Oncologic drug repository programs in the United States: a review and comparison.

As cancer affects 40% of all Americans during their lifetime, the financial burden of cancer care represents a significant contribution towards the overall cost of health care in the United States. Cancer drug repository programs offer a unique solution for patients who have limited financial ability to access medications while reducing medical waste. We reviewed all state legislation in the United States regarding cancer drug repository programs. Five states have oral anticancer drug (OACD)-specific drug repository programs, while 28 states have generalized drug repository programs. Iowa's statewide, mail-order OACD repository program is the preeminent example of an effective and efficient program, which should be replicated across the country. Many states have passed legislation allowing for drug repository programs but have struggled to translate such legislation into active programs due to lack of funding and management. We offer recommendations across policy, manufacturing, institutional, health care professional, and patient domains in order provide optimal patient care.

Current communication practices for biomarker testing in non-small cell lung cancer: Exploring patient and clinician perspectives.

OBJECTIVES: We qualitatively explored patient and clinician experiences with biomarker testing in one academic health system to identify current communication practices and unmet testing information needs. METHODS: We conducted 1:1 in-depth interviews with 15 clinicians (i.e., nurses, oncologists, pathologists) and 12 patients diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer between January and May 2022. Participants described experiences with biomarker testing as well as associated communication practices and needs. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Analysis was informed by the Framework Method. RESULTS: Patients described challenges retaining information early in their patient journey. While patients were generally aware of biomarkers and their effect on treatment options, they expressed limited knowledge of expected time delays between testing and receiving results. Additionally, many did not know their testing results. Clinicians and patients both noted no standard education material on biomarker testing is currently available. They suggested such materials could support patient knowledge and decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Communication between patients and clinicians about biomarker testing is largely delivered through verbal counseling at a time when patients may be cognitively compromised. All participants supported the idea of delivering standard, tangible education materials on biomarker testing to patients. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Education materials may enhance counseling efforts and patient knowledge.

Advance Directives for Patients With Breast Cancer: Applying the Right Info/Right Care/Right Patient/Right Time Oncology Model.

Background Advance directives (AD) are an important component of life care planning for patients undergoing treatment for cancer; however, there are few effective interventions to increase AD rates. In this quality improvement project, the authors integrated AD counseling into a novel right info/right care/right patient/right time (4R) sequence of care oncology delivery intervention for breast cancer patients in an integrated health care delivery system. Methods The authors studied two groups of patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer who attended a multidisciplinary clinic and underwent definitive surgery at a single facility. The usual care (UC) cohort (N = 139) received care from October 1, 2019 to September 30, 2020. The 4R cohort (N = 141) received care from October 1, 2020 to September 30, 2121 that included discussing AD completion with a health educator prior to surgery. The authors used bivariate analyses to assess whether the AD intervention increased AD completion rates and to identify factors influencing AD completion. Results The UC and 4R cohorts were similar in age, gender, race/ethnicity, interpreter need, Elixhauser comorbidity index, National Comprehensive Cancer Network distress score ≥ 5, surgery type, stage, histology, grade, and Estrogen receptor/Progesterone receptor/ human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (ER/PR/HER2) status. AD completion rates prior to surgery were significantly higher for the 4R vs UC cohort (73.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] [66.5%-81.0%] vs 15.1%, 95% CI [9.2%-21.1%], p < .01) and did not significantly differ by age, race, need for interpreter, or distress scores. Conclusion Incorporation of a health educator discussion into a 4R care sequence plan significantly increased rates of time-sensitive AD completion.

Fostering a High-Functioning Team in Cancer Care Using the 4R Oncology Model: Assessment in a Large Health System and a Blueprint for Other Institutions.

PURPOSE: Delivering cancer care by high-functioning multidisciplinary teams promises to address care fragmentation, which threatens care quality, affects patient outcomes, and strains the oncology workforce. We assessed whether the 4R Oncology model for team-based interdependent care delivery and patient self-management affected team functioning in a large community-based health system. METHODS: 4R was deployed at four locations in breast and lung cancers and assessed along four characteristics of high-functioning teams: recognition as a team internally and externally; commitment to an explicit shared goal; enablement of interdependent work to achieve the goal; and engagement in regular reflection to adapt objectives and processes. RESULTS: We formed an internally and externally recognized team of 24 specialties committed to a shared goal of delivering multidisciplinary care at the optimal time and sequence from a patient-centric viewpoint. The team conducted 40 optimizations of interdependent care (22 for breast, seven for lung, and 11 for both cancers) at four points in the care continuum and established an ongoing teamwork adaptation process. Half of the optimizations entailed low effort, while 30% required high level of effort; 78% resulted in improved process efficiency. CONCLUSION: 4R facilitated development of a large high-functioning team and enabled 40 optimizations of interdependent care along the cancer care continuum in a feasible way. 4R may be an effective approach for fostering high-functioning teams, which could contribute to improving viability of the oncology workforce. Our intervention and taxonomy of results serve as a blueprint for other institutions motivated to strengthen teamwork to improve patient-centered care.

Resource and Reimbursement Barriers to Comprehensive Cancer Care Delivery: An Analysis of Association of Community Cancer Centers Survey Data.

PURPOSE: Comprehensive cancer care (CCC) delivery is recommended in guidelines and considered essential for high-quality cancer management. Barriers, such as insufficient reimbursement, prevent consistent access to and delivery of CCC. Association of Community Cancer Centers conducted a national survey to elucidate capacity and barriers to CCC delivery to inform policy and value-based payment reform. METHODS: Survey methodology included item generation with expert review, iterative piloting, and cognitive validity testing. In the final instrument, 27 supportive oncology services were assessed for availability, reasons not offered, and coverage/reimbursement. RESULTS: 204 of 704 member programs completed survey questions. Despite most services being reported as offered, a minority were funded through insurance reimbursement. The services least likely to obtain reimbursement were those that address practical and family/childcare needs (0.7%), caregiver support (1.5%), advanced care directives (1.7%), spiritual services (1.8%), and navigation (2.7%). These findings did not vary by region or practice type. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of sufficient reimbursement, staffing, and budget to provide CCC across the United States. Care models and reimbursement policies must include CCC services to optimize delivery of cancer care.

A Learning Health System Approach to Cancer Survivorship Care Among LGBTQ+ Communities.

PURPOSE: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) individuals who receive primary care services at community health centers are often referred to external specialty care centers after cancer diagnosis, upon which primary care services are disrupted and may be discontinued because of gaps in communication between primary and oncologic care providers. This qualitative study evaluated barriers and facilitators to effective care coordination for LGBTQ+ patients with cancer and the utility of a novel cancer care coordination tool to mitigate identified barriers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Semistructured interviews with LGBTQ+ cancer survivors, caregivers to LGBTQ+ persons, clinical team members who provide care to LGBTQ+ patients, and members of community-based organizations that work with LGBTQ+ patients were conducted. Interview analysis was a multistage process, wherein a constant comparison approach was used. Transcripts were reviewed and coded using Atlas.ti Cloud. RESULTS: A total of 26 individuals were interviewed: 10 patients, four caregivers, 10 clinical care team members, and two community organization representatives. Interview analysis yielded insight regarding (1) LGBTQ+ patient experiences engaging with primary and oncologic care at the clinic level and (2) perceptions of patient-provider and provider-provider communication and coordination. CONCLUSION: Interview findings indicate a need for further development of interventions aimed at improving care coordination, patient experience, and outcomes in the cancer care continuum for LGBTQ+ patients. Learning health systems, like the one studied, show great potential for contributing to the development of such interventions.

Oncology distress screening within predominately Black Veterans: Outcomes on supportive care utilization, hospitalizations, and mortality.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated whether patients' initial screening symptoms were related to subsequent utilization of supportive care services and hospitalizations, and whether patient-level demographics, symptoms, hospitalizations, and supportive care service utilization were associated with mortality in primarily low-income, older, Black Veterans with cancer. METHODS: This quality improvement project created collaborative clinics to conduct cancer distress screenings and refer to supportive care services at an urban, VA medical center. All patients completed a distress screen with follow-up screening every 3 months. Supportive care utilization, hospitalization rates, and mortality were abstracted through medical records. Poisson regression models and cox proportional hazard models were utilized. RESULTS: Five hundred and eighty five screened patients were older (m = 72), mostly Black 70% (n = 412), and had advanced cancer 54%. Fifty-eight percent (n = 340) were screened only once with 81% (n = 470) receiving ≥1 supportive care service and 51.5% (n = 297) being hospitalized ≥1 time 18 months following initial screen. Symptom severity was significantly related to number of hospitalizations. Low mood was significantly related to higher supportive services (p < 0.001), but not hospitalizations (p ≥ 0.52). Pain, fatigue, physical function, nutrition, and physical symptoms were significantly associated with more supportive services and hospitalizations (p < 0.01). Twenty percent (n = 168) died; Veterans who were Black, had lower stage cancers, better physical health, and utilized less supportive care services had lower odds of mortality (p ≤ 0.01). CONCLUSION: Individuals with elevated distress needs and those reporting lower physical function utilized more supportive care services and had higher hospitalization rates. Lower physical function, greater supportive care use, higher stage cancer, and being non-Black were associated with higher odds of death.

Perspectives of private payers on multicancer early-detection tests: informing research, implementation, and policy.

Emerging blood-based multicancer early-detection (MCED) tests may redefine cancer screening, reduce mortality, and address health disparities if their benefit is demonstrated. U.S. payers' coverage policies will impact MCED test adoption and access; thus, their perspectives must be understood. We examined views, coverage barriers, and evidentiary needs for MCED from 19 private payers collectively covering 150 000 000 enrollees. Most saw an MCED test's potential merit for cancers without current screening (84%), but fewer saw its merit for cancers with existing screening (37%). The largest coverage barriers were inclusion of cancers without demonstrated benefits of early diagnosis (73%), a high false-negative rate (53%), and lack of care protocols for MCED-detected but unconfirmed cancers (53%). The majority (58%) would not require mortality evidence and would accept surrogate endpoints. Most payers (64%) would accept rigorous real-world evidence in the absence of a large randomized controlled trial. The majority (74%) did not expect MCED to reduce disparities due to potential harm from overtreatment resulting from an MCED and barriers to downstream care. Payers' perspectives and evidentiary needs may inform MCED test developers, researchers producing evidence, and health systems framing MCED screening programs. Private payers should be stakeholders of a national MCED policy and equity agenda.

Genetic counselors' experience with reimbursement and patient out-of-pocket cost for multi-cancer gene panel testing for hereditary cancer syndromes.

Multi-cancer gene panels for hereditary cancer syndromes (hereditary cancer panels, HCPs) are widely available, and some laboratories have programs that limit patients' out-of-pocket (OOP) cost share. However, little is known about practices by cancer genetic counselors for discussing and ordering an HCP and how insurance reimbursement and patient out-of-pocket share impact these practices. We conducted a survey of cancer genetic counselors based in the United States through the National Society of Genetic Counselors to assess the impact of reimbursement and patient OOP share on ordering of an HCP and hereditary cancer genetic counseling. Data analyses were conducted using chi-square and t tests. We received 135 responses (16% response rate). We found that the vast majority of respondents (94%, 127/135) ordered an HCP for patients rather than single-gene tests to assess hereditary cancer predisposition. Two-thirds of respondents reported that their institution had no protocol related to discussing HCPs with patients. Most respondents (84%, 114/135) indicated clinical indications and patients' requests as important in selecting and ordering HCPs, while 42%, 57/135, considered reimbursement and patient OOP share factors important. We found statistically significant differences in reporting of insurance as a frequently used payment method for HCPs and in-person genetic counseling (84% versus 59%, respectively, p < 0.0001). Perceived patient willingness to pay more than $100 was significantly higher for HCPs than for genetic counseling(41% versus 22%, respectively, p < 0.01). In sum, genetic counselors' widespread selection and ordering of HCPs is driven more by clinical indications and patient preferences than payment considerations. Respondents perceived that testing is more often reimbursed by insurance than genetic counseling, and patients are more willing to pay for an HCP than for genetic counseling. Policy efforts should address this incongruence in reimbursement and patient OOP share. Patient-centered communication should educate patients on the benefit of genetic counseling.

Assessing Breast Cancer Risks to Improve Care for an Increased-Risk Population within Eastern North Carolina.

BACKGROUND The average lifetime risk of breast cancer for an American woman is 12.5%, but individual risks vary significantly. Risk modeling is a standard of care for breast cancer screening and prevention with recommended tools to stratify individual risks based on age, family history, breast density, and a host of other known risk factors. Because of a lack of resources rurally, we have not consistently met this standard of care within all of North Carolina.METHODS We implemented a quality improvement project to assess the risk for breast cancer by gathering data on community risks. We implemented an evidence-based tool (Tyrer-Cuzick) for quantifying risk within a mostly rural population of Eastern North Carolina and developed customized services for women meeting elevated-risk definition. These services included additional imaging for elevated-risk women and a risk-reduction program. We also assessed genetic risks for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in our at-risk population using National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines based on family history and added local genetics extenders to help test more women. We analyzed data regularly using Plan-Do-Study-Act methods to improve outcomes over 1 year.RESULTS We screened a population of 4500 women at a community hospital over a 1-year period for their individual lifetime cancer risk and genetic risk. Breast cancer risk was quantitated at the time of mammography, and women were stratified into 3 groups for risk management. Within our screening population, 6.3% of women were at high risk (defined by a lifetime breast cancer risk greater than or equal to 20%) and another 8.1% were above-average risk (defined by a lifetime breast cancer risk of 15%-20%). These women (14.4%) could potentially benefit from additional risk-management strategies. Additionally, 20% of all unaffected women within a typical screening population of Eastern North Carolina met NCCN guidelines for hereditary breast cancer and ovarian cancer testing independent of their cancer risk score. Using a model of targeted intervention within a population with elevated risks can be helpful in improving outcomes.LIMITATIONS This population within Eastern North Carolina is mostly rural and represents a potentially biased population, as it involves older women undergoing annual mammography. It may not be broadly applicable to the entire population based on age, geography, and other risks.CONCLUSIONS This model for improving cancer risk assessment and testing at a small community hospital in Eastern North Carolina was successful and addressed a community need. We discovered a high rate of increased-risk women who can benefit from individualized risk management, and a higher percentage of women who potentially benefit from genetic testing. These higher cumulative risks may in part explain some of the disparities seen for breast-cancer-specific outcomes in some parts of the state.

Age-based disparities in telehealth use in an urban, underserved population in cancer and pulmonary clinics: A need for policy change.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth rapidly emerged as an essential health care service and became particularly important for patients with cancer and chronic conditions. However, the benefits of telehealth have not been fully realized for some of the most vulnerable populations due to inequitable access to telehealth capable technology. PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess accessibility and satisfaction with telehealth technology by vulnerable patients with cancer and pulmonary disease. METHODOLOGY: A paper survey and internet-based survey were developed and administered to adult (≥18 years) cancer and pulmonary clinic patients (July 1, 2020 to October 30, 2020). RESULTS: Descriptive statistics and Fisher exact test were performed. Two hundred eleven patients completed the survey. Adults ≥50 years old (older) had reduced access to smartphone video capability and internet connection compared with adults less than 50 years old (59% vs. 90%, p < .01). Older adults reported more challenges with telehealth visits compared with younger adults (50.3%, 28.6%; p < .01). No difference in access to technology and preferences for telehealth versus in-person care was found by race, gender, or education level. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly all patients (95%) who had a previous experience with a telehealth visit felt confident in the quality of care they received via telehealth. Younger adults preferred video visits compared with older adults (75% vs. 50.6%, p < .01). Older adults were less likely to have access to smartphones with internet access, have more challenges with telehealth visits, and were less likely to prefer audio-video telehealth visits compared with younger adults. IMPLICATIONS: Ensuring equitable access to all health care delivery modalities by telehealth, including audio-only visits for patients across the age continuum, is paramount.

Influence of payer coverage and out-of-pocket costs on ordering of NGS panel tests for hereditary cancer in diverse settings.

The landscape of payment for genetic testing has been changing, with an increase in the number of laboratories offering testing, larger panel offerings, and lower prices. To determine the influence of payer coverage and out-of-pocket costs on the ordering of NGS panel tests for hereditary cancer in diverse settings, we conducted semi-structured interviews with providers who conduct genetic counseling and order next-generation sequencing (NGS) panels purposefully recruited from 11 safety-net clinics and academic medical centers (AMCs) in California and North Carolina, states with diverse populations and divergent Medicaid expansion policies. Thematic analysis was done to identify themes related to the impact of reimbursement and out-of-pocket expenses on test ordering. Specific focus was put on differences between settings. Respondents from both safety-net clinics and AMCs reported that they are increasingly ordering panels instead of single-gene tests, and tests were ordered primarily from a few commercial laboratories. Surprisingly, safety-net clinics reported few barriers to testing related to cost, largely due to laboratory assistance with prior authorization requests and patient payment assistance programs that result in little to no patient out-of-pocket expenses. AMCs reported greater challenges navigating insurance issues, particularly prior authorization. Both groups cited non-coverage of genetic counseling as a major barrier to testing. Difficulty of access to cascade testing, particularly for family members that do not live in the United States, was also of concern. Long-term sustainability of laboratory payment assistance programs was a major concern; safety-net clinics were particularly concerned about access to testing without such programs. There were few differences between states. In conclusion, the use of laboratories with payment assistance programs reduces barriers to NGS panel testing among diverse populations. Such programs represent a major change to the financing and affordability of genetic testing. However, access to genetic counseling is a barrier and must be addressed to ensure equity in testing.

Comprehensive and Equitable Care for Vulnerable Veterans With Integrated Palliative, Psychology, and Oncology Care.

OBJECTIVE: Veterans who live with cancer need comprehensive care. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer guidelines recommend evaluating distress and providing appropriate follow-up to all patients with cancer. METHODS: We created patient-centered, collaborative clinics to screen for and address cancer-related distress. Medical oncologists received education about available supportive services and instructions on how to make referrals. Participants completed the Coleman Supportive Oncology Collaborative screening questions. RESULTS: Patients in this outpatient US Department of Veterans Affairs medical oncology clinic were primarily older, African American men. Most veterans screened positive for ≥ 1 type of cancer-related distress. Patients screened for high levels of distress received in-person clinical follow-up for further evaluation and to make immediate referrals to supportive care services. CONCLUSIONS: We evaluated patients' needs, made referrals as needed, and helped bring care directly into the oncology clinic. Using a screening tool for cancer-related distress and managing distress with integrated psychosocial providers could improve care coordination and enhance patient-centered supportive oncology care, especially for high-risk patients. A full-time social worker was integrated into the medical oncology clinics based on our program's success.

Attitudes and Perceptions of Multidisciplinary Cancer Care Clinicians Toward Telehealth and Secure Messages.

Importance: Telehealth use including secure messages has rapidly expanded since the COVID-19 pandemic, including for multidisciplinary aspects of cancer care. Recent reports described rapid uptake and various benefits for patients and clinicians, suggesting that telehealth may be in standard use after the pandemic. Objective: To examine attitudes and perceptions of multidisciplinary cancer care clinicians toward telehealth and secure messages. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional specialty-specific survey (ie, some questions appear only for relevant specialties) among multidisciplinary cancer care clinicians, collected from April 29, 2020, to June 5, 2020. Participants were all 285 clinicians in the fields of medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, survivorship, and oncology navigation from all 21 community cancer centers of Kaiser Permanente Northern California. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinician satisfaction, perceived benefits and challenges of telehealth, perceived quality of telehealth and secure messaging, preferred visit and communication types for different clinical activities, and preferences regarding postpandemic telehealth use. Results: A total of 202 clinicians (71%) responded (104 of 128 medical oncologists, 34 of 37 radiation oncologists, 16 of 62 breast surgeons, 18 of 28 navigators, and 30 of 30 survivorship experts; 57% (116 of 202) were women; 73% [147 of 202] between ages 36-55 years). Seventy-six percent (n = 154) were satisfied with telehealth without statistically significant variations based on clinician characteristics. In-person visits were thought to promote a strong patient-clinician connection by 99% (n = 137) of respondents compared with 77% (n = 106) for video visits, 43% (n = 59) for telephone, and 14% (n = 19) for secure messages. The most commonly cited benefits of telehealth to clinicians included reduced commute (79%; n = 160), working from home (74%; n = 149), and staying on time (65%; n = 132); the most commonly cited negative factors included internet connection (84%; n = 170) or equipment problems (72%; n = 146), or physical examination needed (64%; n = 131). Most respondents (59%; n = 120) thought that video is adequate to manage the greater part of patient care in general; and most deemed various telehealth modalities suitable for any of the queried types of patient-clinician activities. For some specific activities, less than half of respondents thought that only an in-person visit is acceptable (eg, 49%; n = 66 for end-of-life discussion, 35%; n = 58 for new diagnosis). Most clinicians (82%; n = 166) preferred to maintain or increase use of telehealth after the pandemic. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey of multidisciplinary cancer care clinicians in the COVID-19 era, telehealth was well received and often preferred by most cancer care clinicians, who deemed it appropriate to manage most aspects of cancer care. As telehealth use becomes routine in some cancer care settings, video and telephone visits and use of asynchronous secure messaging with patients in cancer care has clear potential to extend beyond the pandemic period.

Evaluation of the Novel 4R Oncology Care Planning Model in Breast Cancer: Impact on Patient Self-Management and Care Delivery in Safety-Net and Non-Safety-Net Centers.

PURPOSE: Optimal cancer care requires patient self-management and coordinated timing and sequence of interdependent care. These are challenging, especially in safety-net settings treating underserved populations. We evaluated the 4R Oncology model (4R) of patient-facing care planning for impact on self-management and delivery of interdependent care at safety-net and non-safety-net institutions. METHODS: Ten institutions (five safety-net and five non-safety-net) evaluated the 4R intervention from 2017 to 2020 with patients with stage 0-III breast cancer. Data on self-management and care delivery were collected via surveys and compared between the intervention cohort and the historical cohort (diagnosed before 4R launch). 4R usefulness was assessed within the intervention cohort. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 63% (422/670) in intervention and 47% (466/992) in historical cohort. 4R usefulness was reported by 79.9% of patients receiving 4R and was higher for patients in safety-net than in non-safety-net centers (87.6%, 74.2%, P = .001). The intervention cohort measured significantly higher than historical cohort in five of seven self-management metrics, including clarity of care timing and sequence (71.3%, 55%, P < .001) and ability to manage care (78.9%, 72.1%, P = .02). Referrals to interdependent care were significantly higher in the intervention than in the historical cohort along all six metrics, including primary care consult (33.9%, 27.7%, P = .045) and flu vaccination (38.6%, 27.9%, P = .001). Referral completions were significantly higher in four of six metrics. For safety-net patients, improvements in most self-management and care delivery metrics were similar or higher than for non-safety-net patients, even after controlling for all other variables. CONCLUSION: 4R Oncology was useful to patients and significantly improved self-management and delivery of interdependent care, but gaps remain. Model enhancements and further evaluations are needed for broad adoption. Patients in safety-net settings benefited from 4R at similar or higher rates than non-safety-net patients, indicating that 4R may reduce care disparities.

Meeting the guidelines: Implementing a distress screening intervention for veterans with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend systematic evaluation of distress screening and referral for cancer patients. Implementation remains a notable gap for cancer centers serving disadvantaged communities. We present the implementation of a distress screening program within a Veterans Affairs hospital oncology clinic, serving a majority African American (AA) male population of low socioeconomic status (SES). METHODS: The Coleman Foundation funded this program supporting a palliative care physician and psychologist to implement screening in a phased approach as follows: (1) Organizing key stakeholders, (2) educating clinical staff, (3) delivering distress screening, (4) generating documentation, and (5) implementing clinical action and referral pathways. We utilized validated measures in the "Patient Screening Questions for Supportive Care" screening tool. RESULTS: This program was unsuccessful in screening all veterans with cancer; however, we were able to implement 3 years of longitudinal screening. In distress screens from the initial program period (n = 253), patients were primarily males (95.6%) of older age (m = 70, standard deviation = 9.45), AA (76.4%), with various cancers of advanced disease (69%). Males reported moderate psychosocial distress and elevated financial needs. For males with elevated psychosocial distress (n = 63, PHQ-4 ≥3), 36% were previously connected with psychosocial services. Following screening, engagement increased as the majority (77%) established psychosocial care. CONCLUSIONS: This screening program had mixed success. Centralized program staff and available supportive care referrals were critical for program implementation. Screening may have increased engagement in social work/mental health services for males of low SES. Screening programs should be tailored to the needs of underserved communities with accessible housing/food subsidies.

Telemedicine in Oncology and Reimbursement Policy During COVID-19 and Beyond.

The first confirmed case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the United States was reported on January 20, 2020. As of September 17, 2020, there were more than 6.6 million confirmed cases and 196,277 deaths. Limited data are available on outcomes of immunocompromised patients, but early published reports from China indicate that those with cancer have a 3.5 times higher risk of ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or death than those without cancer. Because of the uncertain behavior of COVID-19, it has become imperative for practices to limit exposure to vulnerable patients. Telemedicine has been one of the cornerstones of caring for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. This review provides an overview of reimbursement policy by public and private payers before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, describes implications in cancer care, and offers considerations for future reimbursement policy.

Systematic Patient Navigation Strategies to Scale Breast Cancer Disparity Reduction by Improved Cancer Prevention and Care Delivery Processes.

PURPOSE: Patient navigation uses trained personnel to eliminate barriers to timely care across all phases of the health care continuum, thereby reducing health disparities. However, patient navigation has yet to be systematized in implementation models to improve processes of care at scale rather than remain a band-aid approach focused solely on improving care for the individual patient. The 4R systems engineering approach (right information and right treatment to the right patient at the right time) uses project management discipline principles to develop care sequence templates that serve as patient-centered project plans guiding patients and their care team. METHODS: A case-study approach focused on the underserved patient shows how facilitators to timely breast cancer screening and care pragmatically identified as emergent data by patient navigators can be actionized by iteratively revising 4R care sequence templates to incorporate new insights as they emerge. RESULTS: Using a case study of breast cancer screening of a low-income patient, we illustrate how 4R care sequence templates can be revised to incorporate emergent facilitators to care identified through patient navigation. CONCLUSION: Use of care sequence templates can inform the care team to optimize a particular patient's care, while functioning as a learning health care system for process improvement of patient care and patient navigation scaling. A learning health care system approach that systematically integrates data patterns emerging from multiple patient navigation experiences through in-person navigators and 4R care sequence templates may improve processes of care and allow patient navigation scaling to reduce cancer disparities.