Interactions with the pharmaceutical industry and the practice, knowledge and beliefs of medical oncologists and clinical haematologists: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: No previous review has assessed the extent and effect of industry interactions on medical oncologists and haematologists specifically. METHODS: A systematic review investigated interactions with the pharmaceutical industry and how these might affect the clinical practice, knowledge and beliefs of cancer physicians. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science Core Collection databases were searched from inception to February 2021. RESULTS: Twenty-nine cross-sectional and two cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. These were classified into three categories of investigation: (1) extent of exposure to industry for cancer physicians as whole (n = 11); (2) financial ties among influential cancer physicians specifically (n = 11) and (3) associations between industry exposure and prescribing (n = 9). Cancer physicians frequently receive payments from or maintain financial ties with industry, at a prevalence of up to 63% in the United States (US) and 70.6% in Japan. Among influential clinicians, 86% of US and 78% of Japanese oncology guidelines authors receive payments. Payments were associated with either a neutral or negative influence on the quality of prescribing practice. Limited evidence suggests oncologists believe education by industry could lead to unconscious bias. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial evidence of frequent relationships between cancer physicians and the pharmaceutical industry in a range of high-income countries. More research is needed on clinical implications for patients and better management of these relationships. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO identification number CRD42020143353.

Cost health literacy as a physician skill-set: the relationship between oncologist reported knowledge and engagement with patients on financial toxicity.

INTRODUCTION: Oncologists are increasingly encouraged to communicate with patients about cost; however, they may lack the cost health literacy required to effectively perform this task. METHODS: We conducted a pilot survey of oncologists in an academic medical center to assess potential factors that may influence provider attitudes and practices related to financial toxicity. We assessed perceived provider knowledge of treatment costs, insurance coverage and co-pays, and financially focused resources. We then evaluated the relationship between perceived knowledge and reported engagement with issues of financial toxicity. RESULTS: Of 45 respondents (85% response rate), 58% had changed treatment within the past year as a result of patient financial burden. On self-report, 36% discussed out-of-pocket costs with patients, 42% assessed patient financial distress, but only 20% felt they could intervene upon financial toxicity. Self-perceived awareness of cost health literacy concepts were low; only 16% reporting high out-of-pocket cost knowledge, 31-33% high insurance knowledge, and 8% high awareness of financial resources. Report of cost discussion was associated with greater perceived awareness of both out-of-pocket costs and insurance design. However, reported financial distress assessment was only associated with perceived insurance awareness, not perceived cost knowledge. Cost health literacy was not associated with an increased sense of being able to impact on financial toxicity. CONCLUSION: Oncologists acknowledge deficits in knowledge and skills that may play a role in the discussion and management of financial toxicity. Some cost health literacy competencies appear to correlate with physician involvement with financial toxicity, suggesting that education on this topic may facilitate physician engagement.

Evaluating the Strength of the Association Between Industry Payments and Prescribing Practices in Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Financial relationships between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry are common, but factors that may determine whether such relationships result in physician practice changes are unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated physician use of orally administered cancer drugs for four cancers: prostate (abiraterone, enzalutamide), renal cell (axitinib, everolimus, pazopanib, sorafenib, sunitinib), lung (afatinib, erlotinib), and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML; dasatinib, imatinib, nilotinib). Separate physician cohorts were defined for each cancer type by prescribing history. The primary exposure was the number of calendar years during 2013-2015 in which a physician received payments from the manufacturer of one of the studied drugs; the outcome was relative prescribing of that drug in 2015, compared with the other drugs for that cancer. We evaluated whether practice setting at a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center, receipt of payments for purposes other than education or research (compensation payments), maximum annual dollar value received, and institutional conflict-of-interest policies were associated with the strength of the payment-prescribing association. We used modified Poisson regression to control confounding by other physician characteristics. RESULTS: Physicians who received payments for a drug in all 3 years had increased prescribing of that drug (compared with 0 years), for renal cell (relative risk [RR] 1.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.58-2.07), CML (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.08-1.39), and lung (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.58-1.82), but not prostate (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.93-1.02). Physicians who received compensation payments or >$100 annually had increased prescribing compared with those who did not, but NCI setting and institutional conflict-of-interest policies were not consistently associated with the direction of prescribing change. CONCLUSION: The association between industry payments and cancer drug prescribing was greatest among physicians who received payments consistently (within each calendar year). Receipt of payments for compensation purposes, such as for consulting or travel, and higher dollar value of payments were also associated with increased prescribing. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Financial payments from pharmaceutical companies are common among oncologists. It is known from prior work that oncologists tend to prescribe more of the drugs made by companies that have given them money. By combining records of industry gifts with prescribing records, this study identifies the consistency of payments over time, the dollar value of payments, and payments for compensation as factors that may strengthen the association between receiving payments and increased prescribing of that company's drug.

Gender variation in Medicare utilization and payments in gynecologic oncology.

OBJECTIVES: The Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File (POSPUF) and Medicare Physician and Other Supplier National Provider Identifier (POS NPI) Aggregate Report are publicly available files from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services that include payments to providers who care for fee-for-service Medicare recipients. The aim of this study was to analyze variability in gynecologic oncologists' Medicare reimbursements, with attention to differences in provider gender and time in practice. METHODS: The 2015 POSPUF and POS NPI were analyzed with respect to gynecologic oncologists. We searched external publicly available data sources to confirm subspecialty and to determine each provider's number of years in practice. Evaluation and management (E&M) and procedure/surgery codes were analyzed; drug delivery codes were excluded due to variability in billing by facility/hospital. RESULTS: The POS NPI file included 733 gynecologic oncologist providers receiving $55,626,739 in total payments. Female providers comprised 39% of gynecologic oncologists and received 31% of reimbursements (30% of E&M reimbursements and 24% of surgical reimbursements). During the first ten years in practice, female providers comprised 58% of providers and accounted for 52% of reimbursed services, compared to 38% of providers/26% of reimbursed services (11-20 years), and 18% of providers/19% of reimbursed services (>20 years). CONCLUSION: Male gynecologic oncologists perform more Medicare services than their female counterparts. There is a comparable number of services performed between genders among both the most senior and the most junior providers, with a gender gap in services and reimbursements among mid-career providers.

The impact of integration on outpatient chemotherapy use and spending in Medicare.

Hospital-physician integration has substantially grown in the United States for the past decade, particularly in certain medical specialties, such as oncology. Yet evidence is scarce on the relation between integration and outpatient specialty care use and spending. We analyzed the impact of oncologist integration on outpatient provider-administered chemotherapy use and spending in Medicare, where prices do not depend on providers' integration status or negotiating power. We addressed oncologists' selective integration and patients' nonrandom choice of oncologists using an instrumental variables method. We found that integrated oncologists reduced the quantity of outpatient chemotherapy drugs but used more expensive treatments. This led to an increase in chemotherapy-drug spending after integration. These findings suggest that changes in treatment patterns-treatment mix and quantity-may be an important mechanism by which integration increases spending. We also found that integration increased spending on chemotherapy administration (the act of injection). This is because integration shifted billing of chemotherapy to hospital outpatient departments, where Medicare payments for chemotherapy administration are higher than those in physician offices. As integration increases, efforts should continue to assess how integration influences patient care and explore policy options to ensure desirable outcomes from integration.

How communication between cancer patients and their specialists affect the quality and cost of cancer care.

PURPOSE: Communication in cancer care is multidimensional and may affect patient treatment decision-making and quality of life. This study examined cancer patients' perceptions of the communication with their cancer specialists and explored its impact on the care they received and the financial burden they experienced. METHODS: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 20 rural and 20 outer metropolitan Western Australians diagnosed with breast, lung, prostate or colorectal cancer. Thematic analysis using a phenomenological approach was undertaken to derive key themes regarding the communication experiences of the participants. RESULTS: Four main themes emerged: information context, communication about treatment options and treatment providers, communication about costs of treatment and impact of communication on continuity of care. The quality of the communication experienced by participants was variable and in many cases sub-optimal. This affected their ability to undertake well-informed decisions regarding treatment and providers and led to substantial out-of-pocket expenses for several participants. Whilst participants differed in their information needs and expectations, most participants trusted clinicians' treatment recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Our results raise concerns about the quality of communication cancer patients receive during treatment and the repercussions for their treatment decisions and out-of-pocket expenses. Clear treatment and cost communication could empower patients in choosing treatment and providers. However, these findings suggest patients must remain vigilant during consultations and discuss available treatment pathways and their financial dimension to avoid costly treatments or missing out on available financial aid.

Medical industry at tumor board: Three-years analysis of the open payments database and comparison of oncologic specialties.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To analyze and contrast medical industry payments across U.S. oncologic providers, including hematology-oncology (HO), surgical oncology (SO), interventional radiology (IR), and radiation oncology (RO). METHODS: Open-payment-data for each provider including provider specialty, state of practice, industry payor, reason for payment, and amount was compiled for each transaction between 2013 and 2015. Total, mean, and median payment amounts per-provider were calculated for each specialty. Tukey's-method was used to identify and remove statistical outliers and Kruskal-Wallis-test with Bonferonni-post-hoc-analysis was used to evaluate for differences in total payments received per-provider across specialties. The percentage of providers accepting payments within each specialty were compared by Marascuilo's multiple-proportion-comparison. RESULTS: Total aggregate payment amount (and number of transactions) for HO, SO, IR, and RO was $164 743 746 (778 007), $7 925 467 (15 031), $49 817 380 (44 939), and $13 643 739 (49 778), respectively. Corrected-median (and corrected-mean) payments-per-specialty were $676 ($1796), $330 ($1209), $487 ($1301), and $242 ($766). A significantly higher proportion of HO providers accepted payments than both RO (97% vs 80%, P < 0.0001) and IR (97% vs 78%, P < 0.0001). The mean total payment received per-provider differed significantly across specialties (P = 0.0001). HO providers, on average, received significantly more payment-per-provider during the study period (P < 0.001) compared to all others while RO and IR received significantly less (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Among industry payments made to oncologic providers, HO received the highest median and corrected-mean amounts along with the highest proportion of providers receiving open payments.

Cancer cost communication: experiences and preferences of patients, caregivers, and oncologists-a nationwide triad study.

PURPOSE: We assessed cost communication between cancer patients, caregivers, and oncologists and identified factors associated with communication concordance. METHODS: A national, multicenter, cross-sectional survey of patient-caregiver-oncologist triads was performed, and 725 patient-caregiver pairs, recruited by 134 oncologists in 13 cancer centers, were studied. Discordance in preferences and experiences regarding cost communication between patients, caregivers, and oncologists were assessed. Hierarchical generalized linear models were used to identify predictors of concordance and to identity the possible association of concordance with patient satisfaction and degree of trust in the physician. RESULTS: Although the oncologists thought that patients would be affected by the cost of care, only half of them were aware of the subjective burden experienced by their patients, and the degree of concordance for this parameter was very low (weighted kappa coefficient = 0.06). Caregivers consistently showed similar preferences to those of the patients. After controlling for covariates, the education level of patients [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for > 12 vs. < 9 years, 2.92; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.87-4.56], actual out-of-pocket costs [aOR for ≥ 8 million vs. < 2 million Korean Won, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.34-0.89], and physician age (aOR for ≥ 55 vs. < 45 years, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.04-3.21) were significant. CONCLUSIONS: The results show underestimation by oncologists regarding the subjective financial burden on a patient, and poor patient-physician concordance in cost communication. Oncologists should be more cognizant of patient OOP costs that are not indexed by objective criteria, but instead involve individual patient perceptions.

Medical oncologists' willingness to participate in bundled payment programs.

BACKGROUND: Bundled payment programs play an increasingly important role in transforming reimbursement for oncologic care. We assessed determinants of oncologists' willingness to participate in bundled payment programs for breast cancer. We hypothesized that providers would be more likely to participate in bundled payment programs if offered higher levels of reimbursement for each episode of care. METHODS: Oncologists from Florida, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania were identified in the AMA database or by patients listed in state cancer registries. Providers were randomized to receive one of four versions of a survey describing bundled payment programs offering different levels of compensation for the first year of localized breast cancer treatment ($5000, $10,000, $15,000, or $20,000). Physicians rated their likelihood of participation in a bundled program on a Likert scale. Logistic regression was used to analyze determinants of likelihood of participation in bundling. RESULTS: Among 460 respondents, only 17% of oncologists were highly likely to participate in a bundled program paying $5000 for the first year of care, rising to 41% for the $15,000 program, but falling to 34% for the $20,000 program. Likelihood of participation was higher among oncologists who were male, older, and believed that cancer patients should not be offered high-cost drugs with minimal survival benefit. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that medical oncologists have limited enthusiasm for bundled payments, and higher payments may not overcome resistance to bundling among a substantial proportion of physicians.

A Retrospective Study of the Effects of Oncology Pharmacist Participation in Treatment on Therapeutic Outcomes and Medical Costs.

Specialist oncology pharmacists are being trained in Japan to assist cancer treatment teams. These specialized pharmacists address patients' physical and mental problems in pharmacist-managed cancer care clinics, actively participate in formulating treatment policies, and are beneficial in offering qualitative improvements to patient services and team medical care. However, the effect of outpatient treatment by oncology pharmacists on therapeutic outcomes and medical costs is still unknown. A retroactive comparative analysis of the treatment details and clinical course was conducted among three groups of patients: patients who underwent adjuvant chemotherapy managed by a gynecologic oncologist only (S arm), patients managed by a non-oncologist (general practice gynecologist) only (NS arm), and patients managed by both a non-oncologist and a specialist oncology pharmacist (NS+Ph arm). The medical cost per course was significantly lower for patients in the NS+Ph arm than for those in the other two arms. Surprisingly, the outpatient treatment rate in the NS+Ph arm was overwhelmingly high. The involvement of an oncology pharmacist did not make a significant difference in therapeutic outcomes such as recurrence rate and survival. The participation of oncology pharmacists in the management of cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy enables safe outpatient treatment and also reduces medical costs.

Survey of practices around pharmaceutical company funding for continuing professional development among medical oncologists and trainees in Australia.

BACKGROUND: The completion of continuing professional development (CPD) is mandatory for medical oncologists and trainees (MO&T). Pharmaceutical companies may fund some CPD activities, but there is increasing debate about the potential for conflicts of interest (COI). AIM: To assess current practices around funding to attend CPD activities. METHODS: An electronic survey was distributed to Australian MO&T. The survey asked questions about current practices, institutional policies and perceptions about attending CPD funded by pharmaceutical companies. The design looked at comparing responses between MO&T as well as their understanding of and training around institutional and ethical process. RESULTS: A total of 157 of 653 (24%) responses was received, the majority from MO (76%). Most CPD activities attended by MO&T were self-funded (53%), followed by funding from institutions (19%), pharmaceutical companies (16%) and salary award (16%). Most institutions allowed MO&T to receive CPD funding from professional organisations (104/157, 66%) or pharmaceutical companies (90/157, 57%). A minority of respondents (13/157, 8%) reported that the process to use pharmaceutical funds had been considered by an ethics committee. Although 103/157 (66%) had received pharmaceutical funding for CPD, most (109/157, 69%) reported never receiving training about potential COI. The lack of education was more noticeable among trainees (odds ratio (OR) 8.61, P = 0.02). MO&T acknowledged the potential bias towards a pharmaceutical product (P = 0.05) but believed there was adequate separation between themselves and pharmaceutical companies (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Majority of CPD attended by MO&T is self-funded. There is lack of clarity in institutional policies regarding external funding support for CPD activities. Formal education about potential COI is lacking.

Economic Evaluation of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Oncology: Is There a Difference Compared to Conventional Medicine?

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the financial burden of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in cancer treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Based on a systematic search of the literature (Medline and the Cochrane Library, combining the MeSH terms 'complementary therapies', 'neoplasms', 'costs', 'cost analysis', and 'cost-benefit analysis'), an expert panel discussed different types of analyses and their significance for CAM in oncology. RESULTS: Of 755 publications, 43 met our criteria. The types of economic analyses and their parameters discussed for CAM in oncology were cost, cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility analyses. Only a few articles included arguments in favor of or against these different methods, and only a few arguments were specific for CAM because most CAM methods address a broad range of treatment aim parameters to assess effectiveness and are hard to define. Additionally, the choice of comparative treatments is difficult. To evaluate utility, healthy subjects may not be adequate as patients with a life-threatening disease and may be judged differently, especially with respect to a holistic treatment approach. We did not find any arguments in the literature that were directed at the economic analysis of CAM in oncology. Therefore, a comprehensive approach assessment based on criteria from evidence-based medicine evaluating direct and indirect costs is recommended. CONCLUSION: The usual approaches to conventional medicine to assess costs, benefits, and effectiveness seem adequate in the field of CAM in oncology. Additionally, a thorough deliberation on the comparator, endpoints, and instruments is mandatory for designing studies.

Pharmaceutical Industry Payments to Medical Oncologists in the Netherlands: Trends and Patterns Provided by an Open-Access Transparency Data Set.

PURPOSE: Health care expenditure related to oncologic treatments is skyrocketing although many treatments offer marginal, if any, clinical benefit. Financial conflicts of interest (fCOI) resulting from pharmaceutical industry (pharma) payments to physicians is increasingly recognized as a predictive factor for regulatory board approval and guideline incorporation of low-value treatments. We sought to study the extent to which pharma payments to medical oncologists occur in the Netherlands, the amount of money involved, and whether these occur more frequently and are higher for key opinion leaders (KOLs). METHODS: In our cross-sectional retrospective database study, we used several Dutch open-access databases and extracted data registered between 2019 and 2021. RESULTS: A cumulative amount of €899,863 was paid to 48.8% of the 408 registered medical oncologists. Over time, there was a marked decline in both the proportion of medical oncologists receiving payments (from 40.4% in 2019 to 19.1% in 2021) and the mean annual value of payments (from €2,962 in 2019 to €2,188 in 2021) with the latter mainly resulting from a decline in hospitality-related transactions. KOLs were more likely to receive industry payments and received a higher median payment value. DISCUSSION: Our findings should contribute to the increasing awareness in the Netherlands of the potential effects of fCOI.

Evaluation of non-research and research industry payments to pediatric hematologist/oncologists in the United States between 2013 and 2021.

Financial interactions between healthcare industry and pediatric hematologist/oncologists (PHOs) could be conflicts of interest. Nevertheless, little is known about financial relationships between healthcare industry and PHOs. This cross-sectional analysis of the Open Payments Database examined general and research payments to PHOs from healthcare industry in the United States between 2013 and 2021. Payments to the PHOs were analyzed descriptively. Trends in payments were assessed using generalized estimating equation models. Of 2784 PHOs, 2142 (76.9%) PHOs received payments totaling $187.3 million from the healthcare industry between 2013 and 2021. Approximately, $46.3 million (24.8%) were general payments and $137.7 million (73.5%) were funding for research where PHOs served as principal investigators (associated research funding). Both general payments and associated research funding considerably increased between 2014 and 2019. The number of PHOs receiving general payments and associated research funding annually increased by 2.2% (95% CI: 1.2-3.3%, p < .001) and 5.0% (95% CI: 3.3-6.8%, p < .001) between 2014 and 2019, respectively.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Oncologists: Results of an International Study.

PURPOSE: As frontline workers facing the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare providers should be well-prepared to fight the disease and prevent harm to their patients and themselves. Our study aimed to evaluate the knowledge, attitude, and practice of oncologists in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on them. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted using a validated questionnaire disseminated to oncologists by SurveyMonkey. The tool had 42 questions that captured participants' knowledge, attitude, and practice; their experiences; and the pandemic's impact on various aspects of their lives. Participants from Middle East and North African countries, Brazil, and the Philippines completed the electronic survey between April 24 and May 15, 2020. RESULTS: Of the 1,010 physicians who participated in the study, 54.75% were male and 64.95% were medical or clinical oncologists. The level of knowledge regarding the prevention and transmission of the virus was good in 52% of participants. The majority (92%) were worried about contracting the virus either extremely (30%) or mildly (62%), and 84.85% were worried about transmitting the virus to their families. Approximately 76.93% reported they would take the COVID 19 vaccine once available, with oncologists practicing in Brazil having the highest odds ratio of intention to receive the COVID-19 vaccine (odds ratio, 11.8, 95% CI, 5.96 to 23.38, P < .001). Participants reported a negative impact of the pandemic on relations with coworkers (15.84%), relations with family (27.84%), their emotional and mental well-being (48.51%), research productivity (34.26%), and financial income (52.28%). CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has adverse effects on various personal and professional aspects of oncologists' lives. Interventions should be implemented to mitigate the negative impact and prepare oncologists to manage future crises with more efficiency and resilience.

Medical Liability in Cancer Care During COVID-19 Pandemic: Heroes or Guilty?

Background: The COVID-19 outbreak rapidly became a public health emergency affecting particularly the frail category as cancer patients. This led oncologists to radical changes in patient management, facing the unprecedent issue whether treatments in oncology could be postponed without compromising their efficacy. Purpose: To discuss legal implications in oncology practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Perspective: Treatment delay is not always feasible in oncology where the timing often plays a key role and may impact significantly in prognosis. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the oncologists were found between the anvil and the hammer, on the one hand the need to treat cancer patients aiming to improve clinical benefits, and on the other hand the goal to reduce the risk of COVID-19 infection avoiding or delaying immunosuppressive treatments and hospital exposure. Therefore, two rising scenarios with possible implications in both criminal and civil law are emerging. Firstly, oncologists may be "accused" of having delayed or omitted the diagnosis and/or treatments with consequent worsening of patients' outcome. Secondly, oncologists can be blamed for having exposed patients to hospital environment considered at risk for COVID-19 transmission. Conclusions: During the COVID-19 pandemic, clinical decision making should be well-balanced through a careful examination between clinical performance status, age, comorbidities, aim of the treatment, and the potential risk of COVID-19 infection in order to avoid the risk of suboptimal cancer care with potential legal repercussion. Moreover, all cases should be discussed in the oncology team or in the tumor board in order to share the best strategy to adopt case by case.

Association Between a National Insurer's Pay-for-Performance Program for Oncology and Changes in Prescribing of Evidence-Based Cancer Drugs and Spending.

PURPOSE: Cancer drug prescribing by medical oncologists accounts for the greatest variation in practice and the largest portion of spending on cancer care. We evaluated the association between a national commercial insurer's ongoing pay-for-performance (P4P) program for oncology and changes in the prescribing of evidence-based cancer drugs and spending. METHODS: We conducted an observational difference-in-differences study using administrative claims data covering 6.7% of US adults. We leveraged the geographically staggered, time-varying rollout of the P4P program to simulate a stepped-wedge study design. We included patients age 18 years or older with breast, colon, or lung cancer who were prescribed cancer drug regimens by 1,867 participating oncologists between 2013 and 2017. The exposure was a time-varying dichotomous variable equal to 1 for patients who were prescribed a cancer drug regimen after the P4P program was offered. The primary outcome was whether a patient's drug regimen was a program-endorsed, evidence-based regimen. We also evaluated spending over a 6-month episode period. RESULTS: The P4P program was associated with an increase in evidence-based regimen prescribing from 57.1% of patients in the preintervention period to 62.2% in the intervention period, for a difference of +5.1 percentage point (95% CI, 3.0 percentage points to 7.2 percentage points; P < .001). The P4P program was also associated with a differential $3,339 (95% CI, $1,121 to $5,557; P = .003) increase in cancer drug spending and a differential $253 (95% CI, $100 to $406; P = .001) increase in patient out-of-pocket spending, but no significant changes in total health care spending ($2,772; 95% CI, -$181 to $5,725; P = .07) over the 6-month episode period. CONCLUSION: P4P programs may be effective in increasing evidence-based cancer drug prescribing, but may not yield cost savings.

Patterns of End-of-Life Oncologic Care for Stage IV Non-small Cell Lung Cancer in the United States.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Because aggressive oncological management just prior to death constitutes a substantial proportion of end-of-life (EOL) costs, we investigated patterns of EOL oncologic care for stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in USA to better determine at which point in the patient's management new treatments were being initiated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for stage IV NSCLC patients who received any cancer-directed therapy with known timing thereof. RESULTS: A total of 281,990 stage IV NSCLC patients were analyzed. Of all patients, 10.8% commenced any first-course cancer therapy within four weeks of death, and 24.5% within eight weeks of death. CONCLUSION: 10-15% of stage IV NSCLC patients start cancer therapy within four weeks of death, and 25-30% within eight weeks. This represents a population for whom cancer therapy may not be required, which has implications on reducing EOL healthcare costs.

Distribution and Patterns of Industry-Related Payments to Oncologists in 2014.

BACKGROUND: Industry-physician collaboration is critical for anticancer therapeutic development, but financial relationships introduce conflicts of interest. We examined the specialty variation and context of physician payments and ownership interest among oncologists. METHODS: We performed a population-based multivariable analysis of 2014 Open Payments reports of industry payments to US physicians matched to physician and practice data, including sex, specialty, practice location, and sole proprietor status. Payment data were aggregated per physician and compared by specialty (medical, radiation, surgical, and nononcology), and practice location linked with spending level (low, average, and high). Primary outcomes included likelihood, mean annual amount, and number of general payments. Secondary outcomes included likelihood of holding ownership interests and receipt of royalty/license payments. Estimates for each outcome were determined using multivariable models, including logistic regression for likelihood and linear regression with gamma distribution and log-link for value, adjusted for physician specialty, sex, sole proprietor status, and practice spending. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: In 2014, there were 883 438 physicians, including 22 712 oncologists, licensed to practice in the United States. Among oncology specialties, 52.4% to 63.0% of physicians received a general payment in 2014, totaling $76 million, $4 million, and $5 million to medical, radiation, and surgical oncology, respectively. The median annual per-physician payment to medical oncologists was $632 (IQR = 136-2500), compared with $124 (IQR = 39-323) in radiation oncology and $250 (IQR = 84-1369) in surgical oncology. After controlling for physician and practice characteristics, oncologists were 1.09 to 1.75 times as likely to receive a general payment compared with nononcologists (overall P < 001). There was a 67.6% difference (95% confidence interval [CI] = 63.6 to 71.5, P < .001) in the mean annual value of payments between medical oncology and nononcology specialties (vs -92.7%, 95%CI = -100.2 to -85.0, P < .001] for radiation oncology). Medical and radiation oncologists were more likely to hold ownership interest (adjusted OR = 3.72, 95% CI = 3.22 to 4.27, and 2.27, 95% CI = 1.65 to 3.03, respectively, P < .001 both comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: In 2014, industry-oncologist financial relationships were common, and their impact on oncology practice should be further explored.