from community-based to hospital-based clinics, we examined whether this shift could result in increased costs for patients with three common tumor types. METHODS:: Cost data for 6,675 patients with breast, lung, and colorectal cancer were extracted from the IMS LifeLink database and analyzed as cost per patient per month (PPPM). Patients treated within a community setting were matched (2 to 1) with those treated at a hospital clinic on the basis of cancer type, chemotherapy regimen, receipt of radiation therapy, presence of metastatic disease, sex, prior surgery, and geographic region. Approximately 84% of patients were younger than 65 years of age. RESULTS:: Mean total PPPM cost was significantly lower for patients treated in a community- versus hospital-based clinic ($12,548 [standard deviation {SD}, $10,507] v $20,060 [SD, $16,555]; P < .001). The PPPM chemotherapy cost was also significantly lower in the community setting ($4,933 [SD, $4,983] v $8,443 [SD, $10,391]; P < .001). The lower cost observed in community practice was irrespective of chemotherapy regimen and tumor type. CONCLUSION:: We observed significantly increased costs of care for our patient population treated at hospital-based clinics versus those treated at community-based clinics, largely driven by the increased cost of chemotherapy and provider visits in hospital-based clinics. If the site of cancer care delivery continues to shift toward hospital-based clinics, the increased health care spending for payers and patients should be better elucidated and addressed.

A Comparison of the Cough Profile of Fosinopril and Enalapril in Hypertensive Patients with a History of ACE Inhibitor-Associated Cough.

OBJECTIVE: Cough frequency and severity with fosinopril and enalapril were assessed in hypertensive patients with previous angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI)-associated cough. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, randomized, 8-week double-blind treatment. PATIENTS: One hundred seventy-nine patients (mild-to-moderate hypertension, nonsmokers, mean age 58 years; 55% females; 72% Caucasian, 6% black, 19% Hispanic) were studied. Patients with other cough etiologies, significant co-morbidity, or confounding medications were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to fosinopril 10 mg (n = 85) or enalapril 5 mg (n = 94) once daily. Dosage could be doubled for blood pressure control after 4 weeks. Outcome measurements: The primary end point was all-cough frequency based on patient daily diary ratings; a cumulative cough frequency score was calculated. Secondary end points included cough severity, nonproductive cough frequency, night awakenings, cough time of day, and spontaneously reported cough. RESULTS: Fosinopril and enalapril demonstrated similar blood pressure control. Significant cough profile differences were observed in favor of fosinopril: all-cough frequency was 40.6 plus minus 3.8 (mean plus minus SE) versus 52.8 plus minus 3.6 (p = 0.02); nonproductive cough frequency was 26.7 plus minus 3.5 versus 40.3 plus minus 3.4 (p less-than-or-equal 0.01); and cough time of day was 49.2 plus minus 5.2 versus 66.0 plus minus 5.0 (p = 0.02), for fosinopril and enalapril, respectively. Subgroup analysis revealed all-cough frequency was 33.5 plus minus 6.3 versus 56.6 plus minus 5.3 (p = 0.006) for fosinopril and enalapril, respectively, in patients who previously had cough on one of these two ACEI (predominantly enalapril). Ten (12%) fosinopril and 25 (27%) enelapril patients spontaneously reported cough (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Hypertensive patients with previous ACEI-associated cough reported less frequent cough with fosinopril compared to enalapril, based on cumulative patient diary scores and spontaneously reported cough. This difference was most apparent in the subgroup of patients who previously experienced cough associated with enalapril therapy. Patients with prior ACEI-associated cough may experience less frequent with fosinopril.