US Medicare Hospice and Palliative Medicine Physician Workforce and Service Delivery in 2008-2020.

CONTEXT: Despite clinical benefits of early palliative care, little is known about Medicare physician workforce specialized in Hospice and Palliative Medicine (HPM) and their service delivery settings. OBJECTIVES: To examine changes in Medicare HPM physician workforce and their service delivery settings in 2008-2020. METHODS: Using the Medicare Data on Provider Practice and Specialty from 2008 to 2020, we identified 2375 unique Medicare Fee-For-Service (FFS) physicians (15,565 physician-year observations) with self-reported specialty in "Palliative Care and Hospice". We examined changes in the annual number of HPM physicians, average number of Medicare services overall and by care setting, total number of Medicare FFS beneficiaries, and total Medicare allowed charges billed by the physician. RESULTS: The number of Medicare HPM physicians increased 2.32 times from 771 in 2008 to 1790 in 2020. The percent of HPM physicians practicing in metropolitan areas increased from 90% to 96% in 2008-2020. Faster growth was also observed in female physicians (52.4% to 60.1%). Between 2008 and 2020, we observed decreased average annual Medicare FFS beneficiaries (170 to 123), number of FFS services (467 to 335), and Medicare allowed charges billed by the physician ($47,230 to $37,323). The share of palliative care delivered in inpatient settings increased from 47% to 68% in 2008-2020; whereas the share of services delivered in outpatient settings decreased from 37% to 19%. CONCLUSION: Despite growth in Medicare HPM physician workforce, access is disproportionately concentrated in metropolitan and inpatient settings. This may limit receipt of early outpatient specialized palliative care, especially in nonmetropolitan areas.

American Cancer Society's report on the status of cancer disparities in the United States, 2023.

In 2021, the American Cancer Society published its first biennial report on the status of cancer disparities in the United States. In this second report, the authors provide updated data on racial, ethnic, socioeconomic (educational attainment as a marker), and geographic (metropolitan status) disparities in cancer occurrence and outcomes and contributing factors to these disparities in the country. The authors also review programs that have reduced cancer disparities and provide policy recommendations to further mitigate these inequalities. There are substantial variations in risk factors, stage at diagnosis, receipt of care, survival, and mortality for many cancers by race/ethnicity, educational attainment, and metropolitan status. During 2016 through 2020, Black and American Indian/Alaska Native people continued to bear a disproportionately higher burden of cancer deaths, both overall and from major cancers. By educational attainment, overall cancer mortality rates were about 1.6-2.8 times higher in individuals with ≤12 years of education than in those with ≥16 years of education among Black and White men and women. These disparities by educational attainment within each race were considerably larger than the Black-White disparities in overall cancer mortality within each educational attainment, ranging from 1.03 to 1.5 times higher among Black people, suggesting a major role for socioeconomic status disparities in racial disparities in cancer mortality given the disproportionally larger representation of Black people in lower socioeconomic status groups. Of note, the largest Black-White disparities in overall cancer mortality were among those who had ≥16 years of education. By area of residence, mortality from all cancer and from leading causes of cancer death were substantially higher in nonmetropolitan areas than in large metropolitan areas. For colorectal cancer, for example, mortality rates in nonmetropolitan areas versus large metropolitan areas were 23% higher among males and 21% higher among females. By age group, the racial and geographic disparities in cancer mortality were greater among individuals younger than 65 years than among those aged 65 years and older. Many of the observed racial, socioeconomic, and geographic disparities in cancer mortality align with disparities in exposure to risk factors and access to cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment, which are largely rooted in fundamental inequities in social determinants of health. Equitable policies at all levels of government, broad interdisciplinary engagement to address these inequities, and equitable implementation of evidence-based interventions, such as increasing health insurance coverage, are needed to reduce cancer disparities.

A tripartite approach toward ending cancer as we know it, for everyone: An American Cancer Society perspective.

Gaps in the cancer care continuum are vast, both in the United States and globally. The American Cancer Society orchestrates an integrated, tripartite approach toward improving the lives of cancer patients and their families through research, advocacy, and patient support. With a focus on eradicating cancer disparities, the American Cancer Society aims to scale and deploy best practices worldwide through partnerships, to ensure everyone has an opportunity to prevent, detect, treat, and survive cancer.

Medicaid Expansion Associated With Increase In Palliative Care For People With Advanced-Stage Cancers.

Clinical guidelines have endorsed early palliative care for patients with advanced malignancies, but receipt remains low in the US. This study examined the association between Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act and receipt of palliative care among patients newly diagnosed with advanced-stage cancers. Using the National Cancer Database, we found that the percentage of eligible patients who received palliative care as part of first-course treatment increased from 17.0 percent preexpansion to 18.9 percent postexpansion in Medicaid expansion states and from 15.7 percent to 16.7 percent, respectively, in nonexpansion states, resulting in a net increase of 1.3 percentage points in expansion states in adjusted analyses. Increases in receipt of palliative care associated with Medicaid expansion were largest for patients with advanced pancreatic, colorectal, lung, and oral cavity and pharynx cancers and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Our findings suggest that increasing Medicaid coverage facilitates access to guideline-based palliative care for advanced cancer, and they provide additional evidence of benefit in cancer care from states' expansion of income eligibility for Medicaid.

Fear of Saying No (FOSNO): Setting Boundaries With Our Patients and Ourselves.

Cancer is an inherently complex and intense medical condition that often requires prolonged treatment and surveillance over years. Treatments can lead to frequent side effects and anxiety, requiring constant communication and follow-up with patients. Oncologists have the unique privilege of developing close relationships with their patients that evolve through the course of their disease. The advent of newer technology and the changing landscape of medicine have drastically altered how oncologists now manage patient needs. These changes have allowed for much quicker and closer communication but are not without personal and professional challenges. Some may wonder how accessible they can and should be to their patients-essentially, the boundaries they may place to protect their own identities and well-being. An oncologist might wonder how much of their personal contact information they should provide to patients and how often they should be available for questions and discussions when away from the clinic without impairing their relationship. Here, we define and explore the role of boundaries in medicine, and review common ethical dilemmas that oncologists face daily when trying to balance patient care and lives outside of medicine. Although we recognize there is no clear single solution, we will propose possible approaches to setting boundaries and potential pitfalls.

Patient-Reported Quality Measures for Palliative Care: The Time is now.

CONTEXT: While progress has been made in the ability to measure the quality of hospice and specialty palliative care, there are notable gaps. A recent analysis conducted by Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) revealed a paucity of patient-reported measures, particularly in palliative care domains such as symptom management and communication. OBJECTIVES: The research team, consisting of quality measure and survey developers, psychometricians, and palliative care clinicians, used established state-of-the art methods for developing and testing patient-reported measures. METHODS: We applied a patient-centered, patient-engaged approach throughout the development and testing process. This sequential process included 1) an information gathering phase; 2) a pre-testing phase; 3) a testing phase; and 4) an endorsement phase. RESULTS: To fill quality measure gaps identified during the information gathering phase, we selected two draft measures ("Feeling Heard and Understood" and "Receiving Desired Help for Pain") for testing with patients receiving palliative care in clinic-based settings. In the pre-testing phase, we used an iterative process of cognitive interviews to refine draft items and corresponding response options for the proposed measures. The alpha pilot test supported establishment of protocols for the national beta field test. Measures met conventional criteria for reliability, had strong face and construct validity, and there was diversity in program level scores. The measures received National Quality Forum (NQF) endorsement. CONCLUSION: These measures highlight the key role of patient voices in palliative care and fill a much-needed gap for patient-reported experience measures in our field.

Clinical Impact of ASCO Choosing Wisely Guidelines on Staging Imaging for Early-Stage Breast Cancers: A Time Series Analysis Using SEER-Medicare Data.

PURPOSE: American Society for Clinical Oncology released the Choosing Wisely list in 2012, highlighting low-value procedures that lack evidence, advising against the use of positron emission tomography, computerized tomography, and radionuclide bone scans for the staging of early-stage breast cancer at low risk for metastasis. The objective of the study was to assess the impact of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Choosing Wisely guidelines on inappropriate staging imaging among early-stage breast cancers. METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program-Medicare data set was used to identify 50,004 women age 66 years and older with new incident diagnosis of early-stage breast cancer (stage 0 through stage 2a; T < 4, N = 0, and M = 0). The primary outcome was the incidence of patients with inappropriate imaging following an early-stage breast cancer diagnosis. The primary outcome was identified within 6 months of the first diagnosis. An interrupted time series analysis using negative binomial regression was performed for outpatient claims for these diagnostic studies versus the two interruptions of guidelines release and guidelines reinforcement. Mean images per patient, percent change for the study period, and rate of change per year were calculated. RESULTS: Imaging rates fell by a modest 2.32% following guidelines release in April 2012 (point estimate = -2.32%; 95% CI, -6.34% to 1.88%). By contrast, imaging rates fell by a four-fold larger amount (point estimate = -9.36%; 95% CI, -13.20% to -5.35%) following guidelines published reminders in journals (or reinforcement) in October 2013. Mean imaging studies per patient (95% CI) declined from 1.80 (1.76 to 1.84) in January 2012 to 1.50 (1.48 to 1.53) by January 2015, representing a 16% decline in imaging overuse in 2015 compared with 3 years earlier. The rate of change (95% CI) in images per patient was initially small at -0.47% (-4.27% to 3.33%) per year between April 2012 and October 2013, but almost eight times faster at -3.70% (-5.81% to -1.60%) per year after October 2013. CONCLUSION: This analysis demonstrates a substantial decrease in the prevalence of imaging overuse in early-stage breast cancers correlating with the 2013 reinforcement of American Society of Clinical Oncology's 2012 Choosing Wisely guidelines. The creation and dissemination of such resources serves as a powerful tool to improve clinical practice, cost-effectiveness, and patient safety from secondary malignancies, anxiety, and overdiagnosis.

"Between Wings of Hope and Fear": Muslim Parents' Experiences with the American Health Care System.

Background and Objectives: Historically marginalized religious and cultural groups are at risk for lower quality of care than majority groups. No study to date specifically queries Muslim experiences with the American health care system (AHCS). We performed a thematic analysis of Muslim parents' interactions with the AHCS and how their background informs their approach to care. Methods: This was a qualitative study of Muslim parents of children with life-limiting conditions in the Research Triangle Area from December 2019 to March 2019. We conducted semistructured interviews with parents to assess their experiences with the AHCS. We probed interview transcripts using descriptive content analysis with NVivo10. Results: We interviewed 10 parents in the Research Triangle Area. All patients were female, most were married, most spoke at least one other language in addition to English, and most were not born in the United States. Several themes emerged highlighting open communication with care teams, willingness to share religious affiliations, and the importance of leaning into faith and accepting God's will. Conclusions: A thematic analysis of Muslim parents' interactions with the AHCS describes value in honest communication, mixed concerns about how providers will react to their religious affiliation, and emphasizes the importance of leaning heavily into faith and accepting God's plan. Future studies evaluating needs of Muslim patients, especially those with different diagnoses, language barriers, and a larger sample size will further delineate needs to minimize inequalities in care.

Oral Chemotherapy Metric Performance in Quality Oncology Practice Initiative Practices: Updated Trends and Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Oral chemotherapy performance measures were first introduced into ASCO's Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) in 2013. This study examined performance on these measures among QOPI-participating practices and evaluated whether it differed among practices based on meeting QOPI Certification Program standards. METHODS: A total of 192 QOPI-participating practices (certified, n=50 [26%]; not certified, n=142 [74%]) reported performance on oral chemotherapy measures in 2017 and 2018. Inclusion was limited to practices reporting on ≥3 charts for ≥1 oral chemotherapy measure. Performance was defined as the percentage of charts examined that adhered to the measure. Descriptive analyses were used to characterize performance within and across practices, and mixed-effects logistic regression models were conducted to compare performance based on certification status. RESULTS: Median performance across practices for the 9 oral chemotherapy measures examined ranged from 44% (education before the start of treatment addressing missed doses, toxicities, and clinical contact instructions [composite measure]) to 100% (documented dose, documented plan, and education about toxicities). Certified practices were more likely to provide education about clinic contact instructions than noncertified practices (odds ratio, 4.87; 95% CI, 1.00-24.0). Performance on all other measures was not significantly associated with certification status. CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variability in quality related to performance on oral chemotherapy measures across all QOPI-participating practices, and several areas were identified in which administration of oral chemotherapy could be improved. Our findings highlight the need for the development and implementation of appropriate standards that apply to oral chemotherapy and address the complexities that set it apart from parenteral treatment.

Top Ten Tips Palliative Care Clinicians Should Know About Managing Immune-Mediated Endocrine Toxicities in Cancer.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), such as PD-1/PDL-1 and CTLA-4, have become widely used in the treatment of solid and hematological malignancies; their use and side effects are increasingly seen in the palliative care (PC) population. These drugs can result in immune-mediated endocrinopathies; the thyroid is the most common endocrine gland affected, but the pituitary, adrenals, and pancreas may be affected as well. Symptoms may be insidious and nonspecific. A high index of suspicion and routine laboratory monitoring allows for prompt diagnosis and treatment, which can significantly improve symptoms and increase quality of life. In this study, we present an approach to monitoring and initial management of ICI-induced endocrinopathies in the PC patient population.

Improving Outcomes Measurement in Palliative Care: The Lasting Impact of Randy Curtis and his Collaborators.

Palliative care research is deeply challenging for many reasons, not the least of which is the conceptual and operational difficulty of measuring outcomes within a seriously ill population such as critically ill patients and their family members. This manuscript describes how Randy Curtis and his network of collaborators successfully confronted some of the most vexing outcomes measurement problems in the field, and by so doing, have enhanced clinical care and research alike. Beginning with a discussion of the clinical challenges of measurement in palliative care, we then discuss a selection of the novel measures developed by Randy and his collaborators and conclude with a look toward the future evolution of these concepts. Randy and his foundational work, including both successes as well as the occasional near miss, have enriched and advanced the field as well as (immeasurably) impacted the work of so many others-including this manuscript's authors.

Relationship Between Participation in ASCO's Quality Oncology Practice Initiative Program and American Board of Internal Medicine's Maintenance of Certification Program.

PURPOSE: Medical oncologists have a variety of options for demonstrating proficiency in providing high-quality patient care. Perhaps, the best-known opportunity for demonstrating individual expertise and lifelong learning is the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) maintenance of certification (MOC) program. At the practice level, ASCO has offered the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) as a means of optimizing cancer care delivery. In this study, we assess the association between active involvement in MOC on an individual basis and whether that individual's practice is involved with the QOPI program. METHODS: We evaluated 13,600 US medical oncologists initially certified by the ABIM and divided them into those initially certified before 1990 (the year in which ABIM started to require periodic recertification), those from 1990 to 2007, and those from 2008 to 2016. It was then determined which of these had let their certificates expire by 2020. These data were then compared with practices that participated in QOPI from 2017 to 2019, resulting in the matching of 97% of physicians. RESULTS: Of individuals initially certified before 1990 (and technically with lifelong certification), 22% were in QOPI practices. Among those who did not have lifelong certification, there was an association between QOPI participation and maintenance of ABIM certification. For those initially certified between 1990 and 2007, 35% of oncologists with up-to-date ABIM certification were in QOPI practices, whereas only 11% with expired ABIM certification were QOPI participants (P < .0001). For those in the 2008-2016 category, the numbers were 36% v 16%, respectively (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Our analysis identifies a relationship between participation in these ABIM and ASCO proficiency programs. The reasons for this are likely complex and based on a variety of institutional, professional, monetary, and personal factors.

Pre-Treatment Staging Imaging in Rectal Cancer: Results From the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative.

PURPOSE: For patients with nonmetastatic rectal cancer, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend initial staging using pelvic magnetic resonance imaging or endorectal ultrasound to determine the stage of the disease before initial therapy or surgery. This imaging workup helps determine the T and N staging, which is essential to determine optimal treatment for a patient. The current study examined practice concordance with this guideline using a quality measure in ASCO's Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) that specifically addressed staging workup for patients with rectal cancer. METHODS: From Fall 2016 through Fall 2019, 103 QOPI-participating practices reported performance on QOPI measure Colorectal 78, which addresses staging workup for patients with rectal cancer. The percentage and 95% CI of patients who received guideline-concordant imaging were calculated for each of the seven assessment time points. Difference of concordance rates between subsequent time points and the initial time point was assessed using logistic regression with random-effects models. In addition, 69 practices that submitted data in 2016 and 2017 were surveyed to gain insight on potential reasons for nonconcordance and the results were described. RESULTS: At each time point, a total of 20-33 practices reported data across 1,158 unique patients. Adherence appeared to increase over time, with 38% of patients receiving guideline-recommended staging in Fall 2016, to 56% in Fall 2019. The practice survey revealed that nonconcordance was mostly because of lack of care coordination between oncology and surgery disciplines (n = 16 practices of 28, 57.1%) and a lack of awareness of appropriate staging scans (n = 8 practices, 28.6%). CONCLUSION: As one half to one third of patients still do not receive appropriate imaging, our findings highlight the need for concerted quality improvement efforts that involve the multidisciplinary team to close this gap.

Study protocol for a randomised trial evaluating the non-inferiority of stepped palliative care versus early integrated palliative care for patients with advanced lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Integrating palliative care (PC) early in the illness course for patients with serious cancers improves their outcomes and is recommended by national organisations such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology. However, monthly visits with PC clinicians from the time of diagnosis can be challenging to implement due to the lack of specialty-trained PC clinicians and resources. Therefore, we developed a stepped care model to triage PC service based on patients' needs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We are conducting a non-blinded, randomised trial to evaluate the non-inferiority of a stepped PC model compared with an early integrated PC model for improving patients' quality of life (QOL) at 24 weeks (primary outcome). Patients assigned to early integrated PC meet with PC every 4 weeks throughout their illness. Patients assigned to stepped PC have PC visits only at clinically significant points in their illness (eg, cancer progression) unless their QOL decreases, at which time they are 'stepped up' and meet with PC every 4 weeks throughout the remainder of their illness. Secondary aims include assessing whether stepped PC is non-inferior to early integrated PC regarding patient-clinician communication about end of life care and length of stay on hospice as well as comparing resource utilisation. Patients are recruited from the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts; Duke Cancer Center, Durham, North Carolina and University of Pennsylvania Abramson Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The target sample size is 510 patients. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is funded by the National Cancer Institute, approved by the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center Institutional Review Board and will be reported in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. We will disseminate results through professional society meetings, peer-reviewed publications and presentations to patient organisations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03337399.