Safe Handling of Hazardous Drugs: ASCO Standards.

PURPOSE: To provide 2019 ASCO standards on the safe handling of hazardous drugs. METHODS: An Expert Panel was formed, and a systematic review of the literature on closed system transfer devices was performed to May 2017 using PubMed. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, and Google Scholar were used to search for studies of medical surveillance and external ventilation/health effects of exposure to vapors to November 2017. Available standards were considered for endorsement. Public comments were solicited and considered in preparation of the final manuscript. RESULTS: The search for primary research found no studies that addressed health outcomes as they relate to the identified interventions of interest. The ASCO Expert Panel endorses the best practices for safe handling of hazardous drugs as issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, US Pharmacopeia Chapter 800, and Oncology Nursing Society with clarifications in four key areas: medical surveillance, closed system transfer devices, external ventilation of containment secondary engineering controls or containment segregated compounding areas, and alternative duties. CONCLUSION: The ASCO standards address the need for clear standards concerning safe handling of hazardous oncology drugs. More research is needed in several key areas to quantify the level of risk associated with handling hazardous drugs in current workplace settings where the hierarchy of controls is consistently applied. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/safe-handling-standards .

Impact on Oncology Practices of Including Drug Costs in Bundled Payments.

INTRODUCTION: This analysis evaluates the impact of bundling drug costs into a hypothetic bundled payment. METHODS: An economic model was created for patient vignettes from: advanced-stage III colon cancer and metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. First quarter 2016 Medicare reimbursement rates were used to calculate the average fee-for-service (FFS) reimbursement for these vignettes. The probabilistic risk faced by practices was captured by the type of patients seen in practices and randomly assigned in a Monte Carlo simulation on the basis of the given distribution of patient types within each cancer. Simulations were replicated 1,000 times. The impact of bundled payments that include drug costs for various practice sizes and cancer types was quantified as the probability of incurring a loss at four magnitudes: any loss, > 10%, > 20%, or > 30%. A loss was defined as receiving revenue from the bundle that was less than what the practice would have received under FFS; the probability of loss was calculated on the basis of the number of times a practice reported a loss among the 1,000 simulations. RESULTS: Practices that treat a substantial proportion of patients with complex disease compared with the average patient in the bundle would have revenue well below that expected from FFS. Practices that treat a disproportionate share of patients with less complex disease, as compared with the average patient in the bundle, would have revenue well above the revenue under FFS. Overall, bundled payments put practices at greater risk than FFS because their patient case mix could greatly skew financial performance. CONCLUSION: Including drug costs in a bundle is subject to the uncontrollable probabilistic risk of patient case mixes.

Reform of the Buy-and-Bill System for Outpatient Chemotherapy Care Is Inevitable: Perspectives from an Economist, a Realpolitik, and an Oncologist.

Treating patients with cancer with infused or injected oncolytics is a core component of outpatient oncology practice. Currently, practices purchase drugs and then bill insurers, colloquially called "buy and bill." Reimbursement for these drugs is the largest source of gross revenue for oncology practices, and as the prices of cancer drugs have grown over time, these purchases have had significant impact on the financial health of practices and pose a risk that jeopardizes the ability of many practices to operate and provide patient care. Medicare Part B spending on drugs is under political scrutiny because of federal spending pressures, and the margin between buy and bill, lowered to 6% by the Medicare Modernization Act and further decreased to 4.3% by sequestration, is a convenient and popular target of budgetary discussions and proposals, scored to save billions of dollars over 10-year budget windows for each percentage-point reduction. Alternatives to the buy-and-bill system have been proposed to include invoice pricing, least costly alternative reimbursement, bundling of drugs into episode-of-care payments, shifting Part B drugs to the Medicare Part D benefit, and revision of the failed Competitive Acquisition Program. This article brings the perspectives of policy makers, health care economists, and providers together to discuss this major challenge in oncology payment reform.

Community oncology in an era of payment reform.

Patients and payers (government and private) are frustrated with the fee-for-service system (FFS) of payment for outpatient health services. FFS rewards volume and highly valued services, including expensive diagnostics and therapeutics, over lesser valued cognitive services. Proposed payment schemes would incent collaboration and coordination of care among providers and reward quality. In oncology, new payment schemes must address the high costs of all services, particularly drugs, while preserving the robust distribution of sites of service available to patients in the United States. Information technology and personalized cancer care are changing the practice of oncology. Twenty-first century oncology will require increasing cognitive work and shared decision making, both of which are not well regarded in the FFS model. A high proportion of health care dollars are consumed in the final months of life. Effective delivery of palliative and end-of-life care must be addressed by practice and by new models of payment. Value-based reimbursement schemes will require oncology practices to change how they are structured. Lessons drawn from the principles of primary care's Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH) will help oncology practice to prepare for new schemes. PCMH principles place a premium on proactively addressing toxicities of therapies, coordinating care with other providers, and engaging patients in shared decision making, supporting the ideal of value defined in the triple aim-to measurably improve patient experience and quality of care at less cost. Payment reform will be disruptive to all. Oncology must be engaged in policy discussions and guide rational shifts in priorities defined by new payment models.

Report on the ASCO 2010 Provider-Payer Initiative Meeting.

The ASCO Provider-Payer Initiative meeting was convened to explore ways in which providers and payers could work together to improve patient care.