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.

Maintaining and Advancing Quality Cancer Care During a Global Pandemic.

ABSTRACT: The care of patients with cancer occurs in a fast-moving, high-pressure, and high-stakes ecosystem. Early in 2020, that complex ecosystem was further complicated by the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic. We address actions taken by care providers and systems during the initial phases of the pandemic, and how those actions preserved lifesaving and life-sustaining cancer care despite severely constrained resources. We outline cancer care principles and guidelines that were developed, shared, and adopted by cancer care organizations across the country. Care delivery concerns that arose during the pandemic, including equipment and personnel shortages, moral distress for care providers, and exacerbation of health care inequities are addressed. Process and operations changes taken by payers to serve their clients are described. Lessons learned are highlighted, along with a call to action that we learn from the experience, broaden our cancer care delivery mission, and commit to structural changes that will permanently improve the capacity of cancer care teams.

Integration of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Distress Screening Tool as a Guidepost for Telephonic Oncology Case Management.

PURPOSE OF STUDY: Cigna's oncology case management programs identified the opportunity for case managers to integrate distress screening as recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) in oncology populations. Our purpose in conducting this study was to quantify oncology case management program improvements as a result of using the NCCN Distress Screening Tool to guide telephonic case management. The program improvements we measured comprised more efficient identification of biopsychosocial problems and appropriate resource referrals. PRIMARY PRACTICE SETTING: Case managers in a large commercial health plan piloted integration of distress screening into telephonic case management among U.S. oncology customers experiencing a new diagnosis or care transition from September 2016 to April 2017. METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLE: A retrospective, matched case-control study was conducted among Cigna customers eligible for oncology case management. The pilot group of 317 received distress screening early in the oncology case management assessment. Outcomes included distress severity ranging from 0 to 10 (where 0 = no distress, 1-3 = mild, 4-7 = moderate, and 8-10 = severe), identification and number of biopsychosocial health problems, and percentage of direct resource referrals by case managers to supportive services. RESULTS: More than half (54%) of the screened customers reported mild or greater distress, and there was a strong correlation between degree of distress and average numbers of biopsychosocial health problems or direct resource referrals. Screened customers were 16% more likely to be referred to internal and external resources than customers not screened with the tool (66% vs. 50%, χp < .001). IMPLICATIONS FOR CASE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE: This study advances evidence-based oncology case management practice during care transitions by providing quantitative evidence for the utility of integrating the NCCN Distress Screening Tool into telephonic oncology case management. Using the tool (thermometer and problem list) to guide telephonic oncology case management and care coordination facilitated more tailored referrals to individuals with cancer enrolled in a large commercial health plan. On the basis of our findings, we integrated distress screening to address unmet biopsychosocial needs in patients with cancer.

Cost drivers for breast, lung, and colorectal cancer care in a commercially insured population over a 6-month episode: an economic analysis from a health plan perspective.

AIMS: In the absence of clinical data, accurate identification of cost drivers is needed for economic comparison in an alternate payment model. From a health plan perspective using claims data in a commercial population, the objective was to identify and quantify the effects of cost drivers in economic models of breast, lung, and colorectal cancer costs over a 6-month episode following initial chemotherapy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This study analyzed claims data from 9,748 Cigna beneficiaries with diagnosis of breast, lung, and colorectal cancer following initial chemotherapy from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2015. We used multivariable regression models to quantify the impact of key factors on cost during the initial 6-month cancer care episode. RESULTS: Metastasis, facility provider affiliation, episode risk group (ERG) risk score, and radiation were cost drivers for all three types of cancer (breast, lung, and colorectal). In addition, younger age (p < .0001) and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 oncogene overexpression (HER2+)-directed therapy (p < .0001) were associated with higher costs in breast cancer. Younger age (p < .0001) and female gender (p < .0001) were also associated with higher costs in colorectal cancer. Metastasis was also associated with 50% more hospital admissions and increased hospital length of stay (p < .001) in all three cancers over the 6-month episode duration. Chemotherapy and supportive drug therapies accounted for the highest proportion (48%) of total medical costs among beneficiaries observed. CONCLUSIONS: Value-based reimbursement models in oncology should appropriately account for key cost drivers. Although claims-based methodologies may be further augmented with clinical data, this study recommends adjusting for the factors identified in these models to predict costs in breast, lung, and colorectal cancers.