Strategies for Improving Access to Cancer Services in Rural Communities: A Pre-implementation Study

Background

Implementation science is defined as the scientific study of methods and strategies that facilitate the uptake of evidence-based practice into regular use by practitioners. Failure of implementation is more common in resource-limited settings and may contribute to health disparities between rural and urban communities. In this pre-implementation study, we aimed to (1) evaluate barriers and facilitators for implementation of guideline-concordant healthcare services for cancer patients in rural communities in Upstate New York and (2) identify key strategies for successful implementation of cancer services and supportive programs in resource-poor settings.

Methods

The mixed methods study was guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Using engagement approaches from Community-Based Participatory Research, we collected qualitative and quantitative data to assess barriers and facilitators to implementation of rural cancer survivorship services (three focus groups, n = 43, survey n = 120). Information was collected using both in-person and web-based approaches and assessed attitude and preferences for various models of cancer care organization and delivery in rural communities. Stakeholders included cancer survivors, their families and caregivers, local public services administrators, health providers, and allied health-care professionals from rural and remote communities in Upstate New York. Data was analyzed using grounded theory.

Results

Responders reported preferences for cross-region team-based cancer care delivery and emphasized the importance of connecting local providers with cancer care networks and multidisciplinary teams at large urban cancer centers. The main reported barriers to rural cancer program implementation included regional variation in infrastructure and services delivery practices, inadequate number of providers/specialists, lack of integration among oncology, primary care and supportive services within the regions, and misalignment between clinical guideline recommendations and current reimbursement policies.

Conclusions

Our findings revealed a unique combination of community, socio-economic, financial, and workforce barriers to implementation of guideline-concordant healthcare services for cancer patients in rural communities. One strategy to overcome these barriers is to improve provider cross-region collaboration and care coordination by means of teamwork and facilitation. Augmenting implementation framework with provider team-building strategies across and within regions could improve rural provider confidence and performance, minimize chances of implementation failure, and improve continuity of care for cancer patients living in rural areas.

Achieving a multilevel evidence-based approach to improve cancer care in the U.S. post-COVID era: What is the role of management?

In 2013, the Institute of Medicine already had declared the state of U.S. cancer care as "a delivery system in crisis." Beginning in early 2020, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically revealed the fragile nature of the U.S. health system. As a microcosm of that larger health system, cancer care can provide us with opportunities for innovative thinking and new solutions. This paper describes a series of public and private-sector cancer care initiatives that are the building blocks for a multilevel evidence-based approach to improve cancer care in the post-COVID era. Achieving these objectives requires significant managerial policy decisions, some risk taking, and the development of organizational strategies that involve collaboration within the managerial and clinical leadership. Such strategies should reflect adaptability to navigate the complex and changing science, policy and financing environment, while retaining the central values of patient-centered care. As suggested by Edward Deming, an early pioneer in quality-improvement initiatives, the problems are with the system, and the system belongs to management. Though future challenges are undefined and likely to be significant, the foundational elements of a multilevel, evidence-based approach for improving cancer care are established and able to be built upon and will offer application in the post-COVID era.

Relative Impact of Anticancer Therapy on Unplanned Hospital Care in Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE

In lung cancer, unplanned hospital care is a significant driver of costs. While toxicities of cancer therapies are well-known, there are little data on their relative contribution to unplanned care. This study aims to (1) determine the relative impact of tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy, immune checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy, and cytotoxic chemotherapy on unplanned hospital care and (2) identify potential strategies to prevent unplanned hospital encounters in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

A research database search of the electronic health record was used to identify 97 patients with established NSCLC who were undergoing either TKI therapy, immunotherapy, or chemotherapy at our institution and visited our emergency department (ED) in 2018. The resulting 173 ED encounters were reviewed to determine (1) the cause (cancer, therapy, other, or rule-out) of each encounter and (2) whether the encounter was preventable.

RESULTS

A small portion (9%) of all unplanned hospital encounters were therapy related (2% in the TKI therapy group, 12% in the immunotherapy group, and 21% in the chemotherapy group). Cancer itself was the leading cause (54%) of the encounters. Over 20% of all encounters were classified as preventable, and half of those encounters were deemed unnecessary.

DISCUSSION

TKI therapy, immunotherapy, and, to a lesser extent, chemotherapy are relatively small drivers of unplanned acute hospital care for patients with NSCLC. A significant share of unplanned hospital encounters may be prevented through proactive evidence-based initiatives.

NCCN Policy Summit: Defining, Measuring, and Applying Quality in an Evolving Health Policy Landscape and the Implications for Cancer Care

Quality measurement is a critical component of advancing a health system that pays for performance over volume. Although there has been significant attention paid to quality measurement within health systems in recent years, significant challenges to meaningful measurement of quality care outcomes remain. Defining cost can be challenging, but is arguably not as elusive as quality, which lacks standard measurement methods and units. To identify industry standards and recommendations for the future, NCCN recently hosted the NCCN Oncology Policy Summit: Defining, Measuring, and Applying Quality in an Evolving Health Policy Landscape and the Implications for Cancer Care. Key stakeholders including physicians, payers, policymakers, patient advocates, and technology partners reviewed current quality measurement programs to identify success and challenges, including the Oncology Care Model. Speakers and panelists identified gaps in quality measurement and provided insights and suggestions for further advancing quality measurement in oncology. This article provides insights and recommendations; however, the goal of this program was to highlight key issues and not to obtain consensus.

Treatment-Related Complications of Systemic Therapy and Radiotherapy

Importance

Systemic therapy and radiotherapy can be associated with acute complications that may require emergent care. However, there are limited data characterizing complications and the financial burden of cancer therapy that are treated in emergency departments (EDs) in the United States.

Objectives

To estimate the incidence of treatment-related complications of systemic therapy or radiotherapy, examine factors associated with inpatient admission, and investigate the overall financial burden.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A retrospective analysis of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Emergency Department Sample was performed. Between January 2006 and December 2015, there was a weighted total of 1.3 billion ED visits; of these, 1.5 million were related to a complication of systemic therapy or radiotherapy for cancer. Data analysis was conducted from February 22 to December 23, 2018. External cause of injury codes, Clinical Classifications Software, International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification, and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision (ICD-10), Clinical Modification codes were used to identify patients with complications of systemic therapy or radiotherapy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Patterns in treatment-related complications, patient- and hospital-related factors associated with inpatient admission, and median and total charges for treatment-related complications were the main outcomes.

Results

Of the 1.5 million ED visits included in the analysis, 53.2% of patients were female and mean age was 63.3 years. Treatment-related ED visits increased by a rate of 10.8% per year compared with 2.0% for overall ED visits. Among ED visits, 90.9% resulted in inpatient admission to the hospital and 4.9% resulted in death during hospitalization. Neutropenia (136 167 [8.9%]), sepsis (128 171 [8.4%]), and anemia (117 557 [7.7%]) were both the most common and costliest (neutropenia: $5.52 billion; sepsis: $11.21 billion; and anemia: $6.78 billion) complications diagnosed on presentation to EDs; sepsis (odds ratio [OR], 21.00; 95% CI, 14.61-30.20), pneumonia (OR, 9.73; 95% CI, 8.08-11.73), and acute kidney injury (OR, 9.60; 95% CI, 7.77-11.85) were associated with inpatient admission. Costs related to the top 10 most common complications totaled $38 billion and comprised 48% of the total financial burden of the study cohort.

Conclusions and Relevance

Emergency department visits for complications of systemic therapy or radiotherapy increased at a 5.5-fold higher rate over 10 years compared with overall ED visits. Neutropenia, sepsis, and anemia appear to be the most common complications; sepsis, pneumonia, and acute kidney injury appear to be associated with the highest rates of inpatient admission. These complications suggest that significant charges are incurred on ED visits.

Estimating cost implications of potentially avoidable hospitalizations among Oncology Care Model patients with prostate cancer

Purpose/Objectives

We sought to estimate the expected cost savings generated if a set of potentially avoidable hospitalizations (PAHs) among oncology care model (OCM) patients with prostate cancer were shifted to an acute care model in the outpatient setting.

Methods

We previously identified a set of 28 PAHs among OCM prostate cancer patients. Outpatient management costs for a characteristically similar cohort of cancer patients were obtained from our institution's ambulatory acute-care Oncology Care Unit (OCU). We excluded OCU visits resulting in hospitalization, involving non-cancer diagnoses, and those missing clinical/financial information. Exact-matching based on the strata of age, categorically-defined presenting complaint, and systemic disease was used to match PAHs to OCU acute care visits. PAH costs obtained from OCM data were compared to costs from matched OCU visits.

Results

We identified 130 acute care OCU visits, of which 47 met inclusion criteria. Twenty-four PAHs (89%) matched to 26 of these OCU visits. PAHs accounted for 5.8% of OCM expenditures during our study period. The mean inpatient cost among matched PAHs was $15,885 compared to $6,227 for matched OCU visits. Boot strapping within each match stratum produced a mean estimated cost savings of $12,151 (95% CI $10,488 to $13,814) per PAH. We estimate this per event savings to yield a 4.4% (95% CI 3.8% to 5.0%) an overall spending decrement for OCM prostate cancer episodes.

Conclusions

PAHs contribute meaningfully to costs of care in oncology. Investment in specialized ambulatory acute care services for oncology patients could lead to substantial cost savings.

Perspectives of Patients With Cancer on the Quality-Adjusted Life Year as a Measure of Value in Healthcare

OBJECTIVES

Healthcare expenditures in the United States continue to grow; to control costs, there has been a shift away from volume-focused care to value-based care. The incorporation of patient perspectives in the development of value-based healthcare is critical, yet research addressing this issue is limited. This study explores awareness and understanding of patients with cancer about the quality-adjusted life year (QALY), as well as their perspectives regarding the use of the QALY to measure value in healthcare.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study used survey methodology to explore patient awareness, understanding, and perspectives on the QALY. A total of 774 patients with cancer and survivors completed this survey in June and July of 2017. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Results showed that there is limited awareness of the QALY among patients with cancer and survivors and minimal understanding of how the QALY is used. Only one quarter of respondents believed that the QALY was a good way to measure value in healthcare. Some participants (5%) stated that the QALY could be personally helpful to them in their own decision making, indicating the possible usefulness of the QALY as a decision aid in cancer care. Nevertheless, participants expressed concern about other decision makers using the QALY to allocate cancer care and resources and maintained a strong desire for autonomy over personal healthcare choices.

CONCLUSIONS

Although participants believed that the QALY could help them make more informed decisions, there was concern about how it would be used by payers, policymakers, and other decision makers in determining access to care. Implications for policy and research are discussed.

The Oncology Care Model: Perspectives From the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and Participating Oncology Practices in Academia and the Community

Cancer care delivery in the United States is often fragmented and inefficient, imposing substantial burdens on patients. Costs of cancer care are rising more rapidly than other specialties, with substantial regional differences in quality and cost. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Innovation Center (CMMIS) recently launched the Oncology Care Model (OCM), which uses payment incentives and practice redesign requirements toward the goal of improving quality while controlling costs. As of March 2017, 190 practices were participating, with approximately 3,200 oncologists providing care for approximately 150,000 unique beneficiaries per year (approximately 20% of the Medicare Fee-for-Service population receiving chemotherapy for cancer). This article provides an overview of the program from the CMS perspective, as well as perspectives from two practices implementing OCM: an academic health system (Yale Cancer Center) and a community practice (Hematology Oncology Associates of Central New York). Requirements of OCM, as well as implementation successes, challenges, financial implications, impact on quality, and future visions, are provided from each perspective.