Search

It has been 12 years after Porter and Teisberg published their landmark manuscript on "Redefining Health Care." Apart from stressing the need for a fundamental change from fee-for-service to value or outcome-based financing and to a focus on reducing waste, they emphasized the need to work along patient pathways and in Integrated Practice Units to overcome function based and specialist group silos and promote working in multidisciplinary patient-oriented teams. Integrated Practice Units are defined as "organized around the patient and providing the full cycle of care for a medical condition, including patient education, engagement, and follow-up and encompass inpatient, outpatient and rehabilitative care as well as supporting services." Although relatively few papers are published with empirical evidence on Integrated Practice Units development, some providers have impressively developed pathways and integrated care toward alignment with Integrated Practice Units criteria. From the field, we learn that possible advantages lay in improving patient centeredness, breaking through professional boundaries, and reducing waste in unnecessary duplications. A firm body of evidence on the added value of turning pathways into Integrated Practice Units is hard to find and this leaves room for much variation. Although intuitively attractive, this development requires staff efforts and costs and therefore cost-effectiveness and budget impact studies are much needed. Randomized controlled trials may be difficult to realize in organizational research, it is long known that turning to alternative designs such as larger case study series and before–after designs can be helpful. Thus, it can become clear what added value is achievable and how to reach that. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With growing concerns for the sustainability of the financial burden that health care--and especially cancer services--poses on the national budgets, the role of health economic analyses in coverage decisions is likely to grow. One of the strategies for the biomedical research field--also in oncology research--to foster coverage and health system implementation, is to anticipate this new role and to involve health technology assessment techniques earlier in various stages of translational research. In this article, we elaborate on the early involvement of health technology assessment in translational research and the concept of Coverage with Evidence Development in The Netherlands Cancer Institute and give two case examples that are currently ongoing: (1) tumour infiltrating lymphocytes therapy for metastatic melanoma; and (2) high-dose chemotherapy for BRCA1-like subgroup in triple-negative breast cancer. We conclude with recommendations for institutional policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Organisation of European Cancer Institutes OECI working group on Health Economics and Cost Benefit in Oncology suggests four actions that are needed to improve alignment and integration between clinicians, researchers, and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) experts and agencies: 1) HTA expertise is necessary close to or within the comprehensive cancer centres (CCC); 2) HTA expertise should be physically present throughout the translational research process; 3) Appropriate knowledge is necessary within the research staff; 4) Close cooperation between translational researchers, clinicians, and health economists guarantees clinical ownership. Fulfilling these conditions may help the translational research field in oncology to interact with agencies and efficiently move innovative technologies through the translational research stages into that of implementation and diffusion. This brings innovative treatments faster to the patient with a greater chance of reimbursement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 2014 OECI Oncology Days was held at the 'Prof. Dr. Ion Chiricuta' Oncology Institute in Cluj, Romania, from 12 to 13 June. The focus of this year's gathering was on developments in personalised medicine and other treatment advances which have made the cost of cancer care too high for many regions throughout Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

No other department influences the workload of a hospital more than the Department of Surgery and in particular, the activities in the operating room. These activities are governed by the master surgical schedule (MSS), which states which patient types receive surgery on which day. In this paper, we describe an analytical approach to project the workload for downstream departments based on this MSS. Specifically, the ward occupancy distributions, patient admission/discharge distributions and the distributions for ongoing interventions/treatments are computed. Recovering after surgery requires the support of multiple departments, such as nursing, physiotherapy, rehabilitation and long-term care. With our model, managers from these departments can determine their workload by aggregating tasks associated with recovering surgical patients. The model, which supported the development of a new MSS at the Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, provides the foundation for a decision support tool to relate downstream hospital departments to the operating room. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) is expected to lift molecular diagnostics in clinical oncology to the next level. It enables simultaneous identification of mutations in a patient tumor, after which targeted therapy may be assigned. This approach could improve patient survival and/or assist in controlling healthcare costs by offering expensive treatment to only those likely to benefit. However, NGS has yet to make its way into the clinic. Health Technology Assessment can support the adoption and implementation of a novel technology, but at this early stage many of the required variables are still unknown.Methods: Scenario drafting and expert elicitation via a questionnaire were used to identify factors that may act as a barrier or facilitate adoption of NGS-based molecular diagnostics. Attention was paid to predominantly elicit quantitative answers, allowing their use in future modelling of cost-effectiveness.Results: Adequately informing patients and physicians, the latters' opinion on clinical utility and underlying evidence as well as presenting sequencing results within a relevant timeframe may act as pivotal facilitators. Reimbursement for NGS-based testing and accompanying therapies (both general and in case of off-label prescription) was found to be a potential barrier. Competition on the market and demonstrating clinical utility may also be challenging. Importantly, numerous quantitative values for variables related to each of these potential barriers/facilitators, such as such as desired panel characteristics, willingness to pay or the expected number of targets identified per person, were also elicited.Conclusions: We have identified several factors that may either pose a barrier or facilitate the adoption of NGS in the clinic. We believe acting upon these findings, for instance by organizing educational events, advocating new ways of evidence generation and steering towards the most cost-effective solution, will accelerate the route from bench-to-bedside. Moreover, due to the methodology of expert elicitation, this study provides parameters that can be incorporated in future cost-effectiveness modeling to steer the development of NGS gene panels towards the most optimal direction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Comprehensive Genomic Profiling (CGP) allows for the identification of many targets. Reimbursement decision-making is, however, challenging because besides the health benefits of on-label treatments and costs, other factors related to diagnostic and treatment pathways may also play a role. The aim of this study was to identify which other factors are relevant for the technology assessment of CGP and to summarize the available evidence for these factors. After a scoping search and two expert sessions, five factors were identified: feasibility, test journey, wider implications of diagnostic results, organisation of laboratories, and "scientific spillover". Subsequently, a systematic search identified 83 studies collecting mainly evidence for the factors "test journey" and "wider implications of diagnostic results". Its nature was, however, of limited value for decision-making. We recommend the use of comparative strategies, uniformity in outcome definitions, and the inclusion of a comprehensive set of factors in future evidence generation., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest L.F. van Schaik, E.G. Engelhardt, E.A. Wilthagen, A. Fernández Coves, M.A. Joore, W.H. van Harten and V.P. Retèl declare no competing interests. N. Steeghs provided consultation or attended advisory boards for Boehringer Ingelheim, Ellipses Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Luszana. N Steeghs received research grants from Abbvie, Actuate Therapeutics, Amgen, Array, Ascendis Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cantargia, CellCentric, Cogent Biosciences, Cresecendo Biologics, Cytovation, Deciphera, Dragonfly, Eli Lilly, Exelixis, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, IDRx, Immunocore, Incyte, InteRNA, Janssen, Kinnate Biopharma, Kling Biotherapeutics, Lixte, Luszana, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merus, Molecular Partners, Navire Pharma, Novartis, Numab Therapeutics, Pfizer, Relay Pharmaceuticals, Revolution Medicin, Roche, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Taiho, Takeda. All outside the submitted work, all payment to the Netherlands Cancer Institute., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

A large number of medical devices (MDs) is available in Europe. Procedures for market approval and reimbursement have been adopted over recent years to promote accelerating patient access to innovative MDs. However, there remains uncertainty and non-transparency regarding these procedures. We provide a structured overview of market approval and reimbursement procedures and practices regarding access to MDs in the EU. Market approval procedures were found to be uniformly described. Data on reimbursement procedures and practices was both heterogeneous and incomplete. Time to MD access was mainly determined by reimbursement procedures. The influence of the patient on time to access was not reported. Prescription practices varied among device types. Barriers to and facilitators of early patient access that set the agenda for policy implications were also analyzed. Barriers were caused by unclear European legislation, complex market approval procedures, lack of data collection, inconsistency in evidence requirements between countries, regional reimbursement and provision, and factors influencing physicians' prescription including the device costs, waiting times and hospital-physician relationships. Facilitators were: available evidence that meets country-specific requirements for reimbursement, diagnosis-related groups, additional payments and research programs. Further research needs to focus on creating a complete overview of reimbursement procedures and practices by extracting further information from sources such as grey literature and interviews with professionals, and defining clear criteria to objectify time to access., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Increased emphasis on molecular diagnostics can lead to increased variation in time to treatment (TTT) for patients with stage III and IV non-small cell lung cancer. This article presents the variation in TTT for advanced NSCLC patients observed in Dutch hospitals before the widespread use of immunotherapy. The aim of this article was to explore the variation in TTT between patients, as well as between hospitals., Material and Methods: Based on the Netherlands Cancer Registry, we used patient-level data (n = 4096) from all 78 hospitals that diagnosed stage III or IV NSCLC in the Netherlands in 2016. To investigate how patient characteristics and hospital-level effects are associated with TTT (from diagnosis until start treatment), we interpreted regression model results for five common patient profiles to analyze the influence of age, gender, tumor stage, performance status, histology, and referral status as well as hospital-level characteristics on the TTT., Results and Conclusions: TTT varies substantially between and within hospitals. The median TTT was 28 days with an inter-quartile range of 22 days. The hospital-level median TTT ranges from 17 to 68 days. TTT correlates significantly with tumor stage, performance status, and histology. The hospital-level effect, unrelated to hospital volume and type, affected TTT by several weeks at most. For most patients, TTT is within range as recommended in current guidelines. Variation in TTT seems higher for patients receiving either radiotherapy or targeted therapy, or for patients referred to another hospital and we hypothesize this is related to the complexity of the diagnostic pathway. With further advances in molecular diagnostics and precision oncology we expect variation in TTT to increase and this needs to be considered in designing optimal cancer care delivery., (Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Patient access to the voice prosthesis and heat and moisture exchanger (HME) is not always guaranteed in Europe. Therefore, the aim of this qualitative study is to evaluate factors influencing physician's prescription and reimbursement of these devices in eight European countries, and to identify barriers of and facilitators to effective patient access., Materials and Methods: In this mixed methods study, we conducted a survey among stakeholders evaluating prescription (Part 1 of the survey), reimbursement (Part 2), and barriers of and facilitators to effective patient access (Part 3). Part 1 was completed by head and neck surgeons employed in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands and Poland. Part 2 and 3 were completed by medical device company representatives in respective countries, followed by semi-structured interviews., Results: Based on the survey, filled in by 36 surgeons, all prescribed the voice prosthesis. Four surgeons didn't prescribe the HME in Italy and Poland due to lack of both reimbursement and experience/training, and feeling uncomfortable with device use. Most restrictive factors (e.g. increased workload, insufficient staff) occurred in countries with decentralized healthcare systems including Spain and Italy., Conclusion: Non-HME-usage was influenced by economical and physician-related factors. Restrictive factors were related to limited regional device reimbursement and provision. Nationwide reimbursement, guideline implementation, support for physicians by training/education and providing a rehabilitation team will increase device use., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Higher levels of physical activity (PA) after treatment are associated with beneficial effects on physical and psychosocial functioning of cancer survivors. However, survivors often do not meet the recommended levels of PA. In order to promote PA, we developed a closed internet-based program. The aim of the study is to evaluate the (cost-)effectiveness of an internet-based PA-promotion program, alone or combined with physiotherapy counselling, compared to usual care, on PA-levels of breast or prostate cancer survivors. In this multicenter randomised controlled trial (RCT), breast or prostate cancer survivors who completed their primary treatment 3-12 months earlier, will be randomised to either 6-months access to a fully-automated internet-based intervention alone, an internet-based intervention plus remote support by a physiotherapist, or a control group. The intervention is based on the Transtheoretical Model and includes personalized feedback, information, video's and assignments. Additionally, in a second arm, physiotherapy counselling is provided through monthly scheduled and on-demand telephone calls. The control group will receive usual care and a leaflet with PA guidelines., Methods: At baseline, 6 and 12 months, the primary outcome (PA) will be measured during 7 consecutive days by accelerometers. Secondary outcomes are self-reported PA, fatigue, mood, health-related quality of life, and costs. The group differences for primary and secondary outcomes will be analyzed using linear mixed models., Discussion: If proven to be (cost)effective, this internet-based intervention, either alone or in combination with telephone support, will be a welcome addition to previous RCT's., Trial Registration: Netherlands trial register (NTR6911), Date of trial registration: December 21, 2017.

Background: The purpose of this review was to assess the effectiveness of different strategies to implement physical activity during and after cancer treatment., Design: We searched for studies containing strategies to implement physical activity in cancer care that meet the inclusion criteria of the Cochrane EPOC group. The primary outcome was physical activity uptake. We expressed the effectiveness of the strategies as the percentage of studies with improvement., Results: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Patient groups doing physical activities via an implementation strategy had better outcomes than those receiving usual care: 83% of the studies showed improvement. Strategies showing significant improvement compared to usual care employed healthcare professionals to provide individual counselling or advice for exercise or interactive elements such as audit and feedback systems. When comparing the different strategies 1) interactive elements or 2) elements tailored to the needs of the patients had better physical activity uptake., Conclusions: Implementation strategies containing individual and interactive elements, tailored to the individual needs of patients, are more successful in improving physical activity uptake., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) is expected to lift molecular diagnostics in clinical oncology to the next level. It enables simultaneous identification of mutations in a patient tumor, after which targeted therapy may be assigned. This approach could improve patient survival and/or assist in controlling healthcare costs by offering expensive treatment to only those likely to benefit. However, NGS has yet to make its way into the clinic. Health Technology Assessment can support the adoption and implementation of a novel technology, but at this early stage many of the required variables are still unknown., Methods: Scenario drafting and expert elicitation via a questionnaire were used to identify factors that may act as a barrier or facilitate adoption of NGS-based molecular diagnostics. Attention was paid to predominantly elicit quantitative answers, allowing their use in future modelling of cost-effectiveness., Results: Adequately informing patients and physicians, the latters' opinion on clinical utility and underlying evidence as well as presenting sequencing results within a relevant timeframe may act as pivotal facilitators. Reimbursement for NGS-based testing and accompanying therapies (both general and in case of off-label prescription) was found to be a potential barrier. Competition on the market and demonstrating clinical utility may also be challenging. Importantly, numerous quantitative values for variables related to each of these potential barriers/facilitators, such as such as desired panel characteristics, willingness to pay or the expected number of targets identified per person, were also elicited., Conclusions: We have identified several factors that may either pose a barrier or facilitate the adoption of NGS in the clinic. We believe acting upon these findings, for instance by organizing educational events, advocating new ways of evidence generation and steering towards the most cost-effective solution, will accelerate the route from bench-to-bedside. Moreover, due to the methodology of expert elicitation, this study provides parameters that can be incorporated in future cost-effectiveness modeling to steer the development of NGS gene panels towards the most optimal direction.