Disinvestment in cancer care: a survey investigating European countries' opinions and views

Clinical performance indicators for monitoring the management of cutaneous melanoma: a population-based perspective

The prognosis of cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM) is based on disease progression. The highly heterogeneous clinical-pathological characteristics of CMM necessitate standardized diagnostic and therapeutic interventions tailored to cancer's stage. This study utilizes clinical performance indicators to assess the quality of CMM care in Veneto (Northeast Italy). This population-based study focuses on all incidences of CMMs registered by the Veneto Cancer Registry in 2015 (1279 patients) and 2017 (1368 patients). An interdisciplinary panel of experts formulated a set of quality-monitoring indicators for diagnostic, therapeutic, and end-of-life clinical interventions for CMM. The quality of clinical care for patients was assessed by comparing the reference thresholds established by experts to the actual values obtained in clinical practice. The prevalence of stage I-CMM decreased significantly from 2015 to 2017 (from 71.8 to 62.4%; P < 0.001), and almost all the pathology reports mentioned the number of nodes dissected during a lymphadenectomy. More than 90% of advanced CMMs were promptly tested for molecular BRAF status, but the proportion of patients given targeted therapies fell short of the desired threshold (61.1%). The proportion of stage I-IIA CMM patients who inappropriately underwent computerized tomography/MRI/PET dropped from 17.4 to 3.3% ( P < 0.001). Less than 2% of patients received medical or surgical anticancer therapies in the month preceding their death. In the investigated regional context, CMM care exhibited both strengths and weaknesses. The evaluated clinical indicators shed essential insight on the clinical procedures requiring corrective action. It is crucial to monitor clinical care indicators to improve care for cancer patients and promote the sustainability of the healthcare system.

End-of-life care in cancer patients: how much drug therapy and how much palliative care? Record linkage study in Northern Italy

OBJECTIVES

Investigating end-of-life use of anticancer drugs and of palliative care services.

DESIGN

Population based cohort linked to mortality registry and administrative databases.

SETTING

Emilia-Romagna Region (Northern Italy).

PARTICIPANTS

55 625 residents who died of cancer between 2017 and 2020.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Multivariate analyses were carried out to assess the relationship between cancer drug therapy and palliative care services, and their association with factors related to tumour severity.

RESULTS

In the last month of life, 15.3% of study population received anticancer drugs (from 12.5% to 16.9% across the eight Local Health Authorities-LHA) and 40.2% received palliative care services (from 36.2% to 43.7%). Drug therapy was inversely associated with receiving palliative care services within the last 30 days (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.97), surgery within the last 6 months (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.67), aggressive tumours (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.93) and increasing age (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.95 to 0.95). Drug therapy was more likely among those with haematologic tumours (OR 2.15, 95% CI 2.00 to 2.30) and in case of hospital admissions within the last 6 months (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.55 to 1.72). Palliative care was less likely among those with haematologic compared with other tumours (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.56), in case of surgery (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.49) or hospital admissions (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.72) within the last 6 months, if receiving anticancer drugs during the last 30 days (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.94) and for each year of increasing age (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.99 to 0.99). Palliative care was more likely in the presence of aggressive tumours (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.16).

CONCLUSION

Use of anticancer drugs and palliative care in the last month of life were inversely associated, showing variability across different LHAs. While administrative data have limits, our findings are in line with conclusions of other studies.

Innovation, value and reimbursement in radiation and complex surgical oncology: Time to rethink

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Complex surgery and radiotherapy are the central pillars of loco-regional oncology treatment. This paper describes the reimbursement schemes used in radiation and complex surgical oncology, reports on literature and policy reviews.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review of the literature of the reimbursement models has been carried out separately for radiotherapy and complex cancer surgery based on PRISMA guidelines. Using searches of PubMed and grey literature, we identified articles from scientific journals and reports published since 2000 on provider payment or reimbursement systems currently used in radiation oncology and complex cancer surgery, also including policy models.

RESULTS

Most European health systems reimburse radiotherapy using a budget-based, fee-for-service or fraction-based system; while few reimburse services according to an episode-based model. Also, the reimbursement models for cancer surgery are mostly restricted to differences embedded in the DRG system and adjustments applied to the fees, based on the complexity of each surgical procedure. There is an enormous variability in reimbursement across countries, resulting in different incentives and different amounts paid for the same therapeutic strategy.

CONCLUSION

A reimbursement policy, based on the episode of care as the basic payment unit, is advocated for. Innovation should be tackled in a two-tier approach: one defining the common criteria for reimbursement of proven evidence-based interventions; another for financing emerging innovation with uncertain definitive value. Relevant clinical and economic data, also collected real-life, should support reimbursement systems that mirror the actual cost of evidence-based practice.

Innovation, value and reimbursement in radiation and complex surgical oncology: time to rethink

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Complex surgery and radiotherapy are the central pillars of loco-regional oncology treatment. This paper describes the reimbursement schemes used in radiation and complex surgical oncology, reports on literature and policy reviews.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review of the literature of the reimbursement models has been carried out separately for radiotherapy and complex cancer surgery based on PRISMA guidelines. Using searches of PubMed and grey literature, we identified articles from scientific journals and reports published since 2000 on provider payment or reimbursement systems currently used in radiation oncology and complex cancer surgery, also including policy models.

RESULTS

Most European health systems reimburse radiotherapy using a budget-based, fee-for-service or fraction-based system; while few reimburse services according to an episode-based model. Also, the reimbursement models for cancer surgery are mostly restricted to differences embedded in the DRG system and adjustments applied to the fees, based on the complexity of each surgical procedure. There is an enormous variability in reimbursement across countries, resulting in different incentives and different amounts paid for the same therapeutic strategy.

CONCLUSION

A reimbursement policy, based on the episode of care as the basic payment unit, is advocated for. Innovation should be tackled in a two-tier approach: one defining the common criteria for reimbursement of proven evidence-based interventions; another for financing emerging innovation with uncertain definitive value. Relevant clinical and economic data, also collected real-life, should support reimbursement systems that mirror the actual cost of evidence-based practice.

Determinants for the use and de-implementation of low-value care in health care: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

A considerable proportion of interventions provided to patients lack evidence of their effectiveness. This implies that patients may receive ineffective, unnecessary or even harmful care. However, despite some empirical studies in the field, there has been no synthesis of determinants impacting the use of low-value care (LVC) and the process of de-implementing LVC.

AIM

The aim was to identify determinants influencing the use of LVC, as well as determinants for de-implementation of LVC practices in health care.

METHODS

A scoping review was performed based on the framework by Arksey and O'Malley. We searched four scientific databases, conducted snowball searches of relevant articles and hand searched the journal Implementation Science for peer-reviewed journal articles in English. Articles were included if they were empirical studies reporting on determinants for the use of LVC or de-implementation of LVC. The abstract review and the full-text review were conducted in duplicate and conflicting decisions were discussed until consensus was reached. Data were charted using a piloted data charting form and the determinants were inductively coded and categorised in an iterative process conducted by the project group.

RESULTS

In total, 101 citations were included in the review. Of these, 92 reported on determinants for the use of LVC and nine on determinants for de-implementation. The studies were conducted in a range of health care settings and investigated a variety of LVC practices with LVC medication prescriptions, imaging and screening procedures being the most common. The identified determinants for the use of LVC as well as for de-implementation of LVC practices broadly concerned: patients, professionals, outer context, inner context, process and evidence and LVC practice. The results were discussed in relation to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

CONCLUSION

The identified determinants largely overlap with existing implementation frameworks, although patient expectations and professionals' fear of malpractice appear to be more prominent determinants for the use and de-implementation of LVC. Thus, existing implementation determinant frameworks may require adaptation to be transferable to de-implementation. Strategies to reduce the use of LVC should specifically consider determinants for the use and de-implementation of LVC.

REGISTRATION

The review has not been registered.