Polypharmacy, chemotherapy receipt, and medication-related out-of-pocket costs at end of life among commercially insured adults with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy raises the risk of drug-drug interactions and adverse events among patients with cancer. Most polypharmacy research has focused on adults age 65 or older enrolled in Medicare insurance. To better inform pharmacy practice and cancer care delivery, data are needed on polypharmacy among commercially insured patients with cancer and those younger than 65. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of insurance enrollment and claims files linked to the Puget Sound Cancer Surveillance System for adults age 18 and older who were commercially insured, diagnosed with stage IV cancer, survived 30+ days after diagnosis, and did not enroll in hospice. We describe the prevalence of polypharmacy, chemotherapy use, and medication-related out-of-pocket (OOP) costs in the last month of life. RESULTS: Of 606 patients, 390 (64%) experienced polypharmacy (i.e. 5+ medications) in the last 30 days of life. Almost half (n = 297, 49%) received chemotherapy or targeted agents; chemotherapy was associated with significantly higher odds of polypharmacy (odds ratio (OR) 2.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.04-4.20). The most commonly prescribed medications at end of life were opioids, benzodiazepines and anti-emetics. Among 484 patients (80%) incurring medication-related costs in the last month of life, median total OOP cost was $82 (interquartile range $30-$200). Seven patients (1%) had total costs above $5,000. The median chemotherapy-related OOP cost was $446 (IQR $150-$1896); 32 patients (7%) had chemotherapy-related OOP costs between $1,000 and $5,000. CONCLUSION: Most patients with advanced cancer experienced polypharmacy at end of life, although most medications observed herein are commonly used for supportive care. Patients receiving chemotherapy had higher medication-related OOP costs, and chemotherapy was significantly associated with polypharmacy at end of life. Evaluation of polypharmacy at end of life may represent an important opportunity to improve quality of life and reduce costs for patients and families.

Successes and challenges of implementing a cancer care delivery intervention in community oncology practices: lessons learned from SWOG S1415CD.

BACKGROUND: Cancer Care Delivery (CCD) research studies often require practice-level interventions that pose challenges in the clinical trial setting. The SWOG Cancer Research Network (SWOG) conducted S1415CD, one of the first pragmatic cluster-randomized CCD trials to be implemented through the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Oncology Program (NCORP), to compare outcomes of primary prophylactic colony stimulating factor (PP-CSF) use for an intervention of automated PP-CSF standing orders to usual care. The introduction of new methods for study implementation created challenges and opportunities for learning that can inform the design and approach of future CCD interventions. METHODS: The order entry system intervention was administered at the site level; sites were affiliated NCORP practices that shared the same chemotherapy order system. 32 sites without existing guideline-based PP-CSF standing orders were randomized to the intervention (n = 24) or to usual care (n = 8). Sites assigned to the intervention participated in tailored training, phone calls and onboarding activities administered by research team staff and were provided with additional funding and external IT support to help them make protocol required changes to their order entry systems. RESULTS: The average length of time for intervention sites to complete reconfiguration of their order sets following randomization was 7.2 months. 14 of 24 of intervention sites met their individual patient recruitment target of 99 patients enrolled per site. CONCLUSIONS: In this paper we share seven recommendations based on lessons learned from implementation of the S1415CD intervention at NCORP community oncology practices representing diverse geographies and patient populations across the U. S. It is our hope these recommendations can be used to guide future implementation of CCD interventions in both research and community settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02728596 , registered April 5, 2016.

Effective stakeholder engagement: design and implementation of a clinical trial (SWOG S1415CD) to improve cancer care.

BACKGROUND: The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center has engaged an External Stakeholder Advisory Group (ESAG) in the planning and implementation of the TrACER Study (S1415CD), a five-year pragmatic clinical trial assessing the effectiveness of a guideline-based colony stimulating factor standing order intervention. The trial is being conducted by SWOG through the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program in 45 clinics. The ESAG includes ten patient partners, two payers, two pharmacists, two guideline experts, four providers and one medical ethicist. This manuscript describes the ESAG's role and impact on the trial. METHODS: During early trial development, the research team assembled the ESAG to inform plans for each phase of the trial. ESAG members provide feedback and engage in problem solving to improve trial implementation. Each year, members participate in one in-person meeting, web conferences and targeted email discussion. Additionally, they complete a survey that assesses their satisfaction with communication and collaboration. The research team collected and reviewed stakeholder input from 2014 to 2018 for impact on the trial. RESULTS: The ESAG has informed trial design, implementation and dissemination planning. The group advised the trial's endpoints, regimen list and development of cohort and usual care arms. Based on ESAG input, the research team enhanced patient surveys and added pharmacy-related questions to the component application to assess order entry systems. ESAG patient partners collaborated with the research team to develop a patient brochure and study summary for clinic staff. In addition to identifying recruitment strategies and patient-oriented platforms for publicly sharing results, ESAG members participated as co-authors on this manuscript and a conference poster presentation highlighting stakeholder influence on the trial. The annual satisfaction survey results suggest that ESAG members were satisfied with the methods, frequency and target areas of their engagement in the trial during project years 1-3. CONCLUSIONS: Diverse stakeholder engagement has been essential in optimizing the design, implementation and planned dissemination of the TrACER Study. The lessons described in the manuscript may assist others to effectively partner with stakeholders on clinical research.

Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Place of Death Among Medicaid and Commercially Insured Patients With Cancer in Washington State.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic-related disruptions in health care delivery might have affected end-of-life care in patients with cancer. We examined changes in place of death and hospice support for Medicaid and commercially insured patients during the pandemic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We linked Washington State cancer registry records with claims from Medicaid and two commercial insurers for patients with solid tumor age 18-64 years. The study included 322 Medicaid and 162 commercial patients who died between March 2017 and June 2019 (pre-COVID-19), along with 90 Medicaid and 47 commercial patients who died between March and June 2020 (COVID-19). Place of death was categorized as hospital, hospice (home or nonhospital facility), and home without hospice. Place of death was compared using adjusted multinomial logistic regressions stratified by payer and time period (pre-COVID-19 v COVID-19). The clinical and sociodemographic factors associated with dying at home without hospice were examined, and adjusted marginal effects (ME) are reported. RESULTS: In the adjusted pre-COVID-19 analysis, Medicaid patients were more likely than commercially insured patients to die in hospital (48% v 36%; adjusted ME, 11%; P = .02). In the pre-COVID-19/COVID-19 analysis, Medicaid patients' place of death shifted from hospital (48% v 32%; ME, -16%; P < .01) to home without hospice (19.9% v 38.0%; ME, 16.5%; P < .01). However, there were no statistically significant changes pre-COVID-19/COVID-19 for commercial patients. As a result, during COVID-19, Medicaid patients were more likely than commercial patients to die at home without hospice (38% v 22%; ME, 16%; P = .04) as were male versus female patients (ME, 16%; P < .01). CONCLUSION: The pandemic might have disproportionately worsened the end-of-life experience for Medicaid enrollees with cancer. Attention should be paid to societal and health system factors that decrease access to care for Medicaid patients.

Risk of Adverse Financial Events in Patients With Cancer: Evidence From a Novel Linkage Between Cancer Registry and Credit Records.

PURPOSE: Although financial toxicity is a growing cancer survivorship issue, no studies have used credit data to estimate the relative risk of financial hardship in patients with cancer versus individuals without cancer. We conducted a population-based retrospective matched cohort study using credit reports to investigate the impact of a cancer diagnosis on the risk of adverse financial events (AFEs). METHODS: Western Washington SEER cancer registry (cases) and voter registry (controls) records from 2013 to 2018 were linked to quarterly credit records from TransUnion. Controls were age-, sex-, and zip code-matched to cancer cases and assigned an index date corresponding to the case's diagnosis date. Cases and controls experiencing past-due credit card payments and any of the following AFEs at 24 months from diagnosis or index were compared, using two-sample z tests: third-party collections, charge-offs, tax liens, delinquent mortgage payments, foreclosures, and repossessions. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to evaluate the association of cancer diagnosis with AFEs and past-due credit payments. RESULTS: A total of 190,722 individuals (63,574 cases and 127,148 controls, mean age 66 years) were included. AFEs (4.3% v 2.4%, P < .0001) and past-due credit payments (2.6% v 1.9%, P < .0001) were more common in cases than in controls. After adjusting for age, sex, average baseline credit line, area deprivation index, and index/diagnosis year, patients with cancer had a higher risk of AFEs (odds ratio 1.71; 95% CI, 1.61 to 1.81; P < .0001) and past-due credit payments (odds ratio 1.28; 95% CI, 1.19 to 1.37; P < .0001) than controls. CONCLUSION: Patients with cancer were at significantly increased risk of experiencing AFEs and past-due credit card payments relative to controls. Studies are needed to investigate the impact of these events on treatment decisions, quality of life, and clinical outcomes.

Effects of a Guideline-Informed Clinical Decision Support System Intervention to Improve Colony-Stimulating Factor Prescribing: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Colony-stimulating factors are prescribed to patients undergoing chemotherapy to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia. Research suggests that 55% to 95% of colony-stimulating factor prescribing is inconsistent with national guidelines. Objective: To examine whether a guideline-based standing order for primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factors improves use and reduces the incidence of febrile neutropenia. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cluster randomized clinical trial, the Trial Assessing CSF Prescribing Effectiveness and Risk (TrACER), involved 32 community oncology clinics in the US. Participants were adult patients with breast, colorectal, or non-small cell lung cancer initiating cancer therapy and enrolled between January 2016 and April 2020. Data analysis was performed from July to October 2021. Interventions: Sites were randomized 3:1 to implementation of a guideline-based primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factor standing order system or usual care. Automated orders were added for high-risk regimens, and an alert not to prescribe was included for low-risk regimens. Risk was based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was to find an increase in colony-stimulating factor use among high-risk patients from 40% to 75%, a reduction in use among low-risk patients from 17% to 7%, and a 50% reduction in febrile neutropenia rates in the intervention group. Mixed model logistic regression adjusted for correlation of outcomes within a clinic. Results: A total of 2946 patients (median [IQR] age, 59.0 [50.0-67.0] years; 2233 women [77.0%]; 2292 White [79.1%]) were enrolled; 2287 were randomized to the intervention, and 659 were randomized to usual care. Colony-stimulating factor use for patients receiving high-risk regimens was high and not significantly different between groups (847 of 950 patients [89.2%] in the intervention group vs 296 of 309 patients [95.8%] in the usual care group). Among high-risk patients, febrile neutropenia rates for the intervention (58 of 947 patients [6.1%]) and usual care (13 of 308 patients [4.2%]) groups were not significantly different. The febrile neutropenia rate for patients receiving high-risk regimens not receiving colony-stimulating factors was 14.9% (17 of 114 patients). Among the 585 patients receiving low-risk regimens, colony-stimulating factor use was low and did not differ between groups (29 of 457 patients [6.3%] in the intervention group vs 7 of 128 patients [5.5%] in the usual care group). Febrile neutropenia rates did not differ between usual care (1 of 127 patients [0.8%]) and the intervention (7 of 452 patients [1.5%]) groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cluster randomized clinical trial, implementation of a guideline-informed standing order did not affect colony-stimulating factor use or febrile neutropenia rates in high-risk and low-risk patients. Overall, use was generally appropriate for the level of risk. Standing order interventions do not appear to be necessary or effective in the setting of prophylactic colony-stimulating factor prescribing. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02728596.

An evaluation of stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness research: lessons learned from SWOG S1415CD.

Aim: Stakeholder engagement is central to comparative effectiveness research yet there are gaps in definitions of success. We used a framework developed by Lavallee et al. defining effective engagement criteria to evaluate stakeholder engagement during a pragmatic cluster-randomized trial. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were developed from the framework and completed to learn about members' experiences. Interviews were analyzed in a deductive approach for themes related to the effective engagement criteria. Results: Thirteen members participated and described: respect for ideas, time to achieve consensus, access to information and continuous feedback as areas of effective engagement. The primary criticism was lack of diversity. Discussion: Feedback was positive, particularly among themes of respect, trust and competence, and led to development of a list of best practices for engagement. The framework was successful for evaluating engagement. Conclusion: Standardized frameworks allow studies to formally evaluate their stakeholder engagement approach and develop best practices for future research.

What is this article about? This article is about the evaluation of how effective the stakeholder engagement was in a comparative effectiveness research (CER) study funded by the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). The research team found a framework (developed by Lavalle et al.) that defined six different criteria for effective stakeholder engagement, and used that criteria to complete semi-structured interviews with the stakeholders involved with our study. These interviews were reviewed to determine what stakeholder engagement processes were successful and helped provide a list of best practices for stakeholder engagement for other researchers doing CER. What were the results? Stakeholders highlighted respect for their ideas, time to achieve consensus, easy access to information and a continuous feedback loop between study team and stakeholders as effective engagement processes. What do the results mean? These results can help other researchers doing CER learn best practices to implement from the outset of a study to best engage stakeholders in their research. The results also show that having a standardized framework to evaluate stakeholder engagement is important and allows for research teams to formally evaluate their engagement approach and learn what was successful and where there are areas for improvement in future studies.

A comparison of general, genitourinary, bowel, and sexual quality of life among long term survivors of prostate, bladder, colorectal, and lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Studies of local stage prostate cancer survivors suggest that treatments carry risk of persistent impotence, incontinence, and bowel dysfunction. To examine impacts of cancer type and side effects on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in long-term cancer survivorship, we evaluated 5-year follow-up of patients with prostate cancer and compared results with a matched group of male long-term survivors of other local-stage cancers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined genitourinary, bowel and sexual symptoms, and general quality of life. Matched survivors of colorectal, lung, and bladder cancers were recruited via registries in 3 different regions in the United States. Patients were surveyed 3-5 years after diagnosis with the SF-12 and EPIC to evaluate general mental and physical health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and patient function and bother. RESULTS: We analyzed responses from long-term prostate (n = 77) and bladder, colorectal, and lung cancer (n = 124) patients. In multivariate analysis, long-term local stage prostate cancer survivors had significantly higher SF-12 physical component scores but did not differ from long-term survivors of other cancers in terms of their SF-12 mental summary scores. Prostate survivors had similar mental, urinary, bowel, and sexual HRQoL compared to long-term survivors of other local stage cancers. CONCLUSION: Long-term general and prostate-specific HRQoL was similar between local stage prostate and bladder, colorectal, and lung patients with cancer. Future research focusing on factors other than initial treatment and the cancer type per se may provide more meaningful information regarding factors that predict disparities on HRQoL among longer-term survivors of early stage male cancers.

Lessons From Reporting National Performance Measures in a Regional Setting: Washington State Community Cancer Care Report.

Regional public reporting of performance measures in oncology can facilitate local decision making across stakeholders, but small numbers of patients and clinics pose a challenge to creating statistically robust measures. In this article, we describe our development of the Community Cancer Care in Washington State: Quality and Cost Report, the first publicly available report showing clinic-level quality and cost measures at the regional level. We learned key lessons in how to adapt national performance reporting to our regional setting using a registry-linked multipayer claims database. In short, limited numbers of eligible patients for some nationally recognized metrics led us to group metrics and use a 3-year performance window. After completing clinic attribution and other requirements of metric construction, the final metrics included between 62.9% and 88.4% of the eligible patients. To link total costs to some quality measures, we had to define a treatment and surveillance episode of care. Risk adjustment was challenged by the ability to include a limited number of risk adjustors and their potential concentration in a few clinics. We used a different quality score than national performance reporting to account for variation in the range of risk-standardized rates. Current methodology does not permit us to determine whether clinically meaningful differences in quality or costs exist, which inhibits value comparisons. Stakeholder engagement was critical for providing methodologic feedback. In conclusion, we found that refining national metrics was necessary to facilitate public reporting in a regional setting. Further methodologic development can strengthen public reporting and future applications.

A New Framework for Patient Engagement in Cancer Clinical Trials Cooperative Group Studies.

For the past two decades, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) has supported the involvement of patient advocates in both internal advisory activities and funded research projects to provide a patient perspective. Implementation of the inclusion of patient advocates has varied considerably, with inconsistent involvement of patient advocates in key phases of research such as concept development. Despite this, there is agreement that patient advocates have improved the patient focus of many cancer research studies. This commentary describes our experience designing and pilot testing a new framework for patient engagement at SWOG, one of the largest cancer clinical trial network groups in the United States and one of the four adult groups in the NCI's National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN). Our goal is to provide a roadmap for other clinical trial groups that are interested in bringing the patient voice more directly into clinical trial conception and development. We developed a structured process to engage patient advocates more effectively in the development of cancer clinical trials and piloted the process in four SWOG research committees, including implementation of a new Patient Advocate Executive Review Form that systematically captures patient advocates' input at the concept stage. Based on the positive feedback to our approach, we are now developing training and evaluation metrics to support meaningful and consistent patient engagement across the SWOG clinical trial life cycle. Ultimately, the benefits of more patient-centered cancer trials will be measured in the usefulness, relevance, and speed of study results to patients, caregivers, and clinicians.

Pilot Feasibility Study of an Oncology Financial Navigation Program.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have reported on interventions to alleviate financial toxicity in patients with cancer. We developed a financial navigation program in collaboration with our partners, Consumer Education and Training Services (CENTS) and Patient Advocate Foundation (PAF), to improve patient knowledge about treatment costs, provide financial counseling, and to help manage out-of-pocket expenses. We conducted a pilot study to assess the feasibility and impact of this program. METHODS: Patients with cancer received a financial education course followed by monthly contact with a CENTS financial counselor and a PAF case manager for 6 months. We measured program adherence, self-reported financial burden and anxiety, program satisfaction, and type of assistance provided. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients (median age, 60.5 years) were consented (85% white and 50% commercially insured). Debt, income declines, and loans were reported by 55%, 55%, and 30% of patients, respectively. CENTS counselors assisted most often with budgeting, retirement planning, and medical bill questions. PAF case managers assisted with applications for appropriate insurance coverage, cost of living issues (eg, housing, transportation), and disability applications. High financial burden and anxiety about costs (4 or 5 on a Likert scale) were reported at baseline by 37% and 47% of patients, respectively. Anxiety about costs decreased over time in 33% of patients, whereas self-reported financial burden did not substantially change. CONCLUSION: Implementing an oncology financial navigation program is feasible, provides concrete assistance in navigating the cost of care, and mitigates anxiety about costs in a subset of patients. Future work will focus on measuring the program's impact on financial and clinical outcomes.

Characterizing Potentially Preventable Cancer- and Chronic Disease-Related Emergency Department Use in the Year After Treatment Initiation: A Regional Study.

PURPOSE: As new quality metrics and interventions for potentially preventable emergency department (ED) visits are implemented, we sought to compare methods for evaluating the prevalence and costs of potentially preventable ED visits that were related to cancer and chronic disease among a commercially insured oncology population in the year after treatment initiation. METHODS: We linked SEER records in western Washington from 2011 to 2016 with claims from two commercial insurers. The study included patients who were diagnosed with a solid tumor and tracked ED utilization for 1 year after the start of chemotherapy or radiation. Cancer symptoms from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services metric and a patient-reported outcome intervention were labeled potentially preventable (PpCancer). Prevention Quality Indicators of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality were labeled potentially preventable-chronic disease (PpChronic). We reported the primary diagnosis, all diagnosis field coding (1 to 10), and 2016 adjusted reimbursements. RESULTS: Of 5,853 eligible patients, 27% had at least one ED visit, which yielded 2,400 total visits. Using primary diagnosis coding, 49.8% of ED visits had a PpCancer diagnosis, whereas 3.2% had a PpChronic diagnosis. Considering all diagnosis fields, 45.0%, 9.4%, and 18.5% included a PpCancer only, a PpChronic only, and both a PpCancer and a PpChronic diagnosis, respectively. The median reimbursement per visit was $735 (interquartile ratio, $194 to $1,549). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of potentially preventable ED visits was generally high, but varied depending on the diagnosis code fields and the group of codes considered. Future research is needed to understand the complex landscape of potentially preventable ED visits and measures to improve value in cancer care delivery.

Development of a financial literacy course for patients with newly diagnosed cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Although patients with cancer often face serious financial hardships, few studies have reported on strategies to mitigate this burden. Improving literacy about the financial aspects of cancer care may decrease the negative financial impact of cancer diagnosis and treatment. We obtained input from patient stakeholders on the perceived value and optimal design of a financial literacy program in the advanced cancer setting. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort survey. METHODS: A series of semi-structured interviews were conducted, during which patients with either colorectal or breast cancer were asked to describe the impact of cancer on their finances and employment, to state their preferences about discussing costs with their providers, and to give input on development of a financial literacy course. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients (76% Caucasian) completed interviews, the majority of whom had Medicare or commercial insurance (71%). Lost income from early retirement or disability was the most financially burdensome experience for 67% of patients. The majority of patients (76%) reported that a financial literacy course would be helpful in navigating the cost of cancer care. Most preferred the course be administered at diagnosis in a live group format. CONCLUSIONS: Feedback from patients with cancer supported the development of a group financial literacy course that addresses barriers to discussing cost concerns, employment changes during cancer, and available resources for financial assistance.

End-of-Life Services Among Patients With Cancer: Evidence From Cancer Registry Records Linked With Commercial Health Insurance Claims.

PURPOSE: Despite guidelines emphasizing symptom management over aggressive treatment, end-of-life care for persons with cancer in the United States is highly variable. In consultation with a regional collaboration of patients, providers, and payers, we investigated indicators of high-quality end-of-life care to describe patterns of care, identify areas for improvement, and inform future interventions to enhance end-of-life care for patients with cancer. METHODS: We linked insurance claims to clinical information from the western Washington SEER database. We included persons ≥ 18 years of age who had been diagnosed with an invasive solid tumor between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2015, and who had a recorded death date, were enrolled in a commercial plan for the last month of life, and made at least one insurance claim in the last 90 days of life. RESULTS: In the last month of life, among 6,568 commercially insured patients, 56.3% were hospitalized and 48.6% underwent at least one imaging scan. Among patients younger than 65 years of age, 31.4% were enrolled in hospice; of those younger than 65 years of age who were not enrolled in hospice, 40.5% had received an opioid prescription. Over time, opioid use in the last 30 days of life among young adults not enrolled in hospice dropped from 44.7% in the period 2007 to 2009 to 42.5% in the period 2010 to 2012 and to 36.7% in the period 2013 to 2015. CONCLUSION: Hospitalization and high-cost imaging scans are burdensome to patients and caregivers at the end of life. Our findings suggest that policies that facilitate appropriate imaging, opioid, and hospice use and that encourage supportive care may improve end-of-life care and quality of life.

Baseline Estimates of Adherence to American Society of Clinical Oncology/American Board of Internal Medicine Choosing Wisely Initiative Among Patients With Cancer Enrolled With a Large Regional Commercial Health Insurer.

PURPOSE: The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)/American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Choosing Wisely (CW) measures aim to reduce the use of interventions that lack evidence of benefit in cancer care. The study presented here characterized adherence to the 2012 ASCO/ABIM CW recommendations by linking health plan claims data with a regional cancer registry and sought to identify areas for research interventions to improve adherence. METHODS: SEER records for patients diagnosed with cancer in Western Washington State between 2007 and 2014 were linked with enrollment and claims from a large regional commercial insurance plan. Using claims and SEER records, algorithms were developed to characterize adherence to each CW measure. In addition, we calculated differences in total reimbursements and procedure-specific reimbursements for patients receiving adherent and nonadherent care. RESULTS: A total of 22,359 unique individuals with cancer were linked with insurance enrollment records and met basic eligibility criteria. Overall adherence varied from 53% (breast surveillance) to 78% (breast staging). Within each measure, adherence varied substantially by stage at diagnosis and by cancer site in situations in which the CW measure affected multiple types of cancer. The difference in reimbursements between adherent and nonadherent populations across all five measures was approximately $29 million. CONCLUSION: Adherence to the ASCO/ABIM CW measures varies widely, as does the cost implication of nonadherence. A structured approach to evaluating adherence and cost impact is needed before developing programs aimed at improving adherence to the ASCO/ABIM CW measures.

Washington State cancer patients found to be at greater risk for bankruptcy than people without a cancer diagnosis.

Much has been written about the relationship between high medical expenses and the likelihood of filing for bankruptcy, but the relationship between receiving a cancer diagnosis and filing for bankruptcy is less well understood. We estimated the incidence and relative risk of bankruptcy for people age twenty-one or older diagnosed with cancer compared to people the same age without cancer by conducting a retrospective cohort analysis that used a variety of medical, personal, legal, and bankruptcy sources covering the Western District of Washington State in US Bankruptcy Court for the period 1995-2009. We found that cancer patients were 2.65 times more likely to go bankrupt than people without cancer. Younger cancer patients had 2-5 times higher rates of bankruptcy than cancer patients age sixty-five or older, which indicates that Medicare and Social Security may mitigate bankruptcy risk for the older group. The findings suggest that employers and governments may have a policy role to play in creating programs and incentives that could help people cover expenses in the first year following a cancer diagnosis.

Prioritizing comparative effectiveness research for cancer diagnostics using a regional stakeholder approach.

AIMS: This paper describes our process to engage regional stakeholders for prioritizing comparative effectiveness research (CER) in cancer diagnostics. We also describe a novel methodology for incorporating stakeholder data and input to inform the objectives of selected CER studies. MATERIALS & METHODS: As an integrated component to establishing the infrastructure for community-based CER on diagnostic technologies, we have assembled a regional stakeholder group composed of local payers, clinicians and state healthcare representatives to not only identify and prioritize CER topics most important to the western Washington State region, but also to inform the study design of selected research areas. A landscape analysis process combining literature searches, expert consultations and stakeholder discussions was used to identify possible CER topics in cancer diagnostics. Stakeholders prioritized the top topics using a modified Delphi/group-nominal method and a standardized evaluation criteria framework to determine a final selected CER study area. Implementation of the selected study was immediate due to a unique American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding structure involving the same researchers and stakeholders in both the prioritization and execution phases of the project. Stakeholder engagement was enhanced after study selection via a rapid analysis of a subset of payers' internal claims, coordinated by the research team, to obtain summary data of imaging patterns of use. Results of this preliminary analysis, which we termed an 'internal analysis,' were used to determine with the stakeholders the most important and feasible study objectives. RESULTS: Stakeholders identified PET and MRI in cancers including breast, lung, lymphoma and colorectal as top priorities. In an internal analysis of breast cancer imaging, summary data from three payers demonstrated utilization rates of advanced imaging increased between 2002 and 2009 in the study population, with a great deal of variability in use between different health plans. Assessing whether breast MRI affects treatment decisions was the top breast cancer study objective selected by the stakeholders. There were other high-priority research areas including whether MRI use improved survival that were not deemed feasible with the length of follow-up time following MRI adoption. CONCLUSION: Continuous stakeholder engagement greatly enhanced their enthusiasm for the project. We believe CER implementation will be more successful when undertaken by regional stakeholders.