Quality indicators for systemic anticancer therapy services: a systematic review of metrics used to compare quality across healthcare facilities.

PURPOSE: The number of systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) regimens has expanded rapidly over the last decade. There is a need to ensure quality of SACT delivery across cancer services and systems in different resource settings to reduce morbidity, mortality, and detrimental economic impact at individual and systems level. Existing literature on SACT focuses on treatment efficacy with few studies on quality or how SACT is delivered within routine care in comparison to radiation and surgical oncology. METHODS: Systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched and handsearching was undertaken to identify literature on existing quality indicators (QIs) that detect meaningful variations in the quality of SACT delivery across different healthcare facilities, regions, or countries. Data extraction was undertaken by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: This review identified 63 distinct QIs from 15 papers. The majority were process QIs (n = 55, 87.3%) relating to appropriateness of treatment and guideline adherence (n = 28, 44.4%). There were few outcome QIs (n = 7, 11.1%) and only one structural QI (n = 1, 1.6%). Included studies solely focused on breast, colorectal, lung, and skin cancer. All but one studies were conducted in high-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review highlight a significant lack of research on SACT QIs particularly those appropriate for resource-constrained settings in low- and middle-income countries. This review should form the basis for future work in transforming performance measurement of SACT provision, through context-specific QI SACT development, validation, and implementation.

Biosimilar Use Among 38 ASCO PracticeNET Practices, 2019-2021.

PURPOSE: Biosimilars offer increased patient choice and potential cost-savings, compared with originator biologics. We studied 3 years of prescribed biologics among US physician practices to determine the relationship of practice type and payment source to oncology biosimilar use. METHODS: We acquired biologic utilization data from 38 practices participating in PracticeNET. We focused on six biologics (bevacizumab, epoetin alfa, filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, rituximab, and trastuzumab) for the period from 2019 to 2021. We complemented our quantitative analysis with a survey of PracticeNET participants (prescribers and practice leaders) to reveal potential motivators and barriers to biosimilar use. We implemented logistic regression to evaluate the biosimilar use for each biologic, with covariates including time, practice type, and payment source, and accounted for clusters of practices. RESULTS: Use of biosimilars increased over the 3-year period, reaching between 51% and 80% of administered doses by the fourth quarter of 2021, depending on the biologic. Biosimilar use varied by practice, with independent physician practices having higher use of biosimilars for epoetin alfa, filgrastim, rituximab, and trastuzumab. Compared with commercial health plans, Medicaid plans had lower biosimilar use for four biologics; traditional Medicare had lower use for five biologics. The average cost per dose decreased between 24% and 41%, dependent on the biologic. CONCLUSION: Biosimilars have, through increased use, lowered the average cost per dose of the studied biologics. Biosimilar use differed by originator biologic, practice type, and payment source. There remains further opportunity for increases in biosimilar use among certain practices and payers.

American Society of Clinical Oncology Road to Recovery Report: Learning From the COVID-19 Experience to Improve Clinical Research and Cancer Care.

This report presents the American Society of Clinical Oncology's (ASCO's) evaluation of the adaptations in care delivery, research operations, and regulatory oversight made in response to the coronavirus pandemic and presents recommendations for moving forward as the pandemic recedes. ASCO organized its recommendations for clinical research around five goals to ensure lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience are used to craft a more equitable, accessible, and efficient clinical research system that protects patient safety, ensures scientific integrity, and maintains data quality. The specific goals are: (1) ensure that clinical research is accessible, affordable, and equitable; (2) design more pragmatic and efficient clinical trials; (3) minimize administrative and regulatory burdens on research sites; (4) recruit, retain, and support a well-trained clinical research workforce; and (5) promote appropriate oversight and review of clinical trial conduct and results. Similarly, ASCO also organized its recommendations regarding cancer care delivery around five goals: (1) promote and protect equitable access to high-quality cancer care; (2) support safe delivery of high-quality cancer care; (3) advance policies to ensure oncology providers have sufficient resources to provide high-quality patient care; (4) recognize and address threats to clinician, provider, and patient well-being; and (5) improve patient access to high-quality cancer care via telemedicine. ASCO will work at all levels to advance the recommendations made in this report.

Results From the ASCO 2019 Survey of Oncology Practice Operations.

The Survey of Oncology Practice Operations is an annual survey conducted by ASCO since 2016. This is the first year in which results have been published publicly for use by practice leaders to compare the performance of their practice. The scope of the 125-question survey instrument includes medical oncology, radiation oncology, drug administration, laboratory, imaging, point-of-care dispensing pharmacy, clinical research, and practice/service-line administration. Benchmarks available include measures of staffing, productivity, revenue, and expenses, as well as a salary survey for 27 oncology-specific positions. We encourage readers of this article to develop capabilities to replicate these benchmarks within their practice and to participate in future years' surveys.

Updates to the ASCO Patient-Centered Oncology Payment Model.

The past decade has seen considerable innovation in the delivery of care and payment in oncology. Key initiatives have included the development of oncology medical home care delivery standards, the Medicare Oncology Care Model, and multiple commercial payer initiatives. Looking forward, our next challenge is to reflect on lessons learned from these limited-scale demonstration projects and work toward models that are scalable and sustainable and reflect true collaboration between payers and providers sharing common objectives and methods to advance cancer care delivery. To this end, ASCO continues its work on care delivery standards, quality measurement, and alternative payment models. Over the past year, ASCO has received input from physicians, administrators, payers, and employers to update its Patient-Centered Oncology Payment (PCOP) model. PCOP incorporates current work on provider-payer collaboration, the oncology medical home, and the value of clinical pathways and recognizes the need for common quality measurement, performance methodology, and payment structure across multiple sources of payment. The following represents a summary of the entire model. The model includes chapters on PCOP communities, clinical practice transformation, payment methodology, consolidated payments for oncology care, performance methodology, and implementation considerations. In future work, ASCO will continue its support of the PCOP model, including further development of care delivery standards, quality measures, and technology solutions (eg, CancerLinQ).

Practice Transformation: Early Impact of the Oncology Care Model on Hospital Admissions.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the Oncology Care Model (OCM) is to improve quality and reduce cost through practice transformation. A foundational tenant is to reduce avoidable emergency room (ER) visits and hospitalizations. In anticipation of being an OCM participant, we instituted a multidimensional campaign designed to meet these objectives. METHODS: Prior actions included establishment of phone triage unit, after-hours and weekend calls, and institution of weekend urgent care. RESULTS: On the basis of data from the Chronic Condition Warehouse, as provided by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, we were successful at reducing the acute care admissions rate by 16%. During the baseline period extending from Jan 2016-Mar 2016, the hospital admission rate was 27 per patient, per quarter, at an average cost per admission event of $11,122, translating to an inpatient cost per patient, per quarter, of $3,003. In the year one reporting period of July 2016-July 2017, the hospital admission rate declined to 22.6 per patient, per quarter, at an average cost per admission event of $11,106, translating to an inpatient cost per patient, per quarter, of $2,505. OCM patient survey scores improved. In addition, at Oncology Hematology Care, we achieved improved results compared with the risk-adjusted national averages for the following measures: readmissions (4.9 v 5.6 per 100 patients, respectively), ER use (17 v 18.6 per 100 patients, respectively), and observation stays (2.7 v 3.6 per 100 patients, respectively). CONCLUSION: By implementing a cost-efficient, reproducible, and scalable campaign targeting ER avoidance and hospitalizations, we were able to decrease hospital admissions. Reported Medicare savings amounted to nearly $798,000 in inpatient cost per quarter over 1,600 patients.