Value-Based Calculators in Cancer: Current State and Challenges

New Anticancer Drugs: Reliably Assessing "Value" While Addressing High Prices

Countries face challenges in paying for new drugs. High prices are driven in part by exploding drug development costs, which, in turn, are driven by essential but excessive regulation. Burdensome regulation also delays drug development, and this can translate into thousands of life-years lost. We need system-wide reform that will enable less expensive, faster drug development. The speed with which COVID-19 vaccines and AIDS therapies were developed indicates this is possible if governments prioritize it. Countries also differ in how they value drugs, and generally, those willing to pay more have better, faster access. Canada is used as an example to illustrate how "incremental cost-effectiveness ratios" (ICERs) based on measures such as gains in "quality-adjusted life-years" (QALYs) may be used to determine a drug's value but are often problematic, imprecise assessments. Generally, ICER/QALY estimates inadequately consider the impact of patient crossover or long post-progression survival, therapy benefits in distinct subpopulations, positive impacts of the therapy on other healthcare or societal costs, how much governments willingly might pay for other things, etc. Furthermore, a QALY value should be higher for a lethal or uncommon disease than for a common, nonlethal disease. Compared to international comparators, Canada is particularly ineffective in initiating public funding for essential new medications. Addressing these disparities demands urgent reform.

The implementation of value-based frameworks, clinical care pathways, and alternative payment models for cancer care in the United States

BACKGROUND: Cancer treatment is a significant driver of rising health care costs in the United States, where the annual cost of cancer care is estimated to reach $246 billion in 2030. As a result, cancer centers are considering moving away from fee-for-service models and transitioning to value-based care models, including value-based frameworks (VBFs), clinical care pathways (CCPs), and alternative payment models (APMs). OBJECTIVE: To assess the barriers and motivations for using value-based care models from the perspectives of physicians and quality officers (QOs) at US cancer centers. METHODS: Sites were recruited from cancer centers in the Midwest, Northeast, South, and West regions in a 15/15/20/10 relative distribution. Cancer centers were identified based on prior research relationships and known participation in the Oncology Care Model or other APMs. Based on a literature search, multiple choice and open-ended questions were developed for the survey. A link to the survey was emailed to hematologists/oncologists and QOs at academic and community cancer centers from August to November 2020. Results were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 136 sites were contacted; 28 (21%) centers returned completed surveys, which were included in the final analysis. 45 surveys (23 from community centers, 22 from academic centers) were completed: 59% (26/44), 76% (34/45), and 67% (30/45) of physicians/QOs respondents had used or implemented a VBF, CCP, and APM, respectively. The top motivator for VBF use was "producing real-world data for providers, payers, and patients" (50% [13/26]). Among those not using CCPs, the most common barrier was a "lack of consensus on pathway choices" (64% [7/11]). For APMs, the most common difficulty was that "innovations in health care services and therapies must be adopted at the site's own financial risk" (27% [8/30]). CONCLUSIONS: The ability to measure improvements in cancer health outcomes was a large motivator for implementing value-based models. However, heterogeneity in practice size, limited resources, and potential increase in costs were possible barriers to implementation. Payers need to be willing to negotiate with cancer centers and providers to implement the payment model that will most benefit patients. The future integration of VBFs, CCPs, and APMs will depend on reducing the complexity and burden of implementation. DISCLOSURES :Dr Panchal was affiliated with the University of Utah at the time this study was conducted and discloses current employment with ZS. Dr McBride discloses employment with Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr Huggar and Dr Copher report employment, stock, and other ownership interests in Bristol Myers Squibb. The other authors have no competing interests to disclose. This study was funded by an unrestricted research grant from Bristol Myers Squibb to the University of Utah.

Defining the Role of the Modern Oncology Provider in Mitigating Financial Toxicity

Financial toxicity, the cumulative financial hardships resulting from cancer diagnosis and treatment, is a growing problem in the United States. With the proliferation of costly novel therapeutics and improved cancer survival, financial toxicity will remain a major issue in cancer care delivery. Frontline oncology providers serve as gatekeepers in the medical system and, as such, could play essential roles in recognizing and addressing financial toxicity. Providers and health systems could help mitigate financial toxicity through routine financial toxicity screening, financial navigation, and advocacy. Specific strategies include developing and implementing financial screening instruments that can be integrated in electronic medical records and establishing team-based financial navigation programs to help patients with out-of-pocket medical costs, nonmedical spending, and insurance optimization. Finally, providers should continue to advocate for policies and legislation that decrease cost and promote value-based care. In this review, we examine opportunities for provider engagement in these areas and highlight gaps for future research.

The cost of chemotherapy administration: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Cancer treatment is a significant driver of healthcare costs worldwide, however, the economic impact of treating patients with anti-neoplastic agents is poorly elucidated. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the direct costs associated with administering intravenous chemotherapy in an outpatient setting.

METHODS

We systematically searched four databases from 2010 to present and extracted hourly administration costs and the respective components of each estimate. Separate analyses were conducted of Canadian and United States (US) studies, respectively, to address a priori hypotheses regarding heterogeneity amongst estimates. The Drummond checklist was used to assess risk-of-bias. Data were summarized using medians with interquartile ranges and five outliers were identified; costs were presented in 2019 USD.

RESULTS

Forty-four studies were analyzed, including sub-analyses of 19 US and seven Canadian studies. 26/44 studies were of moderate-high quality. When components of administration cost were evaluated, physician costs were reported most frequently (24 studies), followed by lab tests (13) and overhead costs (9). The median estimate (excluding outliers) was $142/hour (IQR = $103-166). The median administration cost in the US was $149/hour (IQR = $118-158), and was $128/hour (IQR = $102-137) in Canada.

CONCLUSIONS

There is currently a paucity of literature addressing the costs of chemotherapy administration, and existing studies utilize a patchwork of reporting methodologies which renders direct comparison challenging. Our results demonstrate that the cost of administering chemotherapy is approximately $125-150/hour, globally. This value is dependent upon the region of analysis, inclusiveness of cost subcomponents as well as the methodology used to estimate unit prices, as described here.

The Accuracy and Usefulness of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Evidence Blocks Affordability Rating

BACKGROUND

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines' Evidence Blocks has the broadest scope of the several oncology value assessment frameworks. The Evidence Blocks includes the Affordability criterion, which reflects the financial cost of each treatment on a 1-5 scale. The accuracy of Affordability is unknown.

METHODS

We calculated Medicare costs for all first-line and maintenance treatments for the 30 cancers with the highest incidence in the USA that had published NCCN Evidence Blocks as of 31 December 2018. We assessed the accuracy and consistency of Affordability across different treatments and cancer types. Among different treatments for the same indication, we determined the frequency with which the Affordability assessment was consistent with calculated treatment costs.

RESULTS

There were a total of 1386 treatments in our sample. Lower Affordability scores were associated with higher costs. There was significant variation in cost at each level of Affordability; for treatments with Affordability = 1 (very expensive), costs ranged from $US4551 to $US43,794 per month for treatments administered over an undefined time period and from $US2865 to $US500,982 per course of therapy for treatments administered over a defined time period. Among treatments for the same indication, Affordability was discrepant with calculated treatment costs in 7.9% of pairwise comparisons, identifying the higher-cost treatment as being more affordable. Discrepancies were reduced when we reassigned Affordability scores based on calculated treatment costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence Blocks Affordability generally correlated with treatment costs but contained discrepancies, which may limit its usefulness to clinicians in comparing costs. This study suggests that the Affordability score may be improved by indexing more directly to specified dollar value thresholds.

Opportunity Costs of Receiving Palliative Chemotherapy for Metastatic Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

PURPOSE

The median overall survival (OS) for metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) is < 1 year. Factors that contribute to quality of life during treatment are critical to quantify. One factor-time spent obtaining clinical services-is understudied. We quantified total outpatient time among patients with mPDAC receiving palliative systemic chemotherapy.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis using four patient-level time measures calculated from the medical record of patients with mPDAC receiving 5-fluorouracil infusion, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan; gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel; or gemcitabine within the University of Pennsylvania Health System between January 1, 2011 and January 15, 2019. These included the total number of health care encounter days (any day with at least one visit) and total visit time. Total visit time represented the time spent receiving care (care time) plus time spent commuting and waiting for care (noncare time). We performed descriptive statistics on these outpatient time metrics and compared the number of encounter days to OS.

RESULTS

A total of 362 patients were identified (median age, 65 years; 52% male; 78% white; 62% received gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel). Median OS was 230.5 days (7.6 months), with 79% of patients deceased at the end of follow-up. On average, patients had 22 health care encounter days, accounting for 10% of their total days survived. Median visit time was 4.6 hours, of which 2.5 hours was spent commuting or waiting for care.

CONCLUSION

On average, patients receiving palliative chemotherapy for mPDAC spend 10% of survival time on outpatient health care. More than half of this time is spent commuting and waiting for care. These findings provide an important snapshot of the patient experience during ambulatory care, and efforts to enhance efficiency of care delivery may be warranted.

Drug Treatment Value in a Changing Oncology Landscape: A Literature and Provider Perspective

BACKGROUND

The U.S. health care system's transition to a value-based reimbursement model holds important implications for medical innovation, care delivery, and value-based assessments of therapeutic interventions. This transition has been especially noteworthy in oncology, with substantial ongoing changes to payer reimbursement and the provider landscape, as well as the introduction of value frameworks to guide drug treatment decision making. The implications of these changes for provider assessments of drug value and evidence needs remain unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To understand provider perspectives on drug value assessment and the utility of existing oncology value frameworks by identifying (a) key value-based trends in the evolving oncology landscape, (b) provider definitions of drug value, (c) the role of existing value frameworks in provider decision making, and (d) future provider evidence needs for making value-based treatment decisions.

METHODS

We conducted a literature review to identify existing oncology value frameworks and definitions of drug treatment value in oncology. Using a structured discussion guide informed by this literature review, we conducted 12 telephone-based in-depth interviews in November and December 2017 with U.S. oncology providers involved in organizational drug treatment and formulary decision making within their practices. Responses to interview questions were analyzed and reported as averages and percentages across participants.

RESULTS

Of 293 publications identified by keyword searches, 35 relevant articles were identified. Among these, the literature review identified no common definition for providers to assess drug value. Interview research participants described large ongoing changes in the oncology provider landscape, with economic pressures from payers as the foremost leading factor. Although 5 value frameworks were found in the literature, interviews found that in practice few providers consider these value frameworks to be key influences when evaluating treatment or formulary decisions. Furthermore, while 83% of participants' organizations employed some form of internal clinical pathways, only the minority (25%) with pathways integrated in their electronic medical record (EMR) systems saw these pathways as significantly affecting clinicians' drug treatment decision making. To aid the ongoing shift from volume-based to value-based care, we found that, rather than value frameworks, providers are looking for patient-level tools to make more appropriate drug decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

Payer reimbursement pressures are leading to radical changes in the oncology provider landscape, and there is a need for improved guidance for providers in assessing drug value. In particular, this study identifies the need for a timely and multifaceted summary of information required to assess the value of alternative treatment options for a given patient. Manufacturers also need to make significant strides to help generate and improve the dissemination of evidence to support the value of their therapies.

DISCLOSURES

Funding for this work was provided by Novartis Pharmaceuticals. The study sponsor was involved in study design, data interpretation, and data review. All authors contributed to the development of the manuscript and maintained control over the final content. Sasane, Howe, Wong, and Zacker were employees of Novartis at the time of this study. Frois, Jarvis, and Grice are or have been employed by Analysis Group, which received a grant from Novartis for this research. At the time of this study, Analysis Group received funding from multiple manufacturers with oncology products in their portfolio during this time period, including, but not limited to, Astellas and Genentech.