Association of Patient, Physician, and Practice-Level Factors with Uptake of Payer-Led Oncology Clinical Pathways

Importance

Payers use oncology clinical pathways programs to increase evidence-based drug prescribing and control drug spending. However, compliance with these programs has been low, which may decrease their efficacy, and factors associated with pathway compliance are unknown.

Objective

To determine extent of pathway compliance and identify factors associated with pathway compliance using characteristics of patients, practices, and the companies that develop cancer treatment pathways.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study comprised patients with claims and administrative data from a national insurer and a pathways health care professional between July 1, 2018, and October 31, 2021. Adult patients with metastatic breast, lung, colorectal, pancreatic, melanoma, kidney, bladder, gastric, and uterine cancer being treated in the first line were included. Six months of continuous insurance coverage prior to the date of treatment initiation was required for determination of baseline characteristics. Stepwise logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with pathway compliance.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Use of a pathway program-endorsed treatment regimen in the first-line setting for metastatic cancer.

Results

Among 17 293 patients (mean [SD] age, 60.7 [11.2] years; 9183 [53.1%] women; mean [SD] Black patients per census block, 0.10 [0.20]), 11 071 patients (64.0%) were on-pathway, and 6222 (36.0%) were off-pathway. Factors associated with increased pathway compliance were higher health care utilization during the 6-month baseline period (measured in inpatient visits and emergency department visits) (5220 on-pathway inpatient visits [47.2%] vs 2797 off-pathway [45.0%]; emergency department visits, 3304 [27.1%] vs 1503 [24.2%]; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] for inpatient visits, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.22-1.43; P < .001), volume of patients with this insurance provider per physician (mean [SD] visits: on-pathway, 128.0 [258.3] vs off-pathway, 121.8 [161.4]; aOR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.04-1.20; P = .002), and practice participation in the Oncology Care Model (on-pathway participation, 2601 [23.5%] vs 1305 [21.0%]; aOR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.04-1.23; P = .004). Higher total medical cost during the 6-month baseline period were associated with decreased pathway compliance (mean [SD] costs: on-pathway, $55 990 [$69 706] vs $65 955 [$74 678]; aOR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.88; P < .001). There was heterogeneity in odds of pathway compliance between different malignancies. Pathway compliance rates trended down from the reference year of 2018.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, despite generous financial incentives, compliance with payer-led pathways remained at historically reported low rates. Factors such as increasing exposure to the program due to the number of patients impacted and participation in other value-based payment programs, such as the Oncology Care Model, were positively associated with compliance; factors such as the type of cancer and patient complexity may have played a role, but the directionality of potential effects was unclear.

Alternative trastuzumab dosing strategies in HER2-positive early breast cancer are associated with patient out-of-pocket savings

Patients with breast cancer frequently experience financial hardship, often due to the high costs of anti-cancer drugs. We sought to develop alternative trastuzumab dosing strategies, compare their pharmacokinetic effectiveness to standard dosing, and assess the expected financial implications of transitioning to them. We extracted clinical data from the records of 135 retrospectively identified patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer at a single, urban comprehensive cancer center who were treated with trastuzumab between 2017 and 2019. We performed pharmacokinetic simulations on a range of trastuzumab dose levels and frequencies, assessing efficacy by trough trastuzumab concentration (Ctrough) and population and individual likelihoods of Ctrough exceeding trastuzumab minimum effective concentration (MEC). We performed deterministic financial modeling to estimate the treatment-associated financial savings from alternative dosing strategies. Trastuzumab maintenance doses of 4 mg/kg every 3 weeks (Q3W) and 6 mg/kg every 4 weeks (Q4W) had nearly identical probabilities of Ctrough being above MEC as standard of care 6 mg/kg every 3 weeks. In the primary financial analysis, both trastuzumab 4 mg/kg Q3W and 6 mg/kg Q4W were associated with significant drug- and administration-related out-of-pocket cost savings over the duration of therapy, ranging from $765 (neoadjuvant, Q4W) to $2791 (adjuvant, Q4W). In particular, Q4W trastuzumab increased savings related to lost wages and travel cost avoidance. Low-dose and reduced frequency trastuzumab in appropriately selected patients may significantly reduce total drug utilization and meaningfully reduce patient financial toxicity. Prospective clinical trials evaluating low-dose or reduced-frequency administration of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies are warranted and needed.

Incorporating Value-Based Care Into Oncology

Value-based care within insurance design utilizes evidence-based medicine as a means of defining high-value versus low-value diagnostics and treatments. The goals of value-based care are to shift spending and coverage toward high-value care and reduce the use of low-value practices. Within oncology, several value-based methods have been proposed and implemented. We review value-based care being used within oncology, including defining the value of oncology drugs through frameworks, clinical care pathways, alternative payment models including the Oncology Care Model, value-based insurance design, and reducing low-value care including the Choosing Wisely initiatives.

Utilization of Clinical Pathways Can Reduce Drug Spend Within the Oncology Care Model

PURPOSE:

Reducing drug spend is one of the greatest challenges for practices participating in the Oncology Care Model (OCM). Evidence-based clinical pathways have the potential to decrease drug spend while maintaining clinical outcomes consistent with published evidence. The goal of this study was to determine whether voluntary use of clinical pathways by a practice can maximize OCM episodic cost savings.

METHODS AND MATERIALS:

A community oncology practice used evidence-based clinical pathways for OCM-attributed patients. All treatment plans were submitted to the pathway vendor in real time for clinical pathway adherence measurement. Analysis was conducted before implementation and on an ongoing daily and weekly basis to identify cases in which higher cost drugs or regimens were ordered. A clinical data governance committee met biweekly to review clinical pathway performance metrics and drug utilization.

RESULTS:

From quarter 1 of 2017 to quarter 1 of 2019, the median drug spend increased less rapidly for Cancer Care Specialists of Illinois (CCSI; 18.6%) compared with OCM (34.4%). Furthermore, the percent difference in drug spend for CCSI relative to OCM decreased from 13.5% to 0.1% (P < .001). Each quarter, there was approximately a 1.7% decrease (95% CI, 1.0% to 2.4%) in drug spend for CCSI relative to OCM. Additional analyses found that, over a 15-month period (October 2017 through December 2019), CCSI achieved an increase in pathway adherence from 69% to 81%.

CONCLUSION:

Reduction in drug spend is possible within a value-based care model, using evidence-based clinical pathways.

Early Findings From the Oncology Care Model Evaluation

PURPOSE:

The Oncology Care Model (OCM) is an alternative payment model administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) that is structured around 6-month chemotherapy treatment episodes. This report describes the CMS-sponsored OCM evaluation and summarizes early evaluation findings.

METHODS:

The OCM evaluation examines health care spending and use, quality of care, and patient experience during chemotherapy treatment episodes. Because OCM participation is voluntary, the evaluation compares participating physician practices with a propensity-matched group of nonparticipating practices by using a difference-in-differences approach. This report examines 6-month episodes initiated during the first OCM performance period (July 1, 2016, through January 1, 2017).

RESULTS:

During the first OCM performance period, there was no statistically significant impact of OCM on total episode payments. There were small declines in intensive care unit (ICU) admissions (7 per 1,000 episodes) and emergency department visits (15 per 1,000 episodes); there was no statistically significant impact on hospitalizations or 30-day readmissions. Analyses of care quality and end-of-life care showed statistically significant impacts of OCM on the proportion of patients with inpatient hospitalizations in the last 30 days of life (1.5% absolute decrease) and ICU admissions in the last 30 days of life (2.1% decrease). There was no significant OCM impact on measures of hospice use.

CONCLUSION:

Early findings from the OCM evaluation demonstrate modest program-related impacts on some acute care services and no change in total episode payments. Early findings may not reflect practice redesign efforts that were phased in after the beginning of OCM.

Patient-Centered Medical Homes in Community Oncology Practices: Changes in Spending and Care Quality Associated With the COME HOME Experience

PURPOSE:

We examined whether the Community Oncology Medical Home (COME HOME) program, a medical home program implemented in seven community oncology practices, was associated with changes in spending and care quality.

PATIENTS AND METHODS:

We compared outcomes from elderly fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed between 2011 and 2015 with breast, lung, colorectal, thyroid, or pancreatic cancer, lymphoma, or melanoma and served by COME HOME practices before and after program implementation versus similar beneficiaries served by other geographically proximate oncologists. Difference-in-differences analysis compared changes in outcomes for COME HOME patients versus concurrent controls. Propensity score matching and regression methods were adjusted for clinical and sociodemographic differences. Our primary outcome was 6-month medical spending per beneficiary. Secondary outcomes included 6-month out-of-pocket spending, inpatient and ambulatory care–sensitive hospitalizations, readmissions, length of stay, and emergency department and evaluation and management visits.

RESULTS:

Before COME HOME, 6-month medical spending was $2,975 higher for the study group compared with controls (95% CI, $1,635 to $4,315; P < .001) and increasing at a similar rate. After intervention, this difference was reduced to $318 (95% CI, −$1,105 to $1,741; P = .661), a significant change of −$2,657 (95% CI, −$4,631 to −$683; P = .008) or 8.1% savings relative to 6-month average spending ($32,866). COME HOME was also associated with significantly reduced (10.2 %) emergency department visits per 1,000 patients per 6-month period ( P = .024). There were no statistically significant differences in other outcomes.

CONCLUSION:

COME HOME was associated with reduced Medicare spending and improved emergency department use. The patient-centered medical home model holds promise for oncology practices, but improvements were not uniform.

Impact on Oncology Practices of Including Drug Costs in Bundled Payments

Introduction:

This analysis evaluates the impact of bundling drug costs into a hypothetic bundled payment.

Methods:

An economic model was created for patient vignettes from: advanced-stage III colon cancer and metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer. First quarter 2016 Medicare reimbursement rates were used to calculate the average fee-for-service (FFS) reimbursement for these vignettes. The probabilistic risk faced by practices was captured by the type of patients seen in practices and randomly assigned in a Monte Carlo simulation on the basis of the given distribution of patient types within each cancer. Simulations were replicated 1,000 times. The impact of bundled payments that include drug costs for various practice sizes and cancer types was quantified as the probability of incurring a loss at four magnitudes: any loss, > 10%, > 20%, or > 30%. A loss was defined as receiving revenue from the bundle that was less than what the practice would have received under FFS; the probability of loss was calculated on the basis of the number of times a practice reported a loss among the 1,000 simulations.

Results:

Practices that treat a substantial proportion of patients with complex disease compared with the average patient in the bundle would have revenue well below that expected from FFS. Practices that treat a disproportionate share of patients with less complex disease, as compared with the average patient in the bundle, would have revenue well above the revenue under FFS. Overall, bundled payments put practices at greater risk than FFS because their patient case mix could greatly skew financial performance.

Conclusion:

Including drug costs in a bundle is subject to the uncontrollable probabilistic risk of patient case mixes.

Diffusion of Bevacizumab Across Oncology Practices: An Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Technological advances can improve care and outcomes but are a primary driver of health care spending growth. Understanding diffusion and use of new oncology therapies is important, given substantial increases in prices and spending on such treatments.

OBJECTIVES

Examine diffusion of bevacizumab, a novel (in 2004) and high-priced biologic cancer therapy, among US oncology practices during 2005-2012 and assess variation in use across practices.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Population-based observational study.

SETTING

A total of 2329 US practices providing cancer chemotherapy.

PARTICIPANTS

Random 20% sample of 236,304 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged above 65 years in 2004-2012 undergoing infused chemotherapy for cancer.

MEASURES

Diffusion of bevacizumab (cumulative time to first use and 10% use) in practices, variation in use across practices overall and by higher versus lower-value use. We used hierarchical models with practice random effects to estimate the between-practice variation in the probability of receiving bevacizumab and to identify factors associated with use.

RESULTS

We observed relatively rapid diffusion of bevacizumab, particularly in independent practices and larger versus smaller practices. We observed substantial variation in use; the adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of bevacizumab use was 2.90 higher (2.73-3.08) for practices 1 SD above versus one standard deviation below the mean. Variation was less for higher-value [odds ratio=2.72 (2.56-2.89)] than lower-value uses [odds ratio=3.61 (3.21-4.06)].

CONCLUSIONS

Use of bevacizumab varied widely across oncology practices, particularly for lower-value indications. These findings suggest that interventions targeted to practices have potential for decreasing low-value use of high-cost cancer therapies.

No Exit: Identifying Avoidable Terminal Oncology Intensive Care Unit Hospitalizations

PURPOSE

Terminal oncology intensive care unit (ICU) hospitalizations are associated with high costs and inferior quality of care. This study identifies and characterizes potentially avoidable terminal admissions of oncology patients to ICUs.

METHODS

This was a retrospective case series of patients cared for in an academic medical center's ambulatory oncology practice who died in an ICU during July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013. An oncologist, intensivist, and hospitalist reviewed each patient's electronic health record from 3 months preceding terminal hospitalization until death. The primary outcome was the proportion of terminal ICU hospitalizations identified as potentially avoidable by two or more reviewers. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed to identify characteristics associated with avoidable terminal ICU hospitalizations.

RESULTS

Seventy-two patients met inclusion criteria. The majority had solid tumor malignancies (71%), poor performance status (51%), and multiple encounters with the health care system. Despite high-intensity health care utilization, only 25% had documented advance directives. During a 4-day median ICU length of stay, 81% were intubated and 39% had cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Forty-seven percent of these hospitalizations were identified as potentially avoidable. Avoidable hospitalizations were associated with factors including: worse performance status before admission (median 2 v 1; P = .01), worse Charlson comorbidity score (median 8.5 v 7.0, P = .04), reason for hospitalization (P = .006), and number of prior hospitalizations (median 2 v 1; P = .05).

CONCLUSION

Given the high frequency of avoidable terminal ICU hospitalizations, health care leaders should develop strategies to prospectively identify patients at high risk and formulate interventions to improve end-of-life care.

Evaluation of the Quality of Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy Delivery for Breast Cancer Care in the United States

Importance

Randomized trials in breast cancer have demonstrated the clinical benefits of adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) in preventing recurrence and death. The examination of concordance with AET guidelines at a national level as a measure of quality of care is important.

Objective

To investigate temporal trends and factors related to receipt of AET for breast cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study included 981 729 women with breast cancer in the National Cancer Database from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2013. Women with stages I to III breast cancer who received all or part of their treatment at the reporting institution were included in the analysis.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Temporal changes in AET receipt (estimating the annual percentage change) and AET practice patterns (using logistic regression) and the effect of AET guideline concordance on survival of women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer (using the multivariable Cox proportional hazards model).

Results

Of the 981 729 eligible patients (mean [SD] age, 60.8 [13.3] years), 818 435 had HR+ and 163 294 had HR-negative (HR-) cancer. Among the patients with HR+ cancer, receipt of AET increased over time, from 69.8% in 2004 to 82.4% in 2013. Among patients with HR- cancer, receipt decreased from 5.2% in 2004 to 3.4% in 2013. Hospital-level adherence (≥80% of patients with HR+ cancer received AET) increased from 40.2% in 2004 to 69.2% in 2013. Receipt of AET varied significantly by age (lower in patients ≥80 years), race (lower in African American and Hispanic participants), geographic location (lower in West South Central, Mountain, and Pacific census regions), and receptor status (lower in patients with estrogen receptor-negative and progesterone receptor-positive cancer). Surgery and radiotherapy were the factors most significantly associated with appropriate AET receipt (only 45.0% in patients who received lumpectomy without radiotherapy). Receipt of AET was associated with a 29% relative risk reduction in mortality. Based on this effectiveness estimate, if all patients with HR+ cancer received AET, approximately 14 630 lives would have been saved over 10 years.

Conclusions and Relevance

From 2004 to 2013, underuse and misuse of AET have decreased for patients with breast cancer, but optimal use has not been achieved, and significant variation in care remains. The involvement of surgery and radiotherapy were among the most significant factors associated with optimal use, which underscores the benefits of team-based care to support guideline-concordant therapy.

Impact of body mass index and operative approach on surgical morbidity and costs in women with endometrial carcinoma and hyperplasia

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of body mass index (BMI) and operative approach on surgical morbidity and costs in patients with endometrial carcinoma (EC) and hyperplasia (EH).

METHODS

All women with BMI data who underwent surgery for EC or EH from 2008 to 2014 were identified from MarketScan, a healthcare claims database. Differences in 30-day complications and costs were compared between BMI groups and stratified by surgical modality.

RESULTS

Of 1112 patients, 35%, 36%, and 29% had a BMI of ≤29, 30-39, and ≥40kg/m2, respectively. Compared to patients with a BMI of 30-39 and ≤29, women with a BMI ≥40 had higher rates of venous thromboembolism (3% vs 0.2% vs 0.3%, p<0.01) and wound infection (7% vs 3% vs 3%, p=0.02). This increase was driven by the subset of patients who had laparotomy and was not seen in those undergoing minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Median total costs for women with a BMI ≥40, 30-39, and ≤29 were U.S. $17.3k, $16.8k, and $16.6k respectively (p=0.53). Costs were higher for patients who had laparotomy than those who had MIS across all BMI groups, with the cost difference being highest in morbidly obese women (≥40: $21.6k vs $14.9k, p<0.01; 30-39: $18.9k vs $16.1k, p=0.01; ≤29: $19.3k vs $15k, p<0.01). Patients who had complications had higher costs compared to those who did not, with a higher cost difference in the laparotomy group ($27.7k vs $16.4k, p<0.01) compared to the MIS group ($19.9k vs $15k, p<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

MIS may increase the value of care by minimizing complications and decreasing costs. This may be most pronounced in morbidly obese women.

Cost and Survival Analysis Before and After Implementation of Dana-Farber Clinical Pathways for Patients With Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE

Increasing costs and medical complexity are significant challenges in modern oncology. We explored the use of clinical pathways to support clinical decision making and manage resources prospectively across our network.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We created customized lung cancer pathways and partnered with a commercial vendor to provide a Web-based platform for real-time decision support and post-treatment data aggregation. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) Pathways for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were introduced in January 2014. We identified all DFCI patients who were diagnosed and treated for stage IV NSCLC in 2012 (before pathways) and 2014 (after pathways). Costs of care were determined for 1 year from the time of diagnosis.

RESULTS

Pre- and postpathway cohorts included 160 and 210 patients with stage IV NSCLC, respectively. The prepathway group had more women but was otherwise similarly matched for demographic and tumor characteristics. The total 12-month cost of care (adjusted for age, sex, race, distance to DFCI, clinical trial enrollment, and EGFR and ALK status) demonstrated a $15,013 savings after the implementation of pathways ($67,050 before pathways v $52,037 after pathways). Antineoplastics were the largest source of cost savings. Clinical outcomes were not compromised, with similar median overall survival times (10.7 months before v 11.2 months after pathways; P = .08).

CONCLUSION

After introduction of a clinical pathway in metastatic NSCLC, cost of care decreased significantly, with no compromise in survival. In an era where comparative outcomes analysis and value assessment are increasingly important, the implementation of clinical pathways may provide a means to coalesce and disseminate institutional expertise and track and learn from care decisions.

Supporting the Supporters: What Family Caregivers Need to Care for a Loved One With Cancer

Patients with cancer who live at home often require help with activities of daily living, basic medical care (eg, injections), social needs, and patient advocacy. Most of that support comes from intimate caregivers, typically members of the patient’s family. These family caregivers themselves require support so that they can be effective and maintain their own well-being while caring for the patient with cancer. Research shows that support for caregivers contributes to achieving these goals. We propose a four-part framework for supporting family caregivers: (1) assess caregivers’ needs using formal measures, just as the cancer patient’s own needs are assessed, (2) educate caregivers for their caregiving roles, most notably, with training in the low-level medical support that cancer patients require at home, (3) empower caregivers to become full-fledged members of the patient’s cancer team, all working toward common goals, and (4) assist caregivers proactively in their duties, so that they retain a sense of control and self-efficacy rather than having to react to imminent medical crises without sufficient resources at their disposal. Funding support for family caregivers requires refocusing on the overall well-being of the patient-caregiver dyad rather than just on the patient. It will necessitate a paradigm shift in reimbursement that recognizes the need for holistic cancer care.