Search

Purpose: As new quality metrics and interventions for potentially preventable emergency department (ED) visits are implemented, we sought to compare methods for evaluating the prevalence and costs of potentially preventable ED visits that were related to cancer and chronic disease among a commercially insured oncology population in the year after treatment initiation. Methods: We linked SEER records in western Washington from 2011 to 2016 with claims from two commercial insurers. The study included patients who were diagnosed with a solid tumor and tracked ED utilization for 1 year after the start of chemotherapy or radiation. Cancer symptoms from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services metric and a patient-reported outcome intervention were labeled potentially preventable (PpCancer). Prevention Quality Indicators of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality were labeled potentially preventable–chronic disease (PpChronic). We reported the primary diagnosis, all diagnosis field coding (1 to 10), and 2016 adjusted reimbursements. Results: Of 5,853 eligible patients, 27% had at least one ED visit, which yielded 2,400 total visits. Using primary diagnosis coding, 49.8% of ED visits had a PpCancer diagnosis, whereas 3.2% had a PpChronic diagnosis. Considering all diagnosis fields, 45.0%, 9.4%, and 18.5% included a PpCancer only, a PpChronic only, and both a PpCancer and a PpChronic diagnosis, respectively. The median reimbursement per visit was $735 (interquartile ratio, $194 to $1,549). Conclusion: The prevalence of potentially preventable ED visits was generally high, but varied depending on the diagnosis code fields and the group of codes considered. Future research is needed to understand the complex landscape of potentially preventable ED visits and measures to improve value in cancer care delivery.

75 Background: Uniformity in receipt of high quality cancer care is imperative to reduce health care disparities. In order to help prioritize efforts aimed at reducing disparities in care, we compared several quality metrics for Washington State cancer patients enrolled in Medicaid and commercial insurance plans. Methods: We linked 2014-2016 Washington state cancer registry records for cancer patients under the age of 65 with enrollment and claims records for the two largest commercial insurers in the state and Medicaid. We then generated thirteen nationally recognized quality measures. Outcome measures were adjusted for age, sex, comorbidity score, stage, cancer site, and treatment factors where appropriate. Process measures were not adjusted. Results: 6,868 commercially insured and 2,379 Medicaid patients are represented in the reported quality measures. Conclusions: Care of Washington state cancer patients enrolled in Medicaid is comparable or superior to commercially insured patients, except for significantly higher ED use during chemotherapy. Further research is needed to understand why Medicaid-enrolled cancer patients utilize the ED at more than double the rate of commercially insured patients.[Table: see text]

86 Background: National bodies have proposed a number of metrics to measure quality of care at the end of life (EOL). MACRA legislation allows clinics to select the metrics they report to CMS. The self-selection of reported metrics leaves open questions about how representative certain measures, particularly in isolation, may be of overall EOL care in community settings. We examined the consistency of clinical-level performance across three common EOL metrics. Methods: We linked cancer registry records for solid tumor cancer patients diagnosed in Washington State from 2013-2016 with claims from two regional commercial insurers. Representing national recommendations, we compiled 3 EOL quality metrics for each clinic: 1) Chemotherapy in last 14 days of life (DoL); 2) More than 1 ED visit in last 30 DoL; and 3) Admission to ICU in last 30 DoL. Consistency was measured by comparing performance in the top and bottom 3rd across metrics. We compared consistency based on unadjusted rates and risk-standardized rates calculated following CMS methods. Results: The study included 1,535 patients across 12 clinics (median 110 [IQR: 54 – 199] patients/clinic). The clinic rates are below. (See Table.) According to both unadjusted and adjusted rankings, no clinics ranked in the top 3rd across all metrics. Half of clinics (6 of 12) simultaneously ranked in the top 3rd and bottom 3rd of a metric, i.e. high/low performers. The number of high/low performers varied when examining discrete pairs of metrics. The overall pattern was mainly driven by inconsistency between performance in the chemotherapy and ED metrics. Of the other discrete pairs, ICU/Chemo and ICU/ED, clinics were more consistent in performance. Conclusions: We found that clinic performance was not consistently in the highest or lowest tertile across common EOL metrics, suggesting that requiring clinics to report a standard set of metrics may provide a more accurate indication of quality. Furthermore, different population management strategies may be required to improve care targeted by each measure. Future work should focus on the development of multi-dimensional EOL quality performance measures. [Table: see text]

6582 Background: Although ASCO Choosing Wisely guidelines recommend against routine surveillance testing or imaging for asymptomatic individuals with early-stage breast cancer (ESBC) treated with curative intent, they are frequently performed. Physician specialty and costs associated with surveillance testing and imaging were examined in ESBC patients. Methods: Cancer registry patient records in Western Washington from 2007 to 2015 were linked with claims from two regional commercial insurers. Selected patients had been diagnosed with stage I/II breast cancer and treated with mastectomy or lumpectomy + radiation. Surveillance was considered from the first 4 month gap in treatment (surgery, chemo, radiation) through 13 months or restart of treatment. Evaluation and Management (E&M) and procedure codes for tumor marker (CEA, CA 15-3, CA 27.29) and advanced imaging (PET, CT, bone scan) were identified. Specialty codes were used to determine provider type. Physician visits were matched to tests using E&M codes in the +/- 7 days around each test. Cost included total reimbursed amount from insurers during the surveillance period. Results: During surveillance, 2,193 patients averaged 13.3 physician visits [median: 11, IQR: 8-17]. Oncologists (91%) and PCPs (83%) were the most common specialties with an average of 3.7 visits each. Overall, 37% of patients received tumor marker tests (avg = 2.8 tests/patient) and 17% received advanced imaging (avg = 1.5 images/patient). The mean total cost during the surveillance period was $18,403 (SD $26,640). Costs were higher for those patients who received tumor marker testing or advanced imaging. Conclusions: Patients frequently see oncologists and PCPs during early surveillance. Targeting oncologists to improve appropriate tumor marker testing could have the largest impact on aligning practice with Choosing Wisely recommendations and potentially reducing the financial burden on patients. [Table: see text]

6505 Background: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released a quality metric for potentially preventable chemotherapy-associated emergency department (ED) use, effective in 2020. This metric excludes diagnoses with emerging evidence for outpatient management, such as proactive symptom management (PSM) and those for ambulatory care sensitive chronic conditions. Little is known about the intersection between potentially preventable ED visits due to cancer vs. other chronic disease. This study characterized the number and costs of ED visits during treatment. Methods: Western Washington cancer registry records from 2011- 2015 were linked with claims from two commercial insurers. Patients with newly diagnosed solid tumors undergoing initial treatment with chemotherapy or radiation were eligible. ED use was tracked one year post treatment initiation. ED diagnosis codes for fields 1-10 from the CMS metric and the PSM literature were labeled “Potentially Preventable” (Pp). Codes from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Prevention Quality Indicators (PQI) for Chronic Conditions were labeled “Potentially Preventable-Chronic Disease” (PpChronic). Costs were adjusted to $2016. Results: Of the 7,053 eligible patients, 2,543 (36.1%) visited the ED (median # visits [IQR]: 1 [1-2]). The most commonly listed codes included Pain (1,054 visits) and Dyspnea (279 visits) for Pp, Hypertension-PQI (652 visits) and COPD-PQI (206 visits) for PpChronic, and Diabetes (247 visits) and Hyperlipidemia (181 visits) for the other codes. Spending on ED visits including both potentially preventable cancer and chronic disease diagnoses totalled $706,552 (20% of ED costs). Conclusions: One fifth of ED costs potentially resulted from simultaneous poor cancer symptom and chronic disease management. Future research should explore the role of chronic illness in categorizing which ED visits are potentially preventable during cancer treatment. [Table: see text]

159 Background: Moving cancer care towards a value framework requires patients, providers, and payers to weigh cost, quality, and outcomes in decision-making. Many efforts are underway to help providers and payers make value decisions, but little has been developed for patients. Our regional value in cancer care effort used a claims-registry database to develop quality and cost reports aiming to provide actionable data to all stakeholders. Methods: Reports were generated using cancer registry records for Western WA from 2007-2015 linked with claims from two regional commercial insurers. Patients were presented quality reports on regionally prioritized metrics and the 2012 ASCO Choosing Wisely guidelines on breast cancer surveillance and EOL care. Patients also reviewed cost reports for episodes of care (diagnosis, treatment, end-of-life (EOL)) and out-of-pocket (OOP) cost estimates. Feedback stemmed from 1) stakeholder meetings over a 2-year period, 2) working groups of patients, payers and providers, and 3) an annual regional meeting on value in cancer care. Results: In total, 13 patients provided feedback at one or more outreach event. See table. Conclusions: Reports from a claims-registry database may not support the information needs of patients for care decision-making or representing “value”. Patients desired understanding more about patients “like them” for decision-making. [Table: see text]

226 Background: Early studies of the oncology medical home suggest that intensive outpatient care (e.g. 24-hour phone triage, same-day infusion) reduces emergency department (ED) and inpatient (IP) use during cancer treatment. Little is known about which services are most cost-effective. One strategy is to measure observed variation in ED and IP rates to pinpoint care features associated with low-use clinics. This study examined clinic-level variation in ED and IP use in a community setting. Methods: Cancer registry records for Western Washington from 2011 to 2015 were linked with claims from two regional commercial insurers. Included patients were diagnosed with breast, lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer and treated with chemotherapy or radiation. All ED and IP use was tracked 1 year after treatment start using claims data. Observed clinic rates were measured as the percentage of patients with 1 or more visits. Expected clinic rates were determined from regional average rates weighted by clinic’s cancer-specific stage mix. Observed-to-expected clinic ratios were calculated and the Wilson Score test (95% CI) was used to determine statistically different rates. Results: The 18 clinics included 4,558 eligible patients (median 196 pts/clinic; range: 35-859). Unstaged lung patients had the highest ED rates (38.5%); unstaged breast had the lowest (13.3%). The highest IP rate was among unstaged colorectal (66.7%); the lowest in local breast (11.1%). One clinic had an observed rate that was significantly above its expected rate in both ED only and ED to IP. One clinic was significantly below its expected rate in both ED to IP and IP only. Conclusions: Even after adjusting for cancer-specific stage, there was sizable clinic-level variation in the percentage of patients visiting the ED or IP. Investigation into care delivery features and practice characteristics, along with further risk adjustment, may yield insights into best practices and identify clinics for intervention. [Table: see text]

2 Background: There is growing recognition that many emergency department (ED) visits during cancer treatment may be related to poorly controlled disease or treatment-related symptoms and could be prevented. An RCT using the Symptom Tracking and Reporting (STAR) tool for proactive symptom management decreased the percentage of patients admitted to the ED (34% vs. 41%; p=0.02). Little is known about the costs of potentially preventable ED visits in a community setting. This study examined the number and costs of ED visits and their associated diagnoses. Methods: Cancer registry records for patients in Western Washington from 2011 to 2015 were linked with claims from two regional commercial insurers. Patients diagnosed with a solid tumor and treated with chemotherapy or radiation were selected. All ED utilization was tracked for 1 year after the start of treatment. ED-related diagnoses codes were labeled “Potentially Preventable” (PP) if they mapped to the 13 symptom categories targeted by STAR (e.g. pain, nausea) and non-PP otherwise. Costs of ED visits were inflation-adjusted and include claims with ED-related procedure, revenue, and place of service codes. All subsequent inpatient costs were excluded, likely under-estimating total costs. Results: Of the 7,075 eligible patients, 2,543 (35.9%) visited the ED an average of 1.79 times. Pain (720 visits), Dyspnea (279 visits), and Nausea (232 visits) were the most common potentially preventable diagnoses; Hypertension (506 visits), Fever (230 visits), and Diabetes (215 visits) were the most common non-PP diagnoses. $1,134,254 (25.2% of the total ED costs) was spent on PP ED visits. Of PP ED visits 20.3% (178/875) resulted in an inpatient stay. Conclusions: In our community setting, at least one quarter of ED costs were potentially the result of poor symptom management. An investment in better symptom management has a significant opportunity to both improve cancer care and lower total costs.[Table: see text]

29 Background: Cancer care costs are rising, creating concerns about affordability. As a result, delivery systems are creating alternative payment structures to lower costs while maintaining or improving quality. As cancer care delivery often involves multiple provider systems, measuring cost may be difficult. In response, using commercial insurance claims linked to cancer registry records, we constructed broadly applicable, reproducible, clinically relevant episodes to measure costs. Methods: Cancer registry records for patients diagnosed in Western Washington from January 2007-June 2016 were linked with claims from two regional commercial insurers. Patients are age 18+, diagnosed with breast, colorectal (CRC), or non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and enrolled with a single insurance plan. With oncologist input, we constructed three care phases: diagnosis (30 days before diagnosis to first treatment), initial treatment (first treatment through first 4 month treatment gap), and end of life (last 30 days). Costs include all claims paid within the phase (2016 inflation adjusted). Supportive care includes colony-stimulating factors, blood transfusions, antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals, and antiemetics. Results: This study included 8,727 patients at diagnosis, 7,686 during treatment, and 1,736 at end of life. Diagnosis phase averaged 54 days and cost $6,936 (SD $11,761, median $4,021). Treatment averaged 126 days, with costs of $61,148 (SD $75,432, median $35,750). Average end-of-life costs were $15,829 (SD $30,222, median $2,347). The table below provides an example of the variation in costs during the treatment phase using local-stage tumors. Conclusions: Clinically relevant episodes of care and cost measures can be constructed using claims-registry data. This allows for identification of high-cost care categories and areas with large-cost variability, which may be helpful when designing value-based reimbursement programs or identifying areas for potential cost-reduction.[Table: see text]

4 Background: Oncologists, primary care physicians (PCPs), and other clinicians provide care for breast cancer patients following active treatment. Clinical practice guidelines are largely consistent in recommended number of clinic visits and annual mammograms. However, surveys of oncologists and PCPs have found variation in attitudes toward surveillance intensity, perceptions of care responsibility, and adherence to Choosing Wisely guidelines. This study examined if surveillance of patients with early stage breast cancer varied by whether they obtained follow up care with oncologists, PCPs or both. Methods: Cancer registry records for patients in Western Washington from 2007 to 2015 were linked with claims from two regional commercial insurers. Patients were selected if they had been diagnosed with stage I/II breast cancer and treated with mastectomy or lumpectomy + radiation. The surveillance period starts at the first 4 month gap in treatment (surgery, chemo, radiation) through 13 months from gap start or restart of treatment. Evaluation and Management (E&M) codes for visits and procedure codes for biomarker and advanced imaging (PET, CT, bone scan) were identified in claims. Specialty codes were used to determine type of provider seen. Physician visits were matched to tests using E&M codes in the ± 7 days around each test. Results: During surveillance, 2046 patients averaged 12.2 physician visits per patient [median: 10, IQR: 7-15]. Oncologists (92%) and PCPs (82%) were the most common specialties with an average of 4.0 and 4.2 visits respectively. 73% of patients received mammography (avg # exams = 1.6) , 37% biomarkers (avg = 2.7) and 16% advanced imaging (avg = 1.5). The majority of biomarkers and the largest proportion of advanced imaging occurred near an oncology visit. Conclusions: Patients frequently see oncologists and PCPs during early surveillance. Targeting oncologists for intervention on potentially inappropriate biomarker testing could have the largest impact on aligning practice with Choosing Wisely recommendations. [Table: see text]