Oncology alternative payment models: lessons from commercial insurance.

Many payers and clinicians are committed to advancing value-based care through the establishment of alternative payment models (APMs) that incentivize practices and clinicians to improve quality and reduce cost. A multistakeholder working group has observed that in specialty fields such as oncology, despite many attempts to design and implement APM pilots for commercial and Medicare Advantage populations, practical challenges and small numbers of episodes and patients present headwinds to viability and scalability. Despite this, some payers report emerging good practices and are optimistic about APMs. Careful and realistic consideration of the specific goals of a proposed model is warranted, as is close examination of the feasibility of transferring risk.

Impact of Unannounced Standardized Patient Audit and Feedback on Care, Documentation, and Costs: an Experiment and Claims Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Meaningful variations in physician performance are not always discernible from the medical record. OBJECTIVE: We used unannounced standardized patients to measure and provide feedback on care quality and fidelity of documentation, and examined downstream effects on reimbursement claims. DESIGN: Static group pre-post comparison study conducted between 2017 and 2019. SETTING: Fourteen New Jersey primary care practice groups (22 practices) enrolled in Horizon BCBS's value-based program received the intervention. For claims analyses, we identified 14 additional comparison practice groups matched on county, practice size, and claims activity. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-nine of 64 providers volunteered to participate. INTERVENTION: Unannounced standardized patients (USPs) made 217 visits portraying patients with 1-2 focal conditions (diabetes, depression, back pain, smoking, or preventive cancer screening). After two baseline visits to a provider, we delivered feedback and conducted two follow-up visits. MEASUREMENTS: USP-completed checklists of guideline-based provider care behaviors, visit audio recordings, and provider notes were used to measure behaviors performed and documentation errors pre- and post-feedback. We also compared changes in 3-month office-based claims by actual patients between the intervention and comparison practice groups before and after feedback. RESULTS: Expected clinical behaviors increased from 46% to 56% (OR = 1.53, 95% CI 1.29-1.83, p < 0.0001), with significant improvements in smoking cessation, back pain, and depression screening. Providers were less likely to document unperformed tasks after (16%) than before feedback (18%; OR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.90, p = 0.002). Actual claim costs increased significantly less in the study than comparison group for diabetes and depression but significantly more for smoking cessation, cancer screening, and low back pain. LIMITATIONS: Self-selection of participating practices and lack of access to prescription claims. CONCLUSION: Direct observation of care identifies hidden deficits in practice and documentation, and with feedback can improve both, with concomitant effects on costs.

Direct observation of depression screening: identifying diagnostic error and improving accuracy through unannounced standardized patients.

Background Depression is substantially underdiagnosed in primary care, despite recommendations for screening at every visit. We report a secondary analysis focused on depression of a recently completed study using unannounced standardized patients (USPs) to measure and improve provider behaviors, documentation, and subsequent claims for real patients. Methods Unannounced standardized patients presented incognito in 217 visits to 59 primary care providers in 22 New Jersey practices. We collected USP checklists, visit audio recordings, and provider notes after visits; provided feedback to practices and providers based on the first two visits per provider; and compared care and documentation behaviors in the visits before and after feedback. We obtained real patient claims from the study practices and a matched comparison group and compared the likelihood of visits including International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes for depression before and after feedback between the study and comparison groups. Results Providers significantly improved in their rate of depression screening following feedback [adjusted odds ratio (AOR), 3.41; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.52-7.65; p = 0.003]. Sometimes expected behaviors were documented when not performed. The proportion of claims by actual patients with depression-related ICD-10 codes increased significantly more from prefeedback to postfeedback in the study group than in matched control group (interaction AOR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.32-1.50; p < 0.001). Conclusions Using USPs, we found significant performance issues in diagnosis of depression, as well as discrepancies in documentation that may reduce future diagnostic accuracy. Providing feedback based on a small number of USP encounters led to some improvements in clinical performance observed both directly and indirectly via claims.

Immunotherapy for advanced prostate cancer: a novel treatment option to improve survival.

Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in men in the United States. Novel immunotherapies are being investigated to improve survival in patients with advanced disease. Sipuleucel-T (PROVENGE), the first autologous cellular immunotherapy approved by the U. S. Food and Drug Administration, improves survival in men with asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic metastatic castration-resistant (hormone refractory) prostate cancer.