The Association Between Oncology Outreach and Timely Treatment for Rural Patients with Breast Cancer: A Claims-Based Approach.

BACKGROUND: Oncology outreach is a common strategy for increasing rural access to cancer care, where traveling oncologists commute across healthcare settings to extend specialized care. Examining the extent to which physician outreach is associated with timely treatment for rural patients is critical for informing outreach strategies. METHODS: We identified a 100% fee-for-service sample of incident breast cancer patients from 2015 to 2020 Medicare claims and apportioned them into surgery and adjuvant therapy cohorts based on treatment history. We defined an outreach visit as the provision of care by a traveling oncologist at a clinic outside of their primary hospital service area. We used hierarchical logistic regression to examine the associations between patient receipt of preoperative care at an outreach visit (preoperative outreach) and > 60-day surgical delay, and patient receipt of postoperative care at an outreach visit (postoperative outreach) and > 60-day adjuvant delay. RESULTS: We identified 30,337 rural-residing patients who received breast cancer surgery, of whom 4071 (13.4%) experienced surgical delay. Among surgical patients, 14,501 received adjuvant therapy, of whom 2943 (20.3%) experienced adjuvant delay. In adjusted analysis, we found that patient receipt of preoperative outreach was associated with reduced odds of surgical delay (odds ratio [OR] 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61-0.91); however, we found no association between patient receipt of postoperative outreach and adjuvant delay (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.85-1.25). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that preoperative outreach is protective against surgical delay. The traveling oncologists who enable such outreach may play an integral role in catalyzing the coordination and timeliness of patient-centered care.

Disparities in Access to Multidisciplinary Cancer Consultations and Treatment for Patients With Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A SEER-Medicare Analysis.

PURPOSE: Disparities in access to a multidisciplinary cancer consultation (MDCc) persist, and the role of physician relationships remains understudied. This study examined the extent to which multilevel factors, including patient characteristics and patient-sharing network measures reflecting the structure of physician relationships, are associated with an MDCc and receipt of stereotactic body radiation therapy versus surgery among patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: In this cross-sectional study, we analyzed Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data for patients diagnosed with stage I-IIA NSCLC from 2016 to 2017. We assembled patient-sharing networks and identified cancer specialists who were locally unique for their specialty, herein referred to as linchpins. The proportion of linchpin cancer specialists for each hospital referral region (HRR) was calculated as a network-based measure of specialist scarcity. We used multilevel multinomial logistic regression to estimate associations between study variables and receipt of an MDCc and multilevel logistic regression to examine the relationship between patient receipt of an MDCc and initial treatment. RESULTS: Our study included 6120 patients with stage I-IIA NSCLC, of whom 751 (12.3%) received an MDCc, 1729 (28.3%) consulted only a radiation oncologist, 2010 (32.8%) consulted only a surgeon, and 1630 (26.6%) consulted neither specialist within 2 months of diagnosis. Compared with patients residing in an HRR with a low proportion of linchpin surgeons, those residing in an HRR with a high proportion of linchpin surgeons had a 2.99 (95% CI, 1.87-4.78) greater relative risk of consulting only a radiation oncologist versus receiving an MDCc and a 2.70 (95% CI, 1.68-4.35) greater relative risk of consulting neither specialist versus receiving an MDCc. Patients who received an MDCc were 5.32 times (95% CI, 4.27-6.63) more likely to receive stereotactic body radiation therapy versus surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Physician networks are associated with receipt of an MDCc and treatment, underscoring the potential for leveraging patient-sharing network analysis to improve access to lung cancer care.

Characterizing the Traveling Oncology Workforce and Its Influence on Patient Travel Burden: A Claims-Based Approach.

PURPOSE: Oncology outreach is a common strategy for extending cancer care to rural patients. However, a nationwide characterization of the traveling workforce that enables this outreach is lacking, and the extent to which outreach reduces travel burden for rural patients is unknown. METHODS: This cross-sectional study analyzed a rural (nonurban) subset of a 100% fee-for-service sample of 355,139 Medicare beneficiaries with incident breast, colorectal, and lung cancers. Surgical, medical, and radiation oncologists were linked to patients using Part B claims, and traveling oncologists were identified by observing hospital service area (HSA) transition patterns. We defined oncology outreach as the provision of cancer care by a traveling oncologist outside of their primary HSA. We used hierarchical gamma regression models to examine the separate associations between patient receipt of oncology outreach and one-way patient travel times to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery. RESULTS: On average, 9,935 of 39,960 oncologists conducted annual outreach, where 57.8% traveled with low frequency (0-1 outreach visits/mo), 21.1% with medium frequency (1-3 outreach visits/mo), and 21.1% with high frequency (>3 outreach visits/mo). Oncologists provided surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy to 51,715, 27,120, and 5,874 rural beneficiaries, respectively, of whom 2.5%, 6.9%, and 3.6% received oncology outreach. Rural patients who received oncology outreach traveled 16% (95% CI, 11 to 21) and 11% (95% CI, 9 to 13) less minutes to chemotherapy and radiotherapy than those who did not receive oncology outreach, corresponding to expected one-way savings of 15.9 (95% CI, 15.5 to 16.4) and 11.9 (95% CI, 11.7 to 12.2) minutes, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our study introduces a novel claims-based approach for tracking the nationwide traveling oncology workforce and supports oncology outreach as an effective means for improving rural access to cancer care.

The Association of Rural Residence With Surgery and Adjuvant Radiation in Medicare Beneficiaries With Rectal Cancer.

Purpose: Radiation therapy and surgery are fundamental site-directed therapies for nonmetastatic rectal cancer. To understand the relationship between rurality and access to specialized care, we characterized the association of rural patient residence with receipt of surgery and radiation therapy among Medicare beneficiaries with rectal cancer. Methods and Materials: We identified fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older diagnosed with nonmetastatic rectal cancer from 2016 to 2018. Beneficiary place of residence was assigned to one of 3 geographic categories (metropolitan, micropolitan, or small town/rural) based on census tract and corresponding rural urban commuting area codes. Multivariable regression models were used to determine associations between levels of rurality and receipt of both radiation and proctectomy within 180 days of diagnosis. In addition, we explored associations between patient rurality and characteristics of surgery and radiation such as minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Results: Among 13,454 Medicare beneficiaries with nonmetastatic rectal cancer, 3926 (29.2%) underwent proctectomy within 180 days of being diagnosed with rectal cancer, and 1792 (13.3%) received both radiation and proctectomy. Small town/rural residence was associated with an increased likelihood of receiving both radiation and proctectomy within 180 days of diagnosis (adjusted subhazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02-1.30). Furthermore, small town/rural radiation patients were significantly less likely to receive IMRT (adjusted odds ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.48-0.80) or MIS (adjusted odds ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66-0.97) than metropolitan patients. Conclusions: Although small town/rural Medicare beneficiaries were overall more likely to receive both radiation and proctectomy for their rectal cancer, they were less likely to receive preoperative IMRT or MIS as part of their treatment regimen. Together, these findings clarify that among Medicare beneficiaries, there appeared to be a similar utilization of radiation resources and time to radiation treatment regardless of rural/urban status.

From active treatment to surveillance: how the barriers and facilitators of implementing survivorship care planning could be an opportunity for telehealth in oncology care for rural patients.

PURPOSE: Cancer survivorship care planning is a recognized yet underutilized aspect of care delivery, and the opportunity for telehealth in cancer survivorship is examined. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study in Vermont and New Hampshire to characterize perceptions of rural cancer providers and survivors regarding survivorship transitions in care, consisting of (a) key informant interviews with primary care and oncology clinicians, (b) a broader survey of clinicians, and (c) surveys and focus group discussions with cancer survivors. In these interactions, we also explored the use of a shared telehealth survivorship care planning appointment between oncology clinicians, primary care clinicians, and survivors. RESULTS: Results from surveys and interviews clustered around several themes, namely (1) infrequent care transitioning back to primary care, (2) lack of mental health services, (3) lack of side effect education, (4) low perceived utility of survivorship care plans, (5) clinicians exclusively communicate using the EMR and finding it imperfect, and (6) clinicians and survivors reported conflicting perceptions regarding survivors' access to telehealth options. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that telehealth has the potential to augment the delivery of survivorship care planning; however, key technical and logistical concerns need to be addressed, particularly enhanced coordination across clinician scheduling and ensuring payment parity for various telehealth implementation strategies. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Cancer survivorship care planning is a recognized yet underutilized aspect of care delivery. There is an opportunity for the application of telehealth for supportive care in survivorship care planning, which should be a focus of further research.

Dual Inhibition of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and the Host TGFBR1 by an Anilinoquinazoline.

Tuberculosis (TB) control is complicated by the emergence of drug resistance. Promising strategies to prevent drug resistance are the targeting of nonreplicating, drug-tolerant bacterial populations and targeting of the host, but inhibitors and targets for either are still rare. In a cell-based screen of ATP-competitive inhibitors, we identified compounds with in vitro activity against replicating Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb), and an anilinoquinazoline (AQA) that also had potent activity against nonreplicating and persistent Mtb. AQA was originally developed to inhibit human transforming growth factor receptor 1 (TGFBR1), a host kinase that is predicted to have host-adverse effects during Mtb infection. The structure-activity relationship of this dually active compound identified the pyridyl-6-methyl group as being required for potent Mtb inhibition but a liability for P450 metabolism. Pyrrolopyrimidine (43) emerged as the optimal compound that balanced micromolar inhibition of nonreplicating Mtb and TGFBR1 while also demonstrating improved metabolic stability and pharmacokinetic profiles.

Hurdles of innovation-insights from a new healthcare delivery innovation program.

Introduction: Healthcare systems are actively working to innovate their care delivery models, seeking to improve service quality, improve patient and provider satisfaction, and reduce cost. Methods: By critically evaluating our experiences to date, this article highlights challenges systems may face in the process of trying to redesign healthcare and offers insights on how to navigate hurdles. We identify barriers to-and ultimately approaches to promote-rapid, scalable, sustainable, and transformative care redesign. Results: Dedicated electronic health record IT and analytic support, and ongoing leadership engagement and communication, play a valuable role in enabling redesign efforts. Flexible, but guided, innovation support helps teams stay accountable and motivated, while accommodating new project needs and directions. Understanding the change ecosystem and evaluating and sharing outcomes on an ongoing basis, enables teams to adapt as needed. Facilitation and support help realize the value of diverse, engaged teams; novel approaches and techniques draw out innovative perspectives and promote creative thinking. Conclusions: Although not an exhaustive list of challenges or strategies to overcome them, we hope these insights will contribute to a culture of innovation and support other institutions in their healthcare redesign initiatives.

From active treatment to surveillance: How the barriers and facilitators of implementing survivorship care planning could be an opportunity for telehealth in oncology care for rural patients.

Purpose: Cancer survivorship care planning is a recognized yet underutilized aspect of care delivery and the opportunity for telehealth in cancer survivorship is examined. Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study in Vermont and New Hampshire to characterize perceptions of rural cancer providers and survivors regarding survivorship transitions in care, consisting of: a) key informant interviews with primary care and oncology clinicians, b) a broader survey of clinicians, and c) surveys and focus group discussions with cancer survivors. In these interactions, we also explored the use of a shared telehealth survivorship care planning appointment between oncology clinicians, primary care clinicians, and survivors. Results: Results from surveys and interviews clustered around several themes, namely: 1) infrequent care transitioning back to primary care; 2) lack of mental health services; 3) lack of side effect education; 4) low perceived utility of survivorship care plans; 5) clinicians exclusively communicate using the EMR and finding it imperfect; and 6) clinicians and survivors reported conflicting perceptions regarding survivors' access to telehealth options. Conclusions: Our results suggest that telehealth has potential to augment the delivery of survivorship care planning; however, key technical and logistical concerns need to be addressed, particularly enhanced coordination across clinician scheduling and ensuring payment parity for various telehealth implementation strategies. Implications for Cancer Survivors: Cancer survivorship care planning is a recognized yet underutilized aspect of care delivery. There is an opportunity for the application of telehealth for supportive care in survivorship care planning, which should be a focus of further research.

Association of rurality, socioeconomic status, and race with pancreatic cancer surgical treatment and survival.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatectomy is a necessary component of curative intent therapy for pancreatic cancer, and patients living in nonmetropolitan areas may face barriers to accessing timely surgical care. We evaluated the intersecting associations of rurality, socioeconomic status (SES), and race on treatment and outcomes of Medicare beneficiaries with pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study, using fee-for-service Medicare claims of beneficiaries with incident pancreatic cancer (2016-2018). We categorized beneficiary place of residence as metropolitan, micropolitan, or rural. Measures of SES were Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility and the Area Deprivation Index. Primary study outcomes were receipt of pancreatectomy and 1-year mortality. Exposure-outcome associations were assessed with competing risks and logistic regression. RESULTS: We identified 45 915 beneficiaries with pancreatic cancer, including 78.4%, 10.9%, and 10.7% residing in metropolitan, micropolitan, and rural areas, respectively. In analyses adjusted for age, sex, comorbidity, and metastasis, residents of micropolitan and rural areas were less likely to undergo pancreatectomy (adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio = 0.88 for rural, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.81 to 0.95) and had higher 1-year mortality (adjusted odds ratio = 1.25 for rural, 95% CI = 1.17 to 1.33) compared with metropolitan residents. Adjustment for measures of SES attenuated the association of nonmetropolitan residence with mortality, and there was no statistically significant association of rurality with pancreatectomy after adjustment. Black beneficiaries had lower likelihood of pancreatectomy than White, non-Hispanic beneficiaries (subdistribution hazard ratio = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.72 to 0.89, adjusted for SES). One-year mortality in metropolitan areas was higher for Black beneficiaries (adjusted odds ratio = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.26). CONCLUSIONS: Rurality, socioeconomic deprivation, and race have complex interrelationships and are associated with disparities in pancreatic cancer treatment and outcomes.

Structure and integration of specialty palliative care in three NCI-designated cancer centers: a mixed methods case study.

INTRODUCTION: Early access to specialty palliative care is associated with better quality of life, less intensive end-of-life treatment and improved outcomes for patients with advanced cancer. However, significant variation exists in implementation and integration of palliative care. This study compares the organizational, sociocultural, and clinical factors that support or hinder palliative care integration across three U.S. cancer centers using an in-depth mixed methods case study design and proposes a middle range theory to further characterize specialty palliative care integration. METHODS: Mixed methods data collection included document review, semi-structured interviews, direct clinical observation, and context data related to site characteristics and patient demographics. A mixed inductive and deductive approach and triangulation was used to analyze and compare sites' palliative care delivery models, organizational structures, social norms, and clinician beliefs and practices. RESULTS: Sites included an urban center in the Midwest and two in the Southeast. Data included 62 clinician and 27 leader interviews, observations of 410 inpatient and outpatient encounters and seven non-encounter-based meetings, and multiple documents. Two sites had high levels of "favorable" organizational influences for specialty palliative care integration, including screening, policies, and other structures facilitating integration of specialty palliative care into advanced cancer care. The third site lacked formal organizational policies and structures for specialty palliative care, had a small specialty palliative care team, espoused an organizational identity linked to treatment innovation, and demonstrated strong social norms for oncologist primacy in decision making. This combination led to low levels of specialty palliative care integration and greater reliance on individual clinicians to initiate palliative care. CONCLUSION: Integration of specialty palliative care services in advanced cancer care was associated with a complex interaction of organization-level factors, social norms, and individual clinician orientation. The resulting middle range theory suggests that formal structures and policies for specialty palliative care combined with supportive social norms are associated with greater palliative care integration in advanced cancer care, and less influence of individual clinician preferences or tendencies to continue treatment. These results suggest multi-faceted efforts at different levels, including social norms, may be needed to improve specialty palliative care integration for advanced cancer patients.

Multiparameter phenotypic screening for endogenous TFEB and TFE3 translocation identifies novel chemical series modulating lysosome function.

The accumulation of toxic protein aggregates in multiple neurodegenerative diseases is associated with defects in the macroautophagy/autophagy-lysosome pathway. The amelioration of disease phenotypes across multiple models of neurodegeneration can be achieved through modulating the master regulator of lysosome function, TFEB (transcription factor EB). Using a novel multi-parameter high-throughput screen for cytoplasmic:nuclear translocation of endogenous TFEB and the related transcription factor TFE3, we screened the Published Kinase Inhibitor Set 2 (PKIS2) library as proof of principle and to identify kinase regulators of TFEB and TFE3. Given that TFEB and TFE3 are responsive to cellular stress we have established assays for cellular toxicity and lysosomal function, critical to ensuring the identification of hit compounds with only positive effects on lysosome activity. In addition to AKT inhibitors which regulate TFEB localization, we identified a series of quinazoline-derivative compounds that induced TFEB and TFE3 translocation. A novel series of structurally-related analogs was developed, and several compounds induced TFEB and TFE3 translocation at higher potency than previously screened compounds. KINOMEscan and cell-based KiNativ kinase profiling revealed high binding for the PRKD (protein kinase D) family of kinases, suggesting good selectivity for these compounds. We describe and utilize a cellular target-validation platform using CRISPRi knockdown and orthogonal PRKD inhibitors to demonstrate that the activity of these compounds is independent of PRKD inhibition. The more potent analogs induced subsequent upregulation of the CLEAR gene network and cleared pathological HTT protein in a cellular model of proteinopathy, demonstrating their potential to alleviate neurodegeneration-relevant phenotypes. Abbreviations: AD: Alzheimer disease; AK: adenylate kinase; CLEAR: coordinated lysosomal expression and regulation; CQ: chloroquine; HD: Huntington disease; PD: Parkinson disease; PKIS2: Published Kinase Inhibitor Set 2; PRKD: protein kinase D; TFEB: transcription factor EB.

Problematic Integration: Racial Discordance in End-of-Life Decision Making.

We describe racially discordant oncology encounters involving EOL decision-making. Fifty-eight provider interviews were content analyzed using the tenets of problematic integration theory. We found EOL discussions between non-Black providers and their Black patients were often complex and anxiety-inducing. That anxiety consisted of (1) ontological uncertainty in which providers characterized the nature of Black patients as distrustful, especially in the context of clinical trials; (2) ontological and epistemological uncertainty in which provider intercultural incompetency and perceived lack of patient health literacy were normalized and intertwined with provider assumptions about patients' religion and support systems; (3) epistemological uncertainty as ambivalence in which providers' feelings conflicted when deciding whether to speak with family members they perceived as lacking health literacy; (4) divergence in which the provider advised palliative care while the family desired surgery or cancer-directed medical treatment; and (5) impossibility when an ontological uncertainty stance of Black distrust was seen as natural by providers and therefore impossible to change. Some communication strategies used were indirect stereotyping, negotiating, asking a series of value questions, blame-guilt framing, and avoidance. We concluded that provider perceptions of Black distrust, religion, and social support influenced their ability to communicate effectively with patients.

Cure of Micrometastatic B-Cell Lymphoma in a SCID Mouse Model Using 213Bi-Anti-CD20 Monoclonal Antibody.

We studied the feasibility of using the α-emitting 213Bi-anti-CD20 therapy with direct bioluminescent tracking of micrometastatic human B-cell lymphoma in a SCID mouse model. Methods: A highly lethal SCID mouse model of minimal-tumor-burden disseminated non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) was established using human Raji lymphoma cells transfected to express the luciferase reporter. In vitro and in vivo radioimmunotherapy experiments were conducted. Single- and multiple-dose regimens were explored, and results with 213Bi-rituximab were compared with various controls, including no treatment, free 213Bi radiometal, unlabeled rituximab, and 213Bi-labeled anti-HER2/neu (non-CD20-specific antibody). 213Bi-rituximab was also compared in vivo with the low-energy ß-emitter 131I-tositumomab and the high-energy ß-emitter 90Y-rituximab. Results: In vitro studies showed dose-dependent target-specific killing of lymphoma cells with 213Bi-rituximab. Multiple in vivo studies showed significant and specific tumor growth delays with 213Bi-rituximab versus free 213Bi, 213Bi-labeled control antibody, or unlabeled rituximab. Redosing of 213Bi-rituximab was more effective than single dosing. With a single dose of therapy given 4 d after intravenous tumor inoculation, disease in all untreated controls, and in all mice in the 925-kBq 90Y-rituximab group, progressed. With 3,700 kBq of 213Bi-rituximab, 75% of the mice survived and all but 1 survivor was cured. With 2,035 kBq of 131I-tositumomab, 75% of the mice were tumor-free by bioluminescent imaging and 62.5% survived. Conclusion: Cure of micrometastatic NHL is achieved in most animals treated 4 d after intravenous tumor inoculation using either 213Bi-rituximab or 131I-tositumomab, in contrast to the lack of cures with unlabeled rituximab or 90Y-rituximab or if there was a high tumor burden before radioimmunotherapy. α-emitter-labeled anti-CD20 antibodies are promising therapeutics for NHL, although a longer-lived α-emitter may be of greater efficacy.

Innovation pathways to preserve: Rapid healthcare innovation and dissemination during the COVID-19 pandemic.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare systems rapidly responded to challenges in healthcare delivery with innovation. Innovations developed during the COVID-19 pandemic have filled needed gaps in medical care and many may be sustained long term. The unique conditions and processes that facilitated such rapid, successful, and collective innovation should be explored to support future change in healthcare. Decentralized decision making, crowdsourcing, and nontraditional information sharing may be valuable for ongoing innovation in healthcare delivery. Shared, collective purpose in solving challenges in healthcare appear critical to this work. Health care systems aiming to sustain rapid healthcare delivery innovation should consider these processes and focus on facilitating shared purpose to sustain ongoing innovation.

Redesigning care to support earlier discharge from a neonatal intensive care unit: a design thinking informed pilot.

BACKGROUND: Preterm infants may remain in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) to receive proper nutrition via nasogastric tube feedings. However, prolonged NICU stays can have negative effects for the patient, the family and the health system. AIM: To demonstrate how a patient-centred, design thinking informed approach supported the development of a pilot programme to enable earlier discharge of preterm babies. METHOD: We report on our design thinking-empathy building approach to programme design, initial outcomes and considerations for ongoing study. RESULTS: Through the use of design thinking methods, we identified unique needs, preferences and concerns that guided the development of our novel early discharge programme. We found that stable, preterm infants unable to feed by mouth and requiring nasogastric tubes can be cared for at home with remote patient monitoring and telehealth support. In addition, novel feeding strategies can help address parental preferences without compromising infant growth. CONCLUSION: A patient-centred, design thinking informed approach supported the development of a pilot programme to enable earlier discharge of preterm babies. The programme resulted in a reduced length of stay, thereby increasing NICU bed capacity and limiting hospital turn-aways.

Rural-Urban Differences in Breast Cancer Surgical Delays in Medicare Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Delays between breast cancer diagnosis and surgery are associated with worsened survival. Delays are more common in urban-residing patients, although factors specific to surgical delays among rural and urban patients are not well understood. METHODS: We used a 100% sample of fee-for-service Medicare claims during 2007-2014 to identify 238,491 women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer undergoing initial surgery and assessed whether they experienced biopsy-to-surgery intervals > 90 days. We employed multilevel regression to identify associations between delays and patient, regional, and surgeon characteristics, both in combined analyses and stratified by rurality of patient residence. RESULTS: Delays were more prevalent among urban patients (2.5%) than rural patients (1.9%). Rural patients with medium- or high-volume surgeons had lower odds of delay than patients with low-volume surgeons (odds ratio [OR] = 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.58-0.88; OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.61-0.90). Rural patients whose surgeon operated at ≥ 3 hospitals were more likely to experience delays (OR = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.01-1.64, Ref: 1 hospital). Patient driving times ≥ 1 h were associated with delays among urban patients only. Age, black race, Hispanic ethnicity, multimorbidity, and academic/specialty hospital status were associated with delays. CONCLUSIONS: Sociodemographic, geographic, surgeon, and facility factors have distinct associations with > 90-day delays to initial breast cancer surgery. Interventions to improve timeliness of breast cancer surgery may have disparate impacts on vulnerable populations by rural-urban status.

Designing a Health Care Delivery Innovation Lab: Reflections From The First Year.

This article shares initial experiences designing and operating a new health care delivery innovation program at a rural academic medical center. The program was designed with the belief that dedicated team member time, senior leadership engagement, deliberate project/team selection, and robust, tailored project support would enable rapid and transformative health care redesign. Three teams were supported in the initial 1-year funding cycle; all 3 teams successfully designed, implemented, and tested new care models for different serious illness populations. Results demonstrated improved satisfaction, decreased length of stay, and a positive return on investment. Critical evaluation of current structures and processes will help identify refined strategies to support diverse teams that will challenge the norms of health care delivery and explore novel partnerships, approaches, and settings for care delivery. This article helps advance the conversation on how to think strategically and critically about current and future health care innovation efforts.

Impact of the Oncology Care Model on Use of Supportive Care Medications During Cancer Treatment.

PURPOSE: The Oncology Care Model (OCM) is an episode-based alternative payment model for cancer care that seeks to reduce Medicare spending while maintaining care quality. We evaluated the impact of OCM on appropriate use of supportive care medications during cancer treatment. METHODS: We evaluated chemotherapy episodes assigned to OCM (n = 201) and comparison practices (n = 534) using Medicare claims (2013-2019). We assessed denosumab use for beneficiaries with bone metastases from breast, lung, or prostate cancer; prophylactic WBC growth factor use for beneficiaries receiving chemotherapy for breast, lung, or colorectal cancer; and prophylactic use of neurokinin-1 (NK1) antagonists and long-acting serotonin antagonists for beneficiaries receiving chemotherapy for any cancer type. Analyses used a difference-in-difference approach. RESULTS: After its launch in 2016, OCM led to a relative reduction in the use of denosumab for beneficiaries with bone metastases receiving bone-modifying medications (eg, 5.0 percentage point relative reduction in breast cancer episodes [90% CI, -7.1 to -2.8]). There was no OCM impact on use of prophylactic WBC growth factors during chemotherapy with high or low risk for febrile neutropenia. Among beneficiaries receiving chemotherapy with intermediate febrile neutropenia risk, OCM led to a 7.6 percentage point reduction in the use of prophylactic WBC growth factors during breast cancer episodes (90% CI, -12.6 to -2.7); there was no OCM impact in lung or colorectal cancer episodes. Among beneficiaries receiving chemotherapy with high or moderate emetic risk, OCM led to reductions in the prophylactic use of NK1 antagonists and long-acting serotonin antagonists (eg, 6.0 percentage point reduction in the use of NK1 antagonists during high emetic risk chemotherapy [90% CI, -9.0 to -3.1]). CONCLUSION: OCM led to the reduced use of some high-cost supportive care medications, suggesting more value-conscious care.

Association of the Oncology Care Model With Value-Based Changes in Use of Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: Radiation utilization for breast cancer and metastatic bone disease varies in modality, fractionation, and cost, despite evidence demonstrating equal effectiveness and consensus recommendations such as Choosing Wisely that advocate for higher value care. We assessed whether the Oncology Care Model (OCM), an alternative payment model for practices providing chemotherapy to patients with cancer, affected the overall use and value of radiation therapy in terms of Choosing Wisely recommendations. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We used Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services administrative data to identify beneficiaries enrolled in traditional fee-for-service Medicare who initiated chemotherapy episodes at OCM and propensity-matched comparison practices. Difference-in-difference (DID) analyses evaluated the effect of OCM on overall use of postoperative radiation for breast cancer, use of intensity modulated radiation therapy and hypofractionation for breast cancer, and fractionation patterns for treatment of metastatic bone disease from breast or prostate cancer. We performed additional analyses stratified by the presence or absence of a radiation oncologist in the practice. RESULTS: Among 27,859 postoperative breast cancer episodes, OCM had no effect on overall use of radiation therapy after breast surgery (DID percentage point difference = 0.4%; 90% confidence interval [CI], -1.7%, 2.4%) or on use of intensity modulated radiation therapy in this setting (DID = -0.6; 90% CI, -3.1, 2.0). Among 19,366 metastatic bone disease episodes, OCM had no effect on fractionation patterns for palliation of bone metastases (DID for ≤10 fractions = -1.1%; 90% CI, -2.6%, 0.4% and DID for single fraction = -0.2%; 90% CI, -1.9%, 1.6%). Results were similar for practices with and without a radiation oncologist. We did not evaluate the effect of OCM on hypofractionated radiation after breast-conserving surgery owing to evidence of differential baseline trends. CONCLUSIONS: OCM had no effect on use of radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer or on fractionation patterns for metastatic bone disease. Future payment models directly focused on radiation oncology providers may be better poised to improve the value of radiation oncology care.

The Oncology Care Model and Adherence to Oral Cancer Drugs: A Difference-in-Differences Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to oral cancer drugs is suboptimal. The Oncology Care Model (OCM) offers oncology practices financial incentives to improve the value of cancer care. We assessed the impact of OCM on adherence to oral cancer therapy for chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), prostate cancer, and breast cancer. METHODS: Using 2014-2019 Medicare data, we studied chemotherapy episodes for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries prescribed tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) for CML, antiandrogens (ie, enzalutamide, abiraterone) for prostate cancer, or hormonal therapies for breast cancer in OCM-participating and propensity-matched comparison practices. We measured adherence as the proportion of days covered and used difference-in-difference (DID) models to detect changes in adherence over time, adjusting for patient, practice, and market-level characteristics. RESULTS: There was no overall impact of OCM on improved adherence to TKIs for CML (DID = -0.3%, 90% confidence interval [CI] = -1.2% to 0.6%), antiandrogens for prostate cancer (DID = 0.4%, 90% CI = -0.3% to 1.2%), or hormonal therapy for breast cancer (DID = 0.0%, 90% CI = -0.2% to 0.2%). Among episodes for Black beneficiaries in OCM practices, for whom adherence was lower than for White beneficiaries at baseline, we observed small improvements in adherence to high cost TKIs (DID = 3.0%, 90% CI = 0.2% to 5.8%) and antiandrogens (DID = 2.2%, 90% CI = 0.2% to 4.3%). CONCLUSIONS: OCM did not impact adherence to oral cancer therapies for Medicare beneficiaries with CML, prostate cancer, or breast cancer overall but modestly improved adherence to high-cost TKIs and antiandrogens for Black beneficiaries, who had somewhat lower adherence than White beneficiaries at baseline. Patient navigation and financial counseling are potential mechanisms for improvement among Black beneficiaries.