Search

Purpose: Oral anticancer drugs (OACDs) have become increasingly prevalent over the past decade. OACD prescriptions require coordination between payers and providers, which can delay drug receipt. We examined the association between insurance type, pursuit of copayment assistance, pursuit of prior authorization (PA), and time to receipt (TTR) for new OACD prescriptions., Methods: We prospectively collected data on new OACD prescriptions for adult oncology patients from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019, including demographic and clinical characteristics, insurance type, and pursuit of PA and copayment assistance. TTR was defined as the number of days from prescription to OACD receipt. We summarized TTR using cumulative incidence and compared TTR by insurance type, pursuit of copayment assistance, and PA activity using the log-rank test., Results: Our cohort of 1,024 patients was 53% male, and 40% were younger than 65. Twenty-six percent had commercial insurance only, 16% had Medicaid only, and 59% had Medicare with or without additional insurance. Eighty-six percent of prescriptions were successfully received. Across all prescriptions, 69% involved PA activity, and 21% involved the copayment assistance process. In unadjusted analyses, prescriptions involving the copayment assistance process had longer TTR compared with those not involving assistance (log-rank P value = .005) and OACDs covered by Medicare/commercial insurance had a longer TTR compared with Medicaid (log-rank P value = .006). The PA process was not associated with TTR (log-rank P value = .124)., Conclusion: The process for obtaining OACDs is complex. The copayment assistance process and Medicare/commercial insurance are associated with delayed TTR. New policies are needed to reduce time to OACD receipt.

Purpose: Oral anticancer drug (OACD) prescriptions require extensive coordination between providers and payers, which can delay drug receipt. Specialty pharmacies facilitate communication between multiple entities. In 2018, our cancer center partnered with a freestanding organization to implement a hospital-based specialty pharmacy (HB-SP). We evaluated the time to drug receipt (TTR) before and after HB-SP implementation., Methods: Data were prospectively collected on all new OACD prescriptions for adult oncology patients from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019. In fall 2018, a HB-SP was initiated. We collected patient sociodemographic, clinical, and prescription data. TTR was the number of days from OACD prescription to drug receipt. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine factors associated with TTR ≤ 7 days before and after HB-SP implementation., Results: In total, 954 patients were included, representing 1,102 new OACDs. The majority of prescribed drugs were targeted OACDs (56%, n = 617), and 71% (n = 779) required prior authorization. Of all prescriptions, 84% (n = 960) were successfully received with an overall median TTR of 7 days. In unadjusted analysis, HB-SP implementation, drug class, race and ethnicity, and prior authorization requirement were significantly associated with TTR. Adjusted analyses found that patients were more likely to receive their drugs ≤ 7 days after HB-SP implementation (53% v 47%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.29; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.68; P = .05)., Conclusion: The implementation of a HB-SP in partnership with a collaborative care model contributed to a decrease in TTR for OACDs. This difference is in part attributable to improved care coordination and communication. A centralized approach may improve overall efficiency due to fewer practice disruptions.

Importance: Oral anticancer drugs (OACDs) are increasingly prescribed for cancer treatment and require significant coordination of care. Retrospective studies suggest that 10% to 20% of OACD prescriptions are never received by the patients, but the reasons behind this are poorly understood., Objectives: To estimate the rate of failure to receive OACD prescriptions among patients with cancer and to examine the underlying reasons for this failure., Design, Setting, and Participants: A prospective cohort study was conducted among patients with cancer who were prescribed a new OACD from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019, at an urban academic medical center. Data analysis was conducted between 2021 and 2022., Main Outcomes and Measures: Patient demographic, clinical, and insurance data and OACD delivery dates were collected. The reasons for a failure to receive a prescribed OACD within 3 months were confirmed by manual review of medical records and were classified into 7 categories: clinical deterioration, financial access, clinician-directed change in decision-making, patient-directed change in decision-making, transfer of care, loss to follow-up, and unknown or other. A multivariable random-effects model was developed to identify factors associated with failure to receive a prescribed OACD., Results: The cohort included 1024 patients (538 men [53%]; mean [SD] age, 66.2 [13.9] years; 463 non-Hispanic White patients [45%], 140 non-Hispanic Black patients [14%], and 300 Hispanic patients [29%]), representing 1197 new OACD prescriptions. Of the 1197 prescriptions, 158 (13%) were categorized as having not been received by the patient. The most common reason for the failure to receive a prescribed OACD was due to patient and clinician decision-making (73 of 158 [46%]), and 20 cases (13%) in which prescriptions were not received were associated with financial access issues. In multivariable analysis, patients with a nonmetastatic solid malignant neoplasm were significantly less likely to not receive their OACDs than those with a hematologic malignant neoplasm (odds ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.33-1.00]; P = .048)., Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study of patients prescribed a new OACD found that 13% of prescriptions were not received. The failure to receive a prescribed OACD was most frequently due to a change in clinical decision-making or patient choice. Ultimately, the reasons for the failure to receive a prescribed OACD were multifactorial and may have been appropriate in some cases.

Background: Opioid misuse is a public health crisis, and unused postoperative opioids are an important source. Although 70% of pills prescribed go unused, only 9% are discarded. This study evaluated whether an inexpensive pill-dispensing device with mail return capacity could enhance disposal of unused opioids after cancer surgery., Methods: A prospective pilot study was conducted among adult patients who underwent major cancer-related surgery. Patients received opioid prescriptions in a mechanical device (Addinex) linked to a smartphone application (app). The app provided passwords on a prescriber-defined schedule. Patients could enter a password into the device and receive a pill if the prescribed time had elapsed. Patients were instructed to return the device and any unused pills in a disposal mailer. The primary end point was feasibility of device return, defined as ≥50% of patients returning the device within 6 weeks of surgery. Also explored was total pill use and return as well as patient satisfaction., Results: Among 30 patients enrolled, the majority (n = 24, 80%) returned the device, and 17 (57%) returned it within 6 weeks of surgery. In total, 567 opioid pills were prescribed and 170 (30%) were used. Of 397 excess pills, 332 (84% of unused pills, 59% of all pills prescribed) were disposed of by mail. Among 19 patients who obtained opioids from the device, most (n = 14, 74%) felt the benefits of the device justified the added steps involved., Conclusions: Use of an inexpensive pill-dispensing device with mail return capacity is a feasible strategy to enhance disposal of unused postoperative opioids., (© 2022 American Cancer Society.)

Background: Several organizations have developed frameworks to systematically assess the value of new drugs., Objective: To evaluate the convergent validity and interrater reliability of 4 value frameworks to understand the extent to which these tools can facilitate value-based treatment decisions in oncology., Methods: Eight panelists used the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) frameworks to conduct value assessments of 15 drugs for advanced lung and breast cancers and castration-refractory prostate cancer. Panelists received instructions and published clinical data required to complete the assessments, assigning each drug a numeric or letter score. Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance for Ranks (Kendall's W) was used to measure convergent validity by cancer type among the 4 frameworks. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to measure interrater reliability for each framework across cancers. Panelists were surveyed on their experiences., Results: Kendall's W across all 4 frameworks for breast, lung, and prostate cancer drugs was 0.560 (P= 0.010), 0.562 (P = 0.010), and 0.920 (P < 0.001), respectively. Pairwise, Kendall's W for breast cancer drugs was highest for ESMO-ICER and ICER-NCCN (W = 0.950, P = 0.019 for both pairs) and lowest for ASCO-NCCN (W = 0.300, P = 0.748). For lung cancer drugs, W was highest pairwise for ESMO-ICER (W = 0.974, P = 0.007) and lowest for ASCO-NCCN (W = 0.218, P = 0.839); for prostate cancer drugs, pairwise W was highest for ICER-NCCN (W = 1.000, P < 0.001) and lowest for ESMO-ICER and ESMO-NCCN (W = 0.900, P = 0.052 for both pairs). When ranking drugs on distinct framework subdomains, Kendall's W among breast cancer drugs was highest for certainty (ICER, NCCN: W = 0.908, P = 0.046) and lowest for clinical benefit (ASCO, ESMO, NCCN: W = 0.345, P = 0.436). Among lung cancer drugs, W was highest for toxicity (ASCO, ESMO, NCCN: W = 0. 944, P < 0.001) and lowest for certainty (ICER, NCCN: W = 0.230, P = 0.827); and among prostate cancer drugs, it was highest for quality of life (ASCO, ESMO: W = 0.986, P = 0.003) and lowest for toxicity (ASCO, ESMO, NCCN: W = 0.200, P = 0.711). ICC (95% CI) for ASCO, ESMO, ICER, and NCCN were 0.800 (0.660-0.913), 0.818 (0.686-0.921), 0.652 (0.466-0.834), and 0.153 (0.045-0.371), respectively. When scores were rescaled to 0-100, NCCN provided the narrowest band of scores. When asked about their experiences using the ASCO, ESMO, ICER, and NCCN frameworks, panelists generally agreed that the frameworks were logically organized and reasonably easy to use, with NCCN rated somewhat easier., Conclusions: Convergent validity among the ASCO, ESMO, ICER, and NCCN frameworks was fair to excellent, increasing with clinical benefit subdomain concordance and simplicity of drug trial data. Interrater reliability, highest for ASCO and ESMO, improved with clarity of instructions and specificity of score definitions. Continued use, analyses, and refinements of these frameworks will bring us closer to the ultimate goal of using value-based treatment decisions to improve patient care and outcomes., Disclosures: This work was funded by Eisai Inc. Copher and Knoth are employees of Eisai Inc. Bentley, Lee, Zambrano, and Broder are employees of Partnership for Health Analytic Research, a health services research company paid by Eisai Inc. to conduct this research. For this study, Cohen, Huynh, and Neville report fees from Partnership for Health Analytic Research. Outside of this study, Cohen receives grants and direct consulting fees from various companies that manufacture and market pharmaceuticals. Mei reports a grant from Eisai Inc. during this study. The other authors have no disclosures to report. Study concept and design were contributed by Bentley and Broder, with assistance from Elkin and Cohen. Bentley took the lead in data collection, along with Elkin, Huynh, Mukherjea, Neville, Mei, Popescu, Lee, and Zambrano. Data interpretation was performed by Bentley and Broder, along with Elkin, Cohen, Copher, and Knoth. The manuscript was written primarily by Bentley, along with Elkin and Broder, and revised by Bentley, Broder, Elkin, Cohen, Copher, and Knoth. Select components of this work's methods were presented at ISPOR 19th Annual European Congress held in Vienna, Austria, October 29-November 2, 2016, and Society for Medical Decision Making 38th Annual North American Meeting held in Vancouver, Canada, October 23-26, 2016.

Purpose: Hospital readmissions are often cited as a marker of poor quality of care. Limited data suggest some readmissions may be preventable depending upon definitions and available outpatient support., Methods: General criteria to define preventable and not preventable admissions were developed before data collection began. The records of sequential nonsurgical oncology readmissions were reviewed independently by two reviewers. When the reviewers disagreed about assigning admissions as preventable or not preventable, a third reviewer was the tie breaker. The reasons for assigning admissions as preventable or not preventable were analyzed., Results: Seventy-two readmissions occurring among 69 patients were analyzed. The first two reviewers agreed that 18 (25%) of 72 were preventable and that 29 (40%) of 72 were not. A third reviewer found four of the split 25 cases to be preventable; therefore, the consensus preventability rate was 22 (31%) of 72. The most common causes of preventability were overwhelming symptoms in patients who qualified for hospice but were not participating in hospice and insufficient communication between patients and the care team about symptom burden. The most common reason for assignment of a not preventable admission was a high symptom burden among patients without strong indications for hospice or for whom aggressive outpatient management was inadequate. The median survival after readmission was 72 days., Conclusion: A substantial proportion of oncology readmissions could be prevented with better anticipation of symptoms in high-risk ambulatory patients and enhanced communication about symptom burden between patients and physicians before an escalation that leads to an emergency department visit. Managing symptoms in patients who are appropriate for hospice is challenging. Readmission is a marker of poor prognosis., (Copyright © 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Importance: Instituting widespread measurement of outcomes for cancer hospitals using administrative data is difficult owing to lack of cancer-specific information such as disease stage., Objective: To evaluate the performance of hospitals that treat patients with cancer using Medicare data for outcome ascertainment and risk adjustment and to assess whether hospital rankings based on these measures are altered by the addition of cancer-specific information., Design, Setting, and Participants: Risk-adjusted cumulative mortality rates of patients with cancer were captured in Medicare claims data from 2005 through 2009 nationally and assessed at the hospital level. Similar analyses were conducted using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data for the subset of the United States covered by the SEER program to determine whether the inclusion of cancer-specific information (only available in cancer registries) in risk adjustment altered measured hospital performance. Data were from 729 279 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries treated for cancer in 2006 at hospitals treating 10 or more patients with each of the following cancers, according to Medicare claims: lung, prostate, breast, colon, and other. An additional sample of 18 677 similar patients were included from the SEER-Medicare administrative data., Main Outcomes and Measures: Risk-adjusted mortality overall and by cancer category, stratified by type of hospital; measures of correlation and agreement between hospital-level outcomes risk adjusted using Medicare data alone and Medicare data with SEER data., Results: There were large survival differences between different types of hospitals that treat Medicare patients with cancer. At 1 year, mortality for patients treated by hospitals exempt from the Medicare prospective payment system was 10% lower than at community hospitals (18% vs 28%) across all cancers, and the pattern persisted through 5 years of follow-up and within specific cancer categories. Performance ranking of hospitals was consistent with or without SEER-Medicare disease stage information (weighted κ ≥ 0.81)., Conclusions and Relevance: Potentially important outcome differences exist between different types of hospitals that treat patients with cancer after risk adjustment using information in Medicare administrative data. This type of risk adjustment may be adequate for evaluating hospital performance, since the additional adjustment for data available only in cancer registries does not seem to appreciably alter measures of performance., Competing Interests: Disclosures: All authors are employed by a PPS-exempt cancer hospital, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. No other conflicts are reported.

Background: Identifying unwarranted variation in health care can highlight opportunities to reduce harm. One often discretionary process in oncology is use of implanted ports to administer intravenous chemotherapy. While there are benefits, ports carry risks. This study's objective was to assess provider-driven variation in port use among cancer patients receiving chemotherapy., Research Design: Retrospective assessment using population-based SEER-Medicare data to assess differences in port use across health care providers of older adults with cancer. Participants included over 18,000 patients ages 66 and older diagnosed with breast, colorectal, lung, or pancreatic cancer in 2005-2007, treated by approximately 2900 providers. We identified port use for patients receiving treatment from hospital outpatient facilities versus physicians' offices. Our main analysis assessed the likelihood of a patient receiving a port given port use by the provider's last patient. For a subset of high-use providers, we examined individual provider-level variation by estimating the risk-adjusted likelihood of insertion., Results: Patients receiving chemotherapy in hospital outpatient facilities were significantly less likely to receive a port than those treated in physicians' offices, with adjusted odds ratios (AOR) varying from 0.50 to 0.75 across cancer sites. Implanting a port was associated with increased likelihood of port insertion in the provider's next patient (AOR varied from 1.71 to 2.25). Significant between-provider variation was found among providers with at least 10 patients., Conclusions: Our findings support the idea that there is provider-driven variation in the use of ports for chemotherapy administration. This variation highlights an opportunity to standardize practice and reduce unnecessary use.

Background: Advances in treatment have increased childhood cancer 5-year survival rates to greater than 80%. However, children previously treated with radiation are at significantly increased risk of developing subsequent neoplasms, the most common of which are skin cancers. The National Cancer Institute and Children's Oncology Group have issued recommendations for survivors treated with radiation to perform monthly skin self-examinations and receive a physician skin examination at least annually, as early detection has demonstrated markedly improved outcomes in the diagnosis and treatment of skin cancers. The goal of the present study is to increase rates of skin self-examinations and clinical skin examinations among adult survivors of childhood cancer treated with radiation., Methods/design: This randomized controlled trial uses a 3-group comparative effectiveness design comparing: (1) Patient Activation and Education (PAE) including text messaging, print and web-based tutorials over 12 months; (2) PAE plus physician activation (PAE + MD) adding physician activation/educational materials about survivors' increased skin cancer risk and conducting full-body skin exams; and (3) PAE plus physician activation, plus teledermoscopy (PAE + MD + TD) adding participant receipt of a dermatoscope intended to empower them to photograph suspect moles or lesions for review by the study dermatologist., Discussion: The current study addresses barriers to screening in this population by providing educational and motivational information for both survivors and physicians regarding the value of periodic skin examinations. It also utilizes innovative mobile health technology to encourage and motivate (that is activate) survivors to conduct skin self-examinations, request physician exams, and obtain treatment when worrisome lesions are found. Finally, as a comparative effectiveness trial, this study isolates the effects of adding specific components to the patient activation intervention to test the most effective intervention for enhancing skin examination vigilance among this high-risk group., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02046811 ; Registration date: 22 January 2014.

Purpose: Hospital surgical volume has been shown to correlate with short-term outcomes after cancer surgery, but the relationship between volume and cost of care is unclear. We sought to characterize variation in payments for cancer surgery and assess the relationship between hospital volume and payments., Methods: Using 2000 to 2007 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data, we assessed risk-adjusted 30-day episode Medicare payments for elderly patients undergoing one of six procedures for resection of cancer. Payments for the index hospitalization, readmissions, physician services, emergency room visits, and postdischarge ancillary care were analyzed, as were data on 30-day mortality and complications., Results: The analysis included 31,191 colectomies, 2,670 cystectomies, 1,514 pancreatectomies, 2,607 proctectomies, 12,228 prostatectomies, and 10,151 pulmonary lobectomies. There was substantial variation in cost; differences between the first and third terciles of cost varied from 27% for cystectomy to 40% for colectomy. The majority of variation (66% to 82%) was attributable to payments for the index admission rather than readmissions or physician services. There were no meaningful associations between total risk-adjusted payments and hospital volume. Surgical mortality was low, but complication rates ranged from 10% (prostatectomy) to 56% (lobectomy). Complication rates were not correlated with hospital volume, but occurrence of complications was associated with 47% to 70% higher costs., Conclusion: We found substantial variation in Medicare payments for these six cancer procedures. Cost was strongly associated with postoperative complications and primarily driven by differences in the cost of the index hospitalization. Efforts to prevent and cost-effectively manage complications are more likely to reduce costs than volume-based referral of cancer surgery alone., (© 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: Long-term central venous catheters (CVCs) are often used in patients with cancer to facilitate venous access to administer intravenous fluids and chemotherapy. CVCs can also be a source of bloodstream infections, although this risk is not well understood. We examined the impact of long-term CVC use on infection risk, independent of other risk factors such as chemotherapy, in a population-based cohort of patients with cancer., Patients and Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis using SEER-Medicare data for patients age > 65 years diagnosed from 2005 to 2007 with invasive colorectal, head and neck, lung, or pancreatic cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or invasive or noninvasive breast cancer. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to examine the relationship between CVC use and infections, with CVC exposure as a time-dependent predictor. We used multivariable analysis and propensity score methods to control for patient characteristics., Results: CVC exposure was associated with a significantly elevated infection risk, adjusting for demographic and disease characteristics. For patients with pancreatic cancer, risk of infections during the exposure period was three-fold greater (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 2.93; 95% CI, 2.58 to 3.33); for those with breast cancer, it was six-fold greater (AHR, 6.19; 95% CI, 5.42 to 7.07). Findings were similar when we accounted for propensity to receive a CVC and limited the cohort to individuals at high risk of infections., Conclusion: Long-term CVC use was associated with an increased risk of infections for older adults with cancer. Careful assessment of the need for long-term CVCs and targeted strategies for reducing infections are critical to improving cancer care quality., (© 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Background: Medicare managed care may offer enrollees lower out-of-pocket costs and provide benefits that are not available in the traditional fee-for-service Medicare program. However, managed care plans may also restrict provider choice in an effort to control costs. We compared rates of voluntary disenrollment from Medicare managed care to traditional fee-for-service Medicare among Medicare managed care enrollees with and without a cancer diagnosis., Methods: We identified Medicare managed care enrollees aged 65 years or older who were diagnosed with a first primary breast (n = 28 331), colorectal (n = 26 494), prostate (n = 29 046), or lung (n = 31 243) cancer from January 1, 1995, through December 31, 2002, in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registry records linked with Medicare enrollment files. Cancer patients were pair-matched to cancer-free enrollees by age, sex, race, and geographic location. We estimated rates of voluntary disenrollment to fee-for-service Medicare in the 2 years after each cancer patient's diagnosis, adjusted for plan characteristics and Medicare managed care penetration, by use of Cox proportional hazards regression., Results: In the 2 years after diagnosis, cancer patients were less likely to disenroll from Medicare managed care than their matched cancer-free peers (for breast cancer, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] for disenrollment = 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.74 to 0.82; for colorectal cancer, HR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.80 to 0.88; for prostate cancer, HR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.82 to 0.90; and for lung cancer, HR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.76 to 0.86). Results were consistent across strata of age, sex, race, SEER registry, and cancer stage., Conclusion: A new cancer diagnosis between 1995 and 2002 did not precipitate voluntary disenrollment from Medicare managed care to traditional fee-for-service Medicare.

Purpose: Shared decision making is a tenet of contemporary medicine and oncology practice. How involved elderly patients want to be in making treatment decisions and how physicians perceive patient preferences for such involvement are uncertain., Patients and Methods: In structured interviews about multiple facets of chemotherapy treatment decision making, we asked patients age 70 years and older with a recent diagnosis of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) about their preferences for prognostic information and for involvement in treatment decision making. We also asked treating oncologists (n = 19) to describe their perceptions of patient preferences. Information and decision-making preferences were evaluated in relation to sociodemographic and clinical characteristics., Results: Seventy-three patients age 70 to 89 years completed the study interview within 16 weeks of metastatic CRC diagnosis. Most patients (n = 70; 96%) had decided to receive chemotherapy and 61 had initiated treatment. Relatively few (n = 32; 44%) wanted information about expected survival when they made a treatment decision. Preference for prognostic information was more common among men than women (56% v 29%; P < .05). About half of the patients (n = 38; 52%) preferred a passive role in the treatment decision-making process. Physician perceptions were concordant with patient preferences for information in 44% of patient-physician pairs and for decision control in 41% of patient-physician pairs., Conclusion: For older patients with advanced CRC, preferences for prognostic information and for an active role in treatment decision making are not easily predictable. Physicians' perceptions are often inconsistent with patients' stated preferences. Explicit discussion of preferred decision-making styles may improve patient-physician encounters.

Purpose: About half of all cancer patients in the United States receive radiation therapy as a part of their cancer treatment. Little is known, however, about the facilities that currently deliver external beam radiation. Our goal was to construct a comprehensive database of all radiation therapy facilities in the United States that can be used for future health services research in radiation oncology., Methods and Materials: From each state's health department we obtained a list of all facilities that have a linear accelerator or provide radiation therapy. We merged these state lists with information from the American Hospital Association (AHA), as well as 2 organizations that audit the accuracy of radiation machines: the Radiologic Physics Center (RPC) and the Radiation Dosimetry Services (RDS). The comprehensive database included all unique facilities listed in 1 or more of the 4 sources., Results: We identified 2,246 radiation therapy facilities operating in the United States as of 2004-2005. Of these, 448 (20%) facilities were identified through state health department records alone and were not listed in any other data source., Conclusions: Determining the location of the 2,246 radiation facilities in the United States is a first step in providing important information to radiation oncologists and policymakers concerned with access to radiation therapy services, the distribution of health care resources, and the quality of cancer care.