Developing a virtual assessment protocol for the AMPLIFI Randomized Controlled Trial due to COVID-19: From assessing participants' preference to preparing the team.

Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person research assessments needed to be adapted to ensure safety of participants and staff. Participants' willingness to participate in research activities, how to prepare assessors to ensure data integrity, and the feasibility of modified protocols, were unknown. Within the AMPLIFI randomized clinical trial (RCT) for cancer survivors, we elicited participants' preferences and willingness to participate in Clinic, Home, or Virtual assessments, prepared assessors for, and implemented virtual assessments. Methods 1) We conducted phone surveys of potential AMPLIFI participants; 2) Based on survey results, we modified assessments from in-person to virtual visits (VV) by videoconference. Assessors were trained and certified, i.e., assessors recorded 3 assessments that were reviewed and scored by 2 investigators. The modified protocol was proposed to 62 participants: we report numbers of those who agreed to attend VV. Results 1) Survey results: Among 74 survey respondents, 44.6% preferred, 75.7% were willing to attend Clinic Visits; 32.4% preferred, 83.8% were willing to do VV; 23% preferred, 77% were willing to do Home Visits. Survivors 70+ were less likely than 50-69 years old to be willing to do VV: no other differences were noted by gender, race, rural status or education. 2) Assessment uptake: 66.1% agreed to attend VV, and of them 75.6% completed them. Conclusion Diverse research participants adapted to protocols that prioritize their safety, although older participants may be reluctant to do virtual assessments. Virtual assessments are feasible and research teams can rigorously prepare to collect quality data through them.

"I'd Want to Know, Because a Year's Not a Long Time to Prepare for a Death": Role of Prognostic Information in Shared Decision Making among Women with Metastatic Breast Cancer.

Context: Increasing emphasis on patient-centered care has led to highlighted importance of shared decision making, which better aligns medical decisions with patient care preferences. Effective shared decision making in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) treatment requires prognostic understanding, without which patients may receive treatment inconsistent with personal preferences. Objectives: To assess MBC patient and provider perspectives on the role of prognostic information in treatment decision making. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with MBC patients and community oncologists and separate focus groups involving lay navigators, nurses, and academic oncologists. Qualitative analysis utilized a content analysis approach that included a constant comparative method to generate themes. Results: Of 20 interviewed patients with MBC, 30% were African American. Academic oncologists were mostly women (60%), community oncologists were all Caucasian, and nurses were all women and 28% African American. Lay navigators were all African American and predominately women (86%). Five emergent themes were identified. (1) Most patients wanted prognostic information but differed in when they wanted to have this conversation, (2) Emotional distress and discomfort was a critical reason for not discussing prognosis, (3) Religious beliefs shaped preferences for prognostic information, (4) Health care professionals differed on prognostic information delivery timing, and (5) Providers acknowledged that an individualized approach taking into account patient values and preferences would be beneficial. Conclusion: Most MBC patients wanted prognostic information, yet varied in when they wanted this information. Understanding why patients want limited or unrestricted prognostic information can inform oncologists' efforts toward shared decision making.

Healthy lifestyle discussions between healthcare providers and older cancer survivors: Data from 12 cancer centers in the Southeastern United States.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the prevalence of healthy lifestyle (HLS) discussions between providers and older cancer survivors. METHODS: We utilized cross-sectional data from older cancer survivors (≥65 years) seen at 12 southeastern cancer centers during 2013-2015. Data on demographics, time since diagnosis, weight, height, and healthy behaviors were collected. Respondents were asked if providers (oncologists, other physicians, and/or nurses) discussed exercise, healthy diet, weight management, and/or smoking cessation during clinical encounters. Descriptive statistics and bivariate associations between HLS topics and survivor characteristics were calculated. RESULTS: Among 1460 cancer survivors, mean age was 74 years (SD 6), most were white (81%), and >1 year postdiagnosis (84%). The majority (71%) reported discussing at least one of three HLS topics (exercise 49%, healthy diet 53%, vegetable consumption 28%); 17% received counseling on all three. Weight loss was recommended to 33% of overweight/obese survivors and smoking cessation to 85% of current smokers. Oncologists and nurses discussed HLS less frequently compared to other physicians. Younger survivors (65-74 years) received recommendations for exercise, weight loss, and tobacco cessation more often than older survivors (≥75 years). Compared to white respondents, minorities reported discussions on all topics more often except for tobacco cessation. Excluding tobacco cessation, survivors with recent cancer diagnoses (<1 year) reported HLS discussions more often than survivors >1 year postdiagnosis. CONCLUSION: Despite the American Cancer Society's recommendations, older survivors reported a low prevalence of HLS discussions with their providers, with some variation by demographic groups. Strategies are needed to promote these important discussions in this population.

What Is Important When Making Treatment Decisions in Metastatic Breast Cancer? A Qualitative Analysis of Decision-Making in Patients and Oncologists.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is an ideal environment for shared decision-making because of the large number of guideline-based treatment options with similar efficacy but different toxicity profiles. This qualitative analysis describes patient and provider factors that influence decision-making in treatment of MBC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients and community oncologists completed in-person interviews. Academic medical oncologists participated in focus groups. Interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using NVivo. Using an a priori model based on the Ottawa Framework, two independent coders analyzed transcripts using a constant comparative method. Major themes and exemplary quotes were extracted. RESULTS: Participants included 20 patients with MBC, 6 community oncologists, and 5 academic oncologists. Analysis of patient interviews revealed a decision-making process characterized by the following themes: decision-making style, contextual factors, and preferences. Patient preference subthemes include treatment efficacy, physical side effects of treatment, emotional side effects of treatment, cognitive side effects of treatment, cost and financial toxicity, salience of cutting-edge treatment options (clinical trial or newly approved medication), treatment logistics and convenience, personal and family responsibilities, treatment impact on daily activities, participation in self-defining endeavors, attending important events, and pursuing important goals. Physician decisions emphasized drug-specific characteristics (treatment efficacy, side effects, cost) rather than patient preferences, which might impact treatment choice. CONCLUSION: Although both patients with MBC and oncologists considered treatment characteristics when making decisions, patients' considerations were broader than oncologists', incorporating contextual factors such as the innovative value of the treatment and life responsibilities. Differences in perspectives between patients and oncologists suggests the value of tools to facilitate systematic communication of preferences in the setting of MBC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Both patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and oncologists emphasized importance of efficacy and physical side effects when making treatment decisions. However, other patient considerations for making treatment decisions were broader, incorporating contextual factors such as the logistics of treatments, personal and family responsibilities, and ability to attend important events. Furthermore, individual patients varied substantially in priorities that they want considered in treatment decisions. Differences in perspectives between patients and oncologists suggest the value of tools to facilitate systematic elicitation of preferences and communication of those preferences to oncologists for integration into decision-making in MBC.

Evaluating the Impact of Treatment Care Planning on Quality Measures.

PURPOSE: The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation Oncology Care Model (OCM) requires documentation of a 13-point Institute of Medicine care management plan for Medicare patients. In addition, OCM includes evaluation of quality using key performance measures that align with the ASCO Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI). Both efforts are designed to improve patient-centered care and foster patients' engagement in their care plan. METHODS: A multicenter quality improvement project was conducted to develop a strategy to meet the OCM treatment planning (TP) requirement (Plan), pilot clinician education coupled with use of electronic TP in early-stage breast cancer (Do), evaluate the impact of TP on QOPI measures (Study), and develop recommendations for future implementation (Act). RESULTS: Thirty-three clinical providers and 171 women with breast cancer were included. Improved performance on several QOPI measures was observed for the intervention group compared with the historical control group. CONCLUSION: Meeting the OCM TP requirement through incorporating a technology solution provided an opportunity for quality improvement and preparation for full-scale TP within the OCM. TP delivery was associated with improved performance on select ASCO QOPI measures, which is likely to correspond with improved performance on quality measures within OCM.

Impact of Guideline-Discordant Treatment on Cost and Health Care Utilization in Older Adults with Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline-based treatment is a marker of high-quality care. The impact of guideline discordance on cost and health care utilization is unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study of Medicare claims data from 2012 to 2015 included women age ≥65 with stage I-III breast cancer receiving care within the University of Alabama at Birmingham Cancer Community Network. Concordance with NCCN guidelines was assessed for treatment regimens. Costs to Medicare and health care utilization were identified from start of cancer treatment until death or available follow-up. Adjusted monthly cost and utilization rates were estimated using linear mixed effect and generalized linear models. RESULTS: Of 1,177 patients, 16% received guideline-discordant treatment, which was associated with nonwhite race, estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor negative, human epidermal growth receptor 2 (HER2) positive, and later-stage cancer. Discordant therapy was primarily related to reduced-intensity treatments (single-agent chemotherapy, HER2-targeted therapy without chemotherapy, bevacizumab without chemotherapy, platinum combinations without anthracyclines). In adjusted models, average monthly costs for guideline-discordant patients were $936 higher compared with concordant (95% confidence limits $611, $1,260). For guideline-discordant patients, adjusted rates of emergency department visits and hospitalizations per thousand observations were 25% higher (49.9 vs. 39.9) and 19% higher (24.0 vs. 20.1) per month than concordant patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: One in six patients with early-stage breast cancer received guideline-discordant care, predominantly related to undertreatment, which was associated with higher costs and rates of health care utilization. Additional randomized trials are needed to test lower-toxicity regimens and guide clinicians in treatment for older breast cancer patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Previous studies lack details about types of deviations from chemotherapy guidelines that occur in older early-stage breast cancer patients. Understanding the patterns of guideline discordance and its impact on patient outcomes will be particularly important for these patients. This study found 16% received guideline-discordant care, predominantly related to reduced intensity treatment and associated with higher costs and rates of health care utilization. Increasing older adult participation in clinical trials should be a priority in order to fill the knowledge gap about how to treat older, less fit patients with breast cancer.

Concordance with NCCN treatment guidelines: Relations with health care utilization, cost, and mortality in breast cancer patients with secondary metastasis.

BACKGROUND: The impact of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) treatment guideline concordance on costs, health care utilization, and mortality for patients with breast cancer and secondary metastases is unknown. METHODS: From 2007 to 2013, women with early-stage breast cancer who received treatment for secondary metastases (n = 5651) were evaluated for first recorded systemic therapy concordance with NCCN guidelines within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program-Medicare linked database. Generalized linear and mixed effects models evaluated factors associated with nonconcordance and the relation between concordance status and health care utilization and costs. Mortality risk was estimated with Cox regression. RESULTS: Eighteen percent of the patients received nonconcordant therapy, with the most common being single-agent, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-targeted therapy (36%), therapy mismatched with the estrogen receptor/HER2 status (11%), unapproved bevacizumab regimens (10%), and adjuvant regimens in a metastatic setting (6%). A younger age, a hormone receptor-negative status, and a HER2-positive status were associated with nonconcordance (P < .05). Nonconcordance was associated with 22% and 21% increased rates of emergency department visits and hospitalizations, respectively, and $1765 higher average monthly Medicare costs. Differences in adjusted mortality risk were noted by the category of nonconcordance; single-agent, HER2-targeted therapy was associated with decreased mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% confidence limit [CL], 0.57-0.76), and increased mortality risk was observed with unapproved bevacizumab use (HR, 1.40; 95% CL, 1.13-1.74). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients (82%) received treatment consistent with NCCN guidelines. Nonconcordant treatment was associated with higher health care utilization and costs, with mortality differences observed by the type of guideline deviation. Consideration of both patient and financial outcomes will be important as health systems increase the emphasis on guideline-based care.

Lay Patient Navigators' Perspectives of Barriers, Facilitators and Training Needs in Initiating Advance Care Planning Conversations With Older Patients With Cancer.

CONTEXT: Respecting Choices is an evidence-based model of facilitating advance care planning (ACP) conversations between health-care professionals and patients. However, the effectiveness of whether lay patient navigators can successfully initiate Respecting Choices ACP conversations is unknown. As part of a large demonstration project (Patient Care Connect [PCC]), a cohort of lay patient navigators underwent Respecting Choices training and were tasked to initiate ACP conversations with Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with cancer. OBJECTIVES: This article explores PCC lay navigators' perceived barriers and facilitators in initiating Respecting Choices ACP conversations with older patients with cancer in order to inform implementation enhancements to lay navigator-facilitated ACP. METHODS: Twenty-six lay navigators from 11 PCC cancer centers in 4 states (Alabama, George, Tennessee, and Florida) completed in-depth, one-on-one semistructured interviews between June 2015 and August 2015. Data were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: This evaluation identifies 3 levels-patient, lay navigator, and organizational factors in addition to training needs that influence ACP implementation. Key facilitators included physician buy-in, patient readiness, and navigators' prior experience with end-of-life decision-making. Lay navigators' perceived challenges to initiating ACP conversations included timing of the conversation and social and personal taboos about discussing dying. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that further training and health system support are needed for lay navigators playing a vital role in improving the implementation of ACP among older patients with cancer. The lived expertise of lay navigators along with flexible longitudinal relationships with patients and caregivers may uniquely position this workforce to promote ACP.

Improving shared decision-making in chronic lymphocytic leukemia through multidisciplinary education.

New treatments for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) with excellent response rates and varying toxicity profiles have emerged in recent years, creating an opportunity for a patient's personal preferences to contribute to treatment decisions. We conducted a prospective, quasi-experimental pre- and post-evaluation of a multilevel educational program and its impact on knowledge of CLL and shared decision-making (SDM). We educated patients, lay navigators, nurses/advanced practice providers (APPs), and physicians. Patients were evaluated for change in patient activation, distress, desired role in decision-making, perception of decision-making, satisfaction with oncologist explanation of treatment choice, and knowledge of CLL. Lay navigators, nurses/APPs, and physicians were evaluated for change in CLL knowledge and perception of decision-making. Forty-four patients, 33 lay navigators, 27 nurses/APPs, and 27 physicians participated in the educational program. We observed trends toward improved patient activation, with 68% before education versus 76% after education reporting a Patient Activation Measure (PAM) score of 3 or 4. The percentage of patients desiring and perceiving SDM trended upward from 47% to 67% and from 35% to 49%, respectively. The percentage of patients understanding that CLL is incurable increased from 80% to 90%, as did reporting awareness of signs of progression (64% to 76%). Patients' satisfaction with their oncologists' explanations of therapy increased significantly from 83% to 95% (p = .03). CLL knowledge increased after education for lay navigators (36% vs 63%) and nurses/APPs (35% vs 69%), and remained high for physicians (85% vs 87%). Nurses/APPs and physicians perceived at least some patient involvement in decision-making at baseline, whereas 12% of patients and 23% of lay navigators perceived that physicians made decisions independently. This project demonstrated trends toward improvements in patient engagement, prognostic awareness, knowledge of signs of progression, and SDM. These promising findings should be tested in larger samples. There remains an opportunity for further improvement in SDM.

Healthcare utilization, Medicare spending, and sources of patient distress identified during implementation of a lay navigation program for older patients with breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Despite benefits for patients, sustainability of breast cancer navigation programs is challenging due to the lack of reimbursement for navigators. This analysis describes distress reported by breast cancer patients to navigators and the impact of navigation on healthcare utilization for older adults with breast cancer. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of Medicare administrative claims data and patient-reported distress assessments. The primary outcome was Medicare spending per beneficiary per quarter. Secondary outcomes included (1) the number of hospitalizations or ER visits in each quarter; (2) distress levels; and (3) causes of distress reported by patients to their navigators. A subset analysis was conducted for stage I/II/III versus stage IV patients. RESULTS: 776 navigated and 776 control patients were included in the analysis. The average age at diagnosis was 74 years; 13% of the subjects were African American; 95% of patients had stage I-III. Medicare spending declined faster for the navigated group than the matched comparison group by $528 per quarter per patient (95% CL -$667, -$388). Stage I/II/III navigated patients showed a statistically significant decline in Medicare spending, ER visits, and hospitalizations over time compared to the matched comparison group. No differences were observed for stage IV patients. Eighteen percent of patients reported moderate distress. Informational and physical distress were more common in late stage than in early-stage breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Lay navigation reduced healthcare utilization in older adults with breast cancer, with the greatest impact observed in early-stage breast cancer patients.

Most impactful factors on the health-related quality of life of a geriatric population with cancer.

BACKGROUND: As the population of older adults with cancer continues to grow, the most important factors contributing to their health-related quality of life (HRQOL) remain unclear. METHODS: A total of 1457 older adults (aged ≥65 years) with cancer participated in a telephone survey. Outcomes were measured using the Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores of the 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12) from the Medical Outcomes Study (version 2). Statistical techniques used to identify factors in 4 domains (physical, psychological, social, and spiritual) most strongly associated with HRQOL included linear models, recursive partitioning, and random forests. Models were developed in a training data set (920 respondents) and performance was assessed in a validation data set (537 respondents). RESULTS: Respondents were a median of 19 months from diagnosis, and 28.1% were receiving active treatment. The most relevant factors found to be associated with PCS were symptom severity, comorbidity scores, leisure-time physical activity, and having physical support needs. The most relevant factors for MCS were having emotional support needs, symptom severity score, and the number of financial hardship events. Results were consistent across modeling techniques. Symptoms found to be strongly associated with PCS included fatigue (adjusted proportion of summary score's variance [R2 ] = 0.34), pain (adjusted R2 = 0.32), disturbed sleep (adjusted R2 = 0.16), and drowsiness (adjusted R2 = 0.16). Symptoms found to be strongly associated with MCS included fatigue (adjusted R2 = 0.23), problems remembering things (adjusted R2 = 0.17), disturbed sleep (adjusted R2 = 0.16), and lack of appetite (adjusted R2 = 0.16). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the current study support the importance of addressing persistent symptoms, managing comorbidities, promoting leisure-time physical activity, and addressing financial challenges. A long-term comprehensive approach is needed to ensure the well-being of older adults with cancer. Cancer 2018;124:596-605. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Where Are the Opportunities for Reducing Health Care Spending Within Alternative Payment Models?

PURPOSE: The Oncology Care Model (OCM) is a highly controversial specialty care model developed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid aimed to provide higher-quality care at lower cost. Because oncologists will be increasingly held accountable for spending as well as quality within new value-based health care models like the OCM, they need to understand the drivers of total spending for their patients. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients ≥ 65 years of age with primary fee-for-service Medicare insurance who received antineoplastic therapy at 12 cancer centers in the Southeast from 2012 to 2014. Medicare administrative claims data were used to identify health care spending during the prechemotherapy period (from cancer diagnosis to antineoplastic therapy initiation) and during the OCM episodes of care triggered by antineoplastic treatment. Total health care spending per episode includes all types of services received by a patient, including nononcology services. Spending was further characterized by type of service. RESULTS: Average total health care spending in the three OCM episodes of care was $33,838 (n = 3,427), $23,811 (n = 1,207), and $19,241 (n = 678). Antineoplastic drugs accounted for 27%, 32%, and 36% of total health care spending in the first, second, and third episodes. Ten drugs, used by 31% of patients, contributed 61% to drug spending ($18.8 million) in the first episode. Inpatient spending also substantially contributed to total costs, representing 17% to 20% ($30.5 million) of total health care spending. CONCLUSION: Health care spending was heavily driven by both antineoplastic drugs and hospital use. Oncologists' ability to affect these types of spending will determine their success under alternative payment models.

Feasibility of a Telehealth Educational Program on Self-Management of Pain and Fatigue in Adult Cancer Patients.

CONTEXT: Pain and fatigue are common symptoms among cancer patients and often lead to substantial distress. Innovative self-management programs for pain and fatigue are needed. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to assess the feasibility of a telehealth pain and fatigue self-management program among adult cancer patients. Secondary objectives included assessment of differences in patient characteristics, recruitment, and retention of patients based on two screening strategies: 1) navigator-collected, patient-reported pain or fatigue and 2) in-clinic, physician-identified pain or fatigue. METHODS: This prospective, nonrandomized, pre-post evaluation assessed feasibility, which was defined as 50% of eligible patients choosing to participate and completing the intervention. Patient demographics and patient-reported outcomes (patient activation, distress, symptoms, and quality of life) were collected at baseline and study completion. Differences in baseline characteristics were compared between cohorts and for patients who did vs. did not graduate from the program. RESULTS: The program did not meet feasibility requirements because of only 34% of eligible patients choosing to participate. However, 50% of patients starting the program graduated. Differences in baseline characteristics and retention rates were noted by recruitment strategy. At baseline, 27.3% of navigated patients were at the highest activation level compared with 7.1% in the physician-referred, non-navigated patients (P = 0.17); more than 15% of non-completers were at the lowest activation level compared with 9% of completers (P = 0.85). CONCLUSION: Telehealth self-management program for pain and fatigue may be better accepted among selected segments of cancer patients. Larger scale studies are needed to assess the efficacy of this program in a more selective activated population.

Implementation and Impact of Patient Lay Navigator-Led Advance Care Planning Conversations.

CONTEXT: Advance care planning (ACP) improves alignment between patient preferences for life-sustaining treatment and care received at end of life (EOL). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate implementation of lay navigator-led ACP. METHODS: A convergent, parallel mixed-methods design was used to evaluate implementation of navigator-led ACP across 12 cancer centers. Data collection included 1) electronic navigation records, 2) navigator surveys (n = 45), 3) claims-based patient outcomes (n = 820), and 4) semistructured navigator interviews (n = 26). Outcomes of interest included 1) the number of ACP conversations completed, 2) navigator self-efficacy, 3) patient resource utilization, hospice use, and chemotherapy at EOL, and 4) navigator-perceived barriers and facilitators to ACP. RESULTS: From June 1, 2014 to December 31, 2015, 50 navigators completed Respecting Choices® First Steps ACP Facilitator training. Navigators approached 18% of patients (1319/8704); 481 completed; 472 in process; 366 declined. Navigators were more likely to approach African American patients than Caucasian patients (20% vs. 14%, P < 0.001). Significant increases in ACP self-efficacy were observed after training. The mean score for feeling prepared to conduct ACP conversations increased from 5.6/10 to 7.5/10 (P < 0.001). In comparison with patients declining ACP participation (n = 171), decedents in their final 30 days of life who engaged in ACP (n = 437) had fewer hospitalizations (46% vs. 56%, P = 0.02). Key facilitators of successful implementation included physician buy-in, patient readiness, and prior ACP experience; barriers included space limitations, identifying the "right" time to start conversations, and personal discomfort discussing EOL. CONCLUSION: A navigator-led ACP program was feasible and may be associated with lower rates of resource utilization near EOL.

Choosing Wisely: Opportunities for Improving Value in Cancer Care Delivery?

INTRODUCTION: Patients, providers, and payers are striving to identify where value in cancer care can be increased. As part of the Choosing Wisely (CW) campaign, ASCO and the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology have recommended against specific, yet commonly performed, treatments and procedures. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of Medicare claims data to examine concordance with CW recommendations across 12 cancer centers in the southeastern United States. Variability for each measure was evaluated on the basis of patient characteristics and site of care. Hierarchical linear modeling was used to examine differences in average costs per patient by concordance status. Potential cost savings were estimated on the basis of a potential 95% adherence rate and average cost difference. RESULTS: The analysis included 37,686 patients with cancer with Fee-for-Service Medicare insurance. Concordance varied by CW recommendation from 39% to 94%. Patient characteristics were similar for patients receiving concordant and nonconcordant care. Significant variability was noted across centers for all recommendations, with as much as an 89% difference. Nonconcordance was associated with higher costs for every measure. If concordance were to increase to 95% for all measures, we would estimate a $19 million difference in total cost of care per quarter. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate ample room for reduction of low-value care and corresponding costs associated with the CW recommendations. Because variability in concordance was driven primarily by site of care, rather than by patient factors, continued education about these low-value services is needed to improve the value of cancer care.

The Patient Care Connect Program: Transforming Health Care Through Lay Navigation.

The Patient Care Connect Program (PCCP) is a lay patient navigation program, implemented by the University of Alabama at Birmingham Health System Cancer Community Network. The PCCP's goal is to provide better health and health care, as well as to lower overall expenditures. The program focuses on enhancing the health of patients, with emphasis on patient empowerment and promoting proactive participation in health care. Navigator training emphasizes palliative care principles and includes development of skills to facilitate advance care planning conversations. Lay navigators are integrated into the health care team, with the support of a nurse supervisor, physician medical director, and administrative champion. The intervention focuses on patients with high needs to reach those with the greatest potential for benefit from supportive services. Navigator activities are guided by frequent distress assessments, which help to identify patient concerns across multiple domains, triage patients to appropriate resources, and ultimately overcome barriers to health care. In this article, we describe the PCCP's development, infrastructure, selection and training of lay navigators, and program operations.