Reducing the Environmental Impact of Health Care Conferences: A Study of Emissions and Practical Solutions.

PURPOSE: We aimed to examine the impact of different conference formats (in-person, virtual, and hybrid) of the ASCO conference on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and to recommend sustainable options for future conferences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study used data on the number of attendees, their departure locations, and the type of attendance (in-person v virtual) provided by ASCO between 2019 and 2022. The GHG emissions resulting from air and ground travel, remote connectivity, conference space utilization, hotel stays, distributed conference materials, and electricity use were estimated for each year. Emissions were stratified by attendee country of origin, type of attendance, and year. Simulations were conducted to evaluate how changes in conference size, location, and format impact emissions, as well as estimate the resulting mitigations from adopting the proposed changes. RESULTS: The highest estimated GHG emissions, calculated in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), were associated with the 2019 in-person conference (37,251 metric tons of CO2e). Although international attendees had the largest contribution to emissions in all years (>50%), location optimization models, which selected conference locations that most minimized GHG emissions, yielded only minimal reductions (approximately 3%). Simulations examining changes to the conference format, location, and attendance percentage suggested that hub-and-spoke, where multiple conference locations are selected by global region, or hybrid models, with both in-person and virtual components, are likely to cause the largest drops in emissions (up to 86%). CONCLUSION: Using historical conference data, this study identifies key aspects that can be modified to reduce emissions and consequently promote more sustainable and equitable conference attendance. Hybrid conferences may be the best solution to maintain the networking opportunities provided by conferences while balancing out their environmental footprint.

Researcher Experience and Comfort With Telemedicine and Remote Patient Monitoring in Cancer Treatment Trials.

BACKGROUND: Since the onset of COVID-19, oncology practices across the US have integrated telemedicine (TM) and remote patient monitoring (RPM) into routine care and clinical trials. The extent of provider experience and comfort with TM/RPM in treatment trials, however, is unknown. We surveyed oncology researchers to assess experience and comfort with TM/RPM. METHODS: Between April 10 and June 1, 2022, we distributed email surveys to US-based members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) whose member records indicated interest or specialization in clinical research. We collected respondent demographic data, clinical trial experience, workplace characteristics, and comfort and experience with TM/RPM use across trial components in phase I and phase II/III trials. TM/RPM was defined as clinical trial-related healthcare and monitoring for patients geographically separated from trial site. RESULTS: There were 141 surveys analyzed (5.1% response rate). Ninety percent of respondents had been Principal Investigators, 98% practiced in a norural site. Most respondents had enrolled patients in phase I (82%) and phase II/III trials (99%). Across all phases and trial components, there was a higher frequency of researcher comfort compared to experience. Regarding remote care in treatment trials, 75% reported using TM, RPM, or both. Among these individuals, 62% had never provided remote care to trial patients before the pandemic. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 spurred the rise of TM/RPM in cancer treatment trials, and some TM/RPM use continues in this context. Among oncology researchers, higher levels of comfort compared with real-world experience with TM/RPM reveal opportunities for expanding TM/RPM policies and guidelines in oncology research.

Dónde Están? Latinx/Hispanic Representation in the Oncology Workforce: Present and Future.

This manuscript reviews the status of Hispanic/Latinx physicians in oncology, the benefits and challenges to achieving equitable representation, and potential solutions and actions to increase diversity in the oncology workforce. Persons of Hispanic/Latinx origin comprise 18.7% of the population and 16.8% of the adult population in the United States but are only 4.7% of practicing oncologists. The reasons for the lack of representation of Hispanic/Latinx individuals in medicine are multifaceted and include discrimination and biases, exclusionary practices, financial barriers, and lack of role modeling. As a result, patients are deprived the benefits of a representative workforce, such as improved access, enhanced culturally and linguistically competent care, and minimization of health disparities. Solutions included in the manuscript include a description of efforts by ASCO to improve the representativeness of the oncology workforce through its awards programs and educational efforts, especially for Hispanic/Latinx clinicians. The manuscript also outlines individual actions that attending physicians, senior oncologists, oncology leaders, and hospital/cancer center leadership can take to improve the diversity of the oncology workforce and support our Latinx/Hispanic trainees and colleagues. Improving the representativeness of the oncology workforce will require collective action by institutions, medical societies, and individuals. Nevertheless, widespread commitment to creating an inclusive and supported workforce is necessary to ensure the quality of care for minority patients, reduce existing cancer care disparities, and advance innovation in oncology.

Closing the Rural Cancer Care Gap: Three Institutional Approaches.

Patients in rural areas face limited access to medical and oncology providers, long travel times, and low recruitment to clinical trials, all of which affect quality of care and health outcomes. Rural counties also have high rates of cancer-related mortality and other negative treatment outcomes. On April 10, 2019, ASCO hosted Closing the Rural Cancer Care Gap, the second event in its State of Cancer Care in America series. The event focused on two aspects of rural cancer care: a review of the major issues and concerns in delivering rural cancer care and a discussion of creative solutions to address rural-nonrural disparities. This article draws from the event and supporting literature to summarize the challenges to delivering high-quality care in rural communities, update ASCO's workforce data on the geographic distribution of oncologists, and highlight 3 institutional approaches to addressing these challenges in diverse rural settings. The experience of the 3 institutions featured in the article suggests that increasing rural patients' access to care requires expanding services and decreasing travel distances, mitigating financial burdens when insurance coverage is limited, opening avenues to clinical trial participation, and creating partnerships between providers and community leaders to address local gaps in care. Because the characteristics of rural communities, health care resources, and patient populations are not homogeneous, rural health disparities require local solutions that are based on community needs, available resources, and trusting and collaborative partnerships.

Impact of Pharmacy Benefit Managers on Oncology Practices and Patients.

Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) are thoroughly integrated into the drug supply chain as administrators of prescription drug benefits for private insurers, self-insuring business, and government health plans. As the role of PBMs has expanded, their opaque business practices and impact on drug prices have come under increasing scrutiny. PBMs are particularly influential in oncology care because prescription drugs play a major role in the treatment of most cancers and an increasing number of patients with cancer are treated with oral oncology agents managed by PBMs. There is concern that some PBM practices may threaten access to high-quality cancer care and may increase the financial and administrative burden on patients and practices. In this article, we review the role of PBMs in prescription drug coverage and reimbursement, discuss the impact of PBMs on oncology care, and present data from the 2018 ASCO Practice Survey assessing the knowledge and attitude of oncology practices toward PBMs.