DISTURBANCES OF THE VERBAL BODY IMAGE: A PARTICULAR SYNDROME OF SENSORY APHASIA

B. Selecki,J. T. Herron

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00005053-196507000-00004

1965-07-01

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Physician justification for anti-cancer treatment decisions in the evolving oncology market.

Angelena Moseley,Margaret Brierly

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.16_suppl.e23317

IF: 45.3

2024-06-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:e23317 Background: Oncology is a rapidly expanding pharmaceutical space, driven by innovative research and clinical technology. Continued growth in anti-cancer therapy has generated an exceedingly competitive market. As treatment options increase, physicians must weigh a variety of factors to make individualized care decisions. Many elements are patient-specific, but physician biases may also impact selection. As the market evolves, it is unknown whether oncology providers will shift priorities to align with contemporary findings or continue to trust in historical experiences. Methods: The Ipsos Global Oncology Monitor is an online, multi-center medical chart review of oncology patients receiving drug therapy. Over 1,900 cancer-treating physicians in the United States were screened for seniority and caseload and submitted data on 253,051 cancer patients (aggregate; all tumor types) between January 2020 to December 2023. Upon record submission, physicians were prompted to select up to three responses most associated with the reason for prescribing the reported therapy. Responses were chosen from a finite list of closed-ended options. Results: Influence of “Approved Standard of Care” fell amongst sampled physicians, cited as a reason for selecting treatment in 61% of reported annual patients in 2023, declining by 2.94 percentage points since 2020. “Biomarker results” recorded increased influence on therapy selection, rising in association with 8% of reported patients in 2020 to 11% in 2023. Within tumor-specific cohorts, “Maintain/improve quality of life” was a notable reason for drug therapy decisions in both breast and colorectal cancer patient subsets in 2023 (10% and 19% respectively). Contrary to the overall patient cohort, drug therapy choice for reported prostate cancer patients has increasingly shown association with “Approved Standard of Care” (53% in 2020 to 60% in 2023). Conclusions: Results of this study highlight the evolution of factors influencing anti-cancer treatment decisions in sampled physicians. Sampled providers appear to be shifting away from universal treatments, as shown by lowered association with “Approved Standard of Care”. Sampled physicians seem to be opting for specific therapies, demonstrated by rising influence of “Biomarker results”. Discrepancies between tumors merit expansion of research in rarer indications and emphasize the importance of diagnostic testing to continue improving quality of care. Further investigation using comparator cohort is warranted.

oncology
Payer perceptions and use of value assessment tools in the United States

Kimberly Westrich,Tasmina Hydery,Vyishali Dharbhamalla,Lisabeth Buelt,Candace Zheng,Victoria Loo,Jennifer Graff

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2023.29.5.582

2023-05-01

Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy

Abstract:BACKGROUND: As the United States transitions toward value-based payment, value assessment tools to measure the value of health care interventions are emerging. As the field evolves, it is important to evaluate how these tools are influencing treatment and coverage decisions. OBJECTIVE: To examine payer perceptions and use of US value assessment tools and identify how these tools inform payer decision-making. METHODS: A double-blind, web-based survey was conducted from June to July 2022 to assess health care payers' perceptions and use of value assessment tools developed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Drug Pricing Lab, Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), Innovation and Value Initiative, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network. RESULTS: 51 respondents completed the survey. 86% of payers were familiar with at least 4 of 5 value assessment tools. Both ICER and National Comprehensive Cancer Network tools are perceived as very useful for informing formulary decisions (57% and 49%, respectively). When selecting a value assessment tool, payers identified the inclusion of appropriate metrics and outcomes (92%), comparative clinical effectiveness information (88%), and reliance on rigorous, unbiased methods (86%) to be very/extremely important. Payers reported the inclusion of the patient, provider, and societal perspectives as lower importance (32%, 31%, and 20% identify these elements as very/extremely important, respectively). Payers reported using ICER evidence reports to both expand and restrict coverage decisions. To advance more useful and relevant value assessment tools, payers identified the need for greater stakeholder awareness of existing tools, and some recommended that value assessors increase the volume of assessments conducted. CONCLUSIONS: US health care payers perceive select value assessment tools to be useful for informing health care decisions. As policy momentum behind value assessment builds, additional examination of value assessment tools is needed to inform appropriate application of value assessment in US health care decision-making. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Xcenda/AmerisourceBergen. Ms Buelt, Ms Loo, Ms Westrich, and Drs Hydery and Zheng report employment with Xcenda/AmerisourceBergen. Drs Dharbhamalla and Graff report employment with AMCP.

pharmacology & pharmacy,health care sciences & services
Trends in end-of- life (EOL) systemic oncologic treatment in contemporary clinical practice: Insights from real-world data.

Maureen Canavan,Xiaoliang Wang,Mustafa Ascha,Rebecca A. Miksad,Timothy N Showalter,Gregory Sampang Calip,Cary Philip Gross,Kerin B. Adelson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2020.39.28_suppl.253

IF: 45.3

2021-09-22

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:253 Background: Among patients with cancer, receipt of systemic oncolytic therapy near the end-of-life (EOL) does not improve outcomes and worsens patient and caregiver experience. Accordingly, the ASCO/NQF measure, Proportion Receiving Chemotherapy in the Last 14 Days of Life, was published in 2012. Over the last decade there has been exponential growth in high cost targeted and immune therapies which may be perceived as less toxic than traditional chemotherapy. In this study, we identified rates and types of EOL systemic therapy in today's real-world practice; these can serve as benchmarks for cancer care organizations to drive improvement efforts. Methods: Using data from the nationwide Flatiron Health electronic health record (EHR)-derived de-identified database we included patients who died during 2015 through 2019, were diagnosed after 2011, and who had documented cancer treatment. We identified the use of aggressive EOL systemic treatment (including, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and combinations thereof) at both 30 days and 14 days prior to death. We estimated standardized EOL rates using mixed-level logistic regression models adjusting for patient and practice-level factors. Year-specific adjusted rates were estimated in annualized stratified analysis. Results: We included 57,127 patients, 38% of whom had documentation of having received any type of systemic cancer treatment within 30 days of death (SD: 5%; range: 25% - 56%), and 17% within 14 days of death (SD: 3%; range: 10% - 30%). Chemotherapy alone was the most common EOL treatment received (18% at 30 days, 8% at 14 days), followed by immunotherapy (± other treatment) (11% at 30 days, 4% at 14 days). Overall rates of EOL treatment did not change over the study period: treatment within 30 days (39% in 2015 to 37% in 2019) and within 14 days (17% in 2015 to 17% in 2019) of death. However, the rates of chemotherapy alone within 30 days of death decreased from 24% to 14%, and within 14 days, from 10% to 6% during the study period. In comparison, rates for immunotherapy with chemotherapy (0%-6% for 30 days, 0% -2% for 14 days), and immunotherapy alone or with other treatment types (4%-13% for 30 days, 1%-4% for 14 days) increased over time for both 30 and 14 days. Conclusions: End of life systemic cancer treatment rates have not substantively changed over time despite national efforts and expert guidance. While rates of traditional chemotherapy have decreased, rates of costly immunotherapy and targeted therapy have increased, which has been associated with higher total cost of care and overall healthcare utilization. Future work should examine the drivers of end-of-life care in the era of immune-oncology.

oncology
Going off Pathway: Problem or Good Care?

Stephen B. Edge,Lu Liu,Nessa Stefaniak,Monica L. Murphy,James E. Thompson,Jens Hillengass,Grace K. Dy,Boris W. Kuvshinoff,Mishellene McKinney

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2020.38.15_suppl.7014

IF: 45.3

2020-01-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:7014 Background: Clinical oncology pathways (COP) provide decision support and benchmarking against national standards. Some organizations provide financial incentives for using COP-recommended treatment (on pathway: OnP). Treatment (Rx) other than COP recommended Rx (off pathway: OffP) is appropriate for some cases. There are limited data on the appropriateness of OffP Rx. This study examines rates and reasons for OffP Rx in one cancer center. Methods: All systemic Rx decisions entered in the ClinicalPath COP from 10/1/18 - 9/30/19 were classified as OnP (including Rx on a clinical trial) or OffP and as adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (ADJ) or for metastatic cancer (MET). Oncologists must provide free text reasons for OffP Rx. Records of all OffP care were reviewed by a senior nurse-led team and physician to verify and classify OffP reasons. Cases without clear documentation were referred to the treating oncologist and/or multidisciplinary team for review. Justified OffP reasons (R1-6) were classified as: R1. Documented drug toxicity and/or treatment-limiting co-morbidity; R2. Prior treatment precluding pathway Rx; R3. New drug indication or molecular targeted therapy not in COP; R4. Continuation of Rx started prior to referral; R5. Other clearly documented and reviewed provider or multidisciplinary team rationale; and R6. Patient preference. Results: There were 2,997 COP treatment decisions for 2,389 patients. The OnP rate was higher for ADJ than for MET Rx (87% vs. 78%). Non-justified OffP care accounted for 1% of cases. 69% of OffP Rx was because of known drug toxicity, co-morbidity limiting therapy, prior therapy precluding COP choice, and new drug indications (Table). Conclusions: COPs provide decision support and practice benchmarking. Lower OnP rates for MET Rx likely reflect the nuances of Rx for advanced cancer. Most OffP care was justified and appropriate. Financial incentives that focus on the percentage of COP OnP care could paradoxically harm the quality of care, especially given the high percentage of OffP decisions for reasons of drug toxicity, co-morbidity and new drug indications. [Table: see text]
Opportunity cost of oncology subspecialist opinion.

Afsaneh Barzi,Crystal Liang,Carol Wright,Nitya Nathwani,Debra A. Wong,Todd M. Sachs

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.16_suppl.e13578

IF: 45.3

2024-05-31

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:e13578 Background: The adoption of precision oncology has resulted in a drastic rise in the cost of cancer care in the United States. Payers, providers, and professional organizations are implementing strategies to curb this rising cost. These efforts are mainly focused on the providers patterns of care, such as prescribing behavior and risk assessment for needs such as ER visits and hospitalizations. Most efforts are cross-cutting and intended to work across different tumor types. Yet, with the precision nature of cancer care these cross-cutting efforts have not succeeded. AccessHope (AH) provides an independent subspecialist review of the management cancer as a covered benefit through the employer (Accountable Precision Oncology: APO). The aim of this service is optimizing care delivery to the current and evolving paradigms for each cancer type and sub-type. Here we describe overutilization of treatments and assessments of APO. Methods: AH database was accessed for de-identified cases (with contractual de-identification rights) for this analysis. Cases were completed 1/1/2022 – 12/31/2023. Descriptive statistics was used to describe the observed patterns identified. Results: Among 3644 APOs, 428 (11.7%) had evidence of overutilization. Gastrointestinal, hematological, and thoracic cancers represented 75% of the over utilization cases (Table). Overutilization was categorized by systemic therapy, radiation therapy, invasive procedures, imaging, and testing. Systemic therapy was the most common category (67.8%) and included non-indication use and extended duration of use. This was followed by imaging (22.2%). Systemic agents overutilized varied by cancer site. Bevacizumab and oxaliplatin were commonly overutilized in gastrointestinal cancers; rituximab, imatinib, and dasatinib in hematological malignancies; and check point inhibitors (pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and durvalumab) in thoracic malignancies. In the imaging category, PET scan overutilization was observed across different tumor types (14.7% of the total volume). We also observed overutilization of molecular testing with ctDNA (Signatera) being at the top of the frequently overutilized tests in cases with no data to support a role for it. Conclusions: This patient centered approach identified areas of overutilization in evaluation and treatment of patients through the expert review process. The reviewer’s depth of knowledge about reported data and limitation of treatments and evaluations is the key to this process. Further analyses of patterns of care and categorization of the overutilization patterns is underway. [Table: see text]

oncology
The state of professional wellbeing and satisfaction among US oncologists.

Caroline Schenkel,Laura A. Levit,Margaret Kelsey Kirkwood,Rebecca Spence,Fay J. Hlubocky,Anthony Back,John M. Burke,Christopher Ryan Friese,Colleen M. Gallagher,Laurie Jean Lyckholm,Ray D. Page,Judith A. Paice,Eric Daniel Tetzlaff,Jim D. Morgante,Molly McGinnis,Tait D. Shanafelt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/op.2023.19.11_suppl.1

2023-11-01

JCO Oncology Practice

Abstract:1 Background: Although previous studies have demonstrated substantial burnout among US oncologists, most of the published literature assessed the experience of oncologists prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: In January-February 2023, ASCO emailed a novel 36 item REDCap survey to 5892 U.S.-based physician ASCO members. The survey included 2 questions from the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI). The survey was distributed through multiple ASCO channels in February-March 2023. Survey responses were compared to findings from a 2013 survey of 1345 oncologists by Shanafelt et al (JCO, 2014). Per convention, those with high levels of emotional exhaustion (EE) and/or depersonalization (DP) were categorized as having burnout. Results: 410 oncologists responded to the survey. Responses from 328 oncologists in active clinical practice (at least 6 hours/week) are included in this analysis. The median age was 47 [IQR: 15]. Respondents were 52% female, 55% white and 85% married/partnered. 68% had caregiving responsibilities for children or adults. 64% reported that their current work setting was an academic institution. In 2023, 57% of clinicians had high EE on the single MBI-EE item (i.e., “feel burned out from [their] work” weekly or more often) compared to 29% in 2013 (p < .0001). 34% had high DP on the single MBI-DP item (i.e., feel that they “have become more callous towards people since [they] took [their] job” weekly or more often) vs. 13% in 2013 (p < .0001). A larger percentage of clinicians demonstrated one or more symptoms of burnout in 2023 compared to 2013 respondents (59% vs. 34%, p < .0001). The prevalence of burnout was higher among 2023 respondents with caregiving responsibilities compared to those without (65% vs 47%; p = .003). Those under 50 were more likely to have high DP relative to those 50 or older (39% vs 24%; p = .007). A higher percentage of non-white-identifying respondents had high EE compared to those identifying as white only (63% vs 52%, p = .068). Compared to 2013, respondents in 2023 reported higher mean fatigue levels (6.1 [SD = 2.6] vs. 5.8 [SD = 2.4]) and lower mean overall quality of life (7.1 [SD = 2.2] vs. 7.3 [SD = 1.8]) (range 0-10). Fewer 2023 respondents were satisfied with their work-life integration (WLI) relative to 2013 (24% vs. 35%, p = .001). Participants in the 2023 survey selected up to two factors associated with joy in work and factors that may improve work. The top factor contributing to joy in work was “speaking with and advising patients” (63%, 205/633 responses). Top factors improving work were enhanced practice/administrative support (46%, 149/618) and enhanced patient care support/staffing (44%, 142/618). Conclusions: Burnout and satisfaction with work-life integration appears to have worsened among US oncologists over the last decade. Policies and organizational interventions that enhance support for administrative and patient care tasks are necessary to improve well-being among oncologists.

oncology
[Antibiotics as antineoplastic agents].

R. Milder,M. Jamra

Abstract:
Optimizing the oncology ecosystem: Addressing barriers between community and academic oncologists.

Ahmed Khalil,Ghazal Kango,Stephanie L. Graff

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.16_suppl.e13580

IF: 45.3

2024-05-31

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:e13580 Background: Oncology practice is becoming more complex and collaboration between academic and community practices is necessary to optimize care for patients. This qualitative analysis explores perceived gaps between academic and community practices and proposed solutions to a more cohesive oncology ecosystem for optimal quality and care delivery. Methods: A 10-question mixed-methods quantitative and qualitative survey was developed (SurveyMonkey) to identify practice setting, methods of collaboration, perceived barriers, and strategies for improvement. Both open-ended and multiple-choice questions were used. Survey was distributed via social media outreach on Facebook, X, and email. Individual responses were coded by AK, then compared using two sample z-test for proportions. Results: 68 responses were collected, comprising 45.5% community and 44.1% academic physicians. Non-clinician respondents (2.9%) were excluded. Respondents had been in practice: >20 years (16.42%), 10-20 years (40.3%), 5-9 years (19.4%) and < 5 years (23.9%). Collaboration commonly occurred via conferences (73.68%), shared Electronic Medical Records (EMRs, 59.65%) or research (38.6%). The main barriers perceived are summarized (Table). Community oncologists describe lack of appreciation from academics, time constraints, difficulty communicating. Main barriers to collaboration perceived by academic oncologists include delayed referral, time constraints, difficulty communicating, lack of shared EMRs, fear of patient displacement from the primary referring practice, and administrative red tape. Proposed solutions from both groups include engaging community oncologists in academic tumor boards (n=8/68,11.8%) and regional education events (n=2/68, 2.9%). Improved communication. Additionally, both groups were interested in expanding clinical trials in the community. Both groups noted the need for financial incentives and institutional support for successful cooperation (n=3/68, 4.4%). Conclusions: Our data unveiled the nuances of collaboration. Barriers mainly consist of lack of acknowledgement, poor communication, and barriers in EMR utilization. Both groups struggle with time constraints. This data can inform multi-shareholder groups working for systems-based process improvement, expanding collaboration between community and academic oncology. [Table: see text]

oncology
Importance of Patient Health Insurance Coverage and Out-of-Pocket Costs for Genomic Testing in Oncologists' Treatment Decisions

K Robin Yabroff,Kewei Sylvia Shi,Jingxuan Zhao,Andrew N Freedman,Zhiyuan Zheng,Leticia Nogueira,Xuesong Han,Carrie N Klabunde,Janet S de Moor,K. Robin Yabroff,Andrew N. Freedman,Carrie N. Klabunde,Janet S. de Moor

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/op.23.00153

2024-01-09

JCO Oncology Practice

Abstract:PURPOSE Use of genomic testing, especially multimarker panels, is increasing in the United States. Not all tests and related treatments are covered by health insurance, which can result in substantial patient out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. Little is known about oncologists' treatment decisions with respect to patient insurance coverage and OOP costs for genomic testing. METHODS We identified 1,049 oncologists who used multimarker tumor panels from the 2017 National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment. Separate multivariable ordinal logistic regressions examined associations of oncologist-, practice-, and area-level characteristics and oncologists' ratings of importance (very, somewhat, or a little/not important) of insurance coverage and OOP costs for genomic testing in treatment decisions, adjusting for oncologist years of experience, sex, race and ethnicity, specialty, use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests, region, tumor boards, patient insurance mix, and area-level socioeconomic characteristics. RESULTS Among oncologists, 47.3%, 32.7%, and 20.0% reported that patient insurance coverage for genomic testing was very, somewhat, or a little/not important, respectively, in treatment decisions. In addition, 56.9%, 28.0%, and 15.2% reported that OOP costs for testing were very, somewhat, or a little/not important, respectively. In adjusted analyses, oncologists who used NGS tests were more likely to report patient insurance and OOP costs as important (odds ratio [OR], 2.00 [95% CI, 1.16 to 3.45] and OR, 2.12 [95% CI, 1.22 to 3.68], respectively) in treatment decisions compared with oncologists who did not use these tests, as were oncologists who treated solid tumors, rather than only hematological cancers. More years of experience and higher percentages of Medicaid or self-paid/uninsured patients in the practice were associated with reporting insurance coverage (OR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.09 to 1.89]) and OOP costs (OR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.13 to 2.01]) as important. Oncologists in practices with molecular tumor boards for genomic tests were less likely to report coverage (OR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.47 to 0.85]) and OOP costs (OR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.53 to 0.97]) as important than their counterparts in practices without these tumor boards. CONCLUSION Most oncologists rate patient health insurance and OOP costs for genomic tests as important considerations in subsequent treatment recommendations. Modifiable factors associated with these ratings can inform interventions to support patient-physician decision making about care.

oncology
Global adoption of remote technologies to enable patient-centric oncology clinical trials: Analysis by the Bloomberg New Economy International Cancer Coalition.

Robert Michael Daly,Otis W. Brawley,Mary K. Gospodarowicz,Olufunmilayo I. Olopade,Ibilola Fashoyin,Victoria Wolodzko Smart,I-Fen Chang,Craig L. Tendler,Geoff Kim,Charles S. Fuchs,Lianshan Zhang,Jeffrey J. Legos,Cristina Duran,Chitkala Kalidas,Jing Qian,Justin Finnegan,Piotr Pilarski,Amy Silverstein,Yi-Long Wu,Bob T. Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2023.41.16_suppl.1584

IF: 45.3

2023-06-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:1584 Background: Fewer than 5% of patients with cancer enroll in a clinical trial, partly due to the significant financial and logistical burden on patients, especially among underserved populations. The COVID-19 pandemic marked a significant shift in the adoption of remote technologies and decentralized trial operations by major pharmaceutical companies. We sought to determine the current global state of adoption of these technologies, understand factors that are driving or preventing adoption of them, and highlight aspirations and direction for industry to enable more patient-centric trials. Methods: The multi-stakeholder Bloomberg New Economy International Cancer Coalition composed of patient advocacy, industry, government regulators, and academic medical centers developed a survey directed to global biopharmaceutical companies of the Coalition with a focus on registrational clinical trials. The survey was organized into three main sections: 1) Impact of different remote monitoring and data collection technologies on patient-centricity; 2) Adoption of these technologies in oncology and all therapeutic areas; 3) Barriers/facilitators to adoption. Results: Administered from October 1 to December 31, 2022, a total of 8 companies completed the survey (response rate: 100%), representing 33% of oncology market by revenues in 2021. Across nearly all remote monitoring and data collection technologies, adoption in oncology trials lags that of all trials. In the current state, eDiary/eCOA is the most utilized technology with 56% and 51% adoption for all trials and oncology trials, respectively, whereas visits in local physician networks is the least adopted at 12% and 7%, respectively. Looking forward, the difference between the current and aspired adoption rate in 5 years for oncology is large, with respondents expecting a 40% or greater absolute adoption increase in 8 out of the 11 technologies (Table). Furthermore, respondents identified digitally enabled recruitment, local or mobile imaging capabilities, and local physician networks as those technologies that would be most impactful for improving patient centricity in the long term. Conclusions: This survey is the first by a coalition of global stakeholders to determine the current state and future aspirations for the use of remote technologies in oncology clinical trials. These efforts may galvanize momentum towards greater adoption of enabling technologies supporting a new paradigm of trials that are more accessible, less burdensome, and more inclusive.[Table: see text]

oncology
Prioritizing Measures That Matter Within a Person-Centered Oncology Learning Health System

Aricca D Van Citters,Alice M Kennedy,Kathryn B Kirkland,Konstantin H Dragnev,Steven D Leach,Madge E Buus-Frank,Elissa F Malcolm,Megan M Holthoff,Anne B Holmes,Eugene C Nelson,Susan A Reeves,Anna N A Tosteson,Promise Partnership Delphi Panel,Albert Mulley,Amber Barnato,Amelia Cullinan,Andrew Williams,Ann Bradley,Anna Tosteson,Anne Holmes,Anne Ireland,Brant Oliver,Brock Christensen,Carol Majewski,Carolyn Kerrigan,Catherine Reed,Cathy Morrow,Corey Siegel,Daniel Jantzen,David Finley,Elissa Malcolm,Elizabeth Bengtson,Elizabeth McGrath,Elizabeth Stedina,Ellen Flaherty,Elliott Fisher,Eric Henderson,Erick Lansigan,Evan Benjamin,Gabriel Brooks,Garret Wasp,George Blike,Ira Byock,Janet Haines,Jenn Alford-Teaster,Jenna Schiffelbein,Jennifer Snide,Joanna Leyenaar,Jocelyn Chertoff,Joga Ivatury,Johanna Beliveau,John Sweetenham,Judith Rees,Julia Dalphin,Julie Kim,Karen Clements,Kathryn Kirkland,Kenneth Meehan,Konstantin Dragnev,Kris Bowen,Lawrence Dacey,Linton Evans,Malavika Govindan,Marcus Thygeson,Martha Goodrich,Mary Chamberlin,MaryAnn Stump,Matthew Mackwood,Matthew Wilson,Meredith Sorensen,Michael Calderwood,Paul Barr,Polly Campion,Ralph Jean-Mary,Rian M Hasson,Sai Cherala,Sally Kraft,Samuel Casella,Samuel Shields,Sandra Wong,Shoshana Hort,Stephanie Tomlin,Stephen Liu,Stephen LeBlanc,Steven Leach,Susan DiStasio,Susan Reeves,Virginia Reed,Wendy Wells,Whitney Hammond,Yolanda Sanchez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jncics/pkac037

2022-05-02

Abstract:Background: Despite progress in developing learning health systems (LHS) and associated metrics of success, a gap remains in identifying measures to guide the implementation and assessment of the impact of an oncology LHS. Our aim was to identify a balanced set of measures to guide a person-centered oncology LHS. Methods: A modified Delphi process and clinical value compass framework were used to prioritize measures for tracking LHS performance. A multidisciplinary group of 77 stakeholders, including people with cancer and family members, participated in 3 rounds of online voting followed by 50-minute discussions. Participants rated metrics on perceived importance to the LHS and discussed priorities. Results: Voting was completed by 94% of participants and prioritized 22 measures within 8 domains. Patient and caregiver factors included clinical health (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, survival by cancer type and stage), functional health and quality of life (Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS] Global-10, Distress Thermometer, Modified Caregiver Strain Index), experience of care (advance care planning, collaboRATE, PROMIS Self-Efficacy Scale, access to care, experience of care, end-of-life quality measures), and cost and resource use (avoidance and delay in accessing care and medications, financial hardship, total cost of care). Contextual factors included team well-being (Well-being Index; voluntary staff turnover); learning culture (Improvement Readiness, compliance with Commission on Cancer quality of care measures); scholarly engagement and productivity (institutional commitment and support for research, academic productivity index); and diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (screening and follow-up for social determinants of health, inclusivity of staff and patients). Conclusions: The person-centered LHS value compass provides a balanced set of measures that oncology practices can use to monitor and evaluate improvement across multiple domains.
Scoping Review: Anesthesiologist Involvement in Alternative Payment Models, Value Measurement, and Nonclinical Capabilities for Success in the United States of America

Jay Sanghvi,Daniel Qian,Ezekiel Olumuyide,Deborah C Mokuolu,Aakash Keswani,Gordon H Morewood,Garrett Burnett,Chang H Park,Jonathan S Gal,Deborah C. Mokuolu,Gordon H. Morewood,Chang H. Park,Jonathan S. Gal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0000000000006763

IF: 6.627

2024-02-07

Anesthesia & Analgesia

Abstract:The US healthcare sector is undergoing significant payment reforms, leading to the emergence of Alternative Payment Models (APMs) aimed at improving clinical outcomes and patient experiences while reducing costs. This scoping review provides an overview of the involvement of anesthesiologists in APMs as found in published literature. It specifically aims to categorize and understand the breadth and depth of their participation, revolving around 3 main axes or “Aims”: (1) shaping APMs through design and implementation, (2) gauging the value and quality of care provided by anesthesiologists within these models, and (3) enhancing nonclinical abilities of anesthesiologists for promoting more value in care. To map out the existing literature, a comprehensive search of relevant electronic databases was conducted, yielding a total of 2173 articles, of which 24 met the inclusion criteria, comprising 21 prospective or retrospective cohort studies, 2 surveys, and 1 case–control cohort study. Eleven publications (45%) discussed value-based, bundled, or episode-based payments, whereas the rest discussed non–payment-based models, such as Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (7 articles, 29%), Perioperative Surgical Home (4 articles, 17%), or other models (3 articles, 13%).The review identified key themes related to each aim. The most prominent themes for aim 1 included protocol standardization (16 articles, 67%), design and implementation leadership (8 articles, 33%), multidisciplinary collaboration (7 articles, 29%), and role expansion (5 articles, 21%). For aim 2, the common themes were Process-Based & Patient-Centric Metrics (1 article, 4%), Shared Accountability (3 articles, 13%), and Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing (TDABC) (3 articles, 13%). Furthermore, we identified a wide range of quality metrics, spanning 8 domains that were used in these studies to evaluate anesthesiologists’ performance. For aim 3, the main extracted themes included Education on Healthcare Transformation and Policies (3 articles, 13%), Exploring Collaborative Leadership Skills (5 articles, 21%), and Embracing Advanced Analytics and Data Transparency (4 articles, 17%).Findings revealed the pivotal role of anesthesiologists in the design, implementation, and refinement of these emerging delivery and payment models. Our results highlight that while payment models are shifting toward value, patient-centered metrics have yet to be widely accepted for use in measuring quality and affecting payment for anesthesiologists. Gaps remain in understanding how anesthesiologists assess their direct impact and strategies for enhancing the sustainability of anesthesia practices. This review underscores the need for future research contributing to the successful adaptation of clinical practices in this new era of healthcare delivery.

anesthesiology
The physician payments Sunshine Act and medical oncology: a seven-year financial analysis

Xiyu Zhao,Victor Yang,Mohammed Ullah,Mark Schuweiler,Jonathan Zou,Austin Chen,Shuhan Jia,Padmini Ranasinghe

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12032-024-02563-7

2024-12-01

Medical Oncology

Abstract:The integration of pharmaceutical and medical device companies with clinical practice is under scrutiny due to financial incentives that may influence oncology care. The Physician Payments Sunshine Act mandates transparency in these financial relationships. This study examines the trends in non-research payments to oncology specialists between 2017 and 2023, analyzing amounts, reasons, and variations by subspecialty and region. We conducted a retrospective analysis of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database, focusing on U.S.-based hematology, medical oncology, and hematology-oncology specialists. Payments were categorized by amount, purpose, and payment type, with temporal and geographic comparisons. Data analysis was conducted in Rstudio (version 2022.07.0) with Kruskal–Wallis, Mann–Whitney U, and Chi-square tests to assess statistical significance across specialties, regions, and payment periods. Between 2017 and 2023, 2,158,140 payments totaling 393,169,915.10) and transaction count (1,700,202), while hematology had the highest median payment ( 18.12) and medical oncology ( 36.8 million in 2023, while the Northeast had the highest median payment values, reaching $22.87 in 2023. The COVID-19 pandemic corresponded with lasting shifts in payment patterns, with median payment values rising significantly during the pandemic period and remaining elevated post-COVID across all specialties. Additionally, the distribution of payments by type revealed that direct cash payments and consulting fees were the most prominent, with hematology-oncology showing the greatest reliance on high-value cash transactions, while stock payments featured prominently in hematology. Sensitivity analyses confirmed these patterns as robust, with minimal variance observed when excluding extreme values, further validating consistent trends across specialties, regions, and periods. This study reveals specialty- and region-specific variations in oncology-related payments, with significant increases during key conferences and the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings underscore the importance of continued transparency and scrutiny in industry-oncology financial interactions to mitigate potential conflicts of interest in oncology care.

oncology
The use of patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer care: preliminary insights from a multinational scoping survey of oncology practitioners

Yin Ting Cheung,Alexandre Chan,Andreas Charalambous,H S Darling,Lawson Eng,Lisa Grech,Corina J G van den Hurk,Deborah Kirk,Sandra A Mitchell,Dagmara Poprawski,Elke Rammant,Imogen Ramsey,Margaret I Fitch,Raymond J Chan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-021-06545-7

Abstract:Background: There exists scant evidence on the optimal approaches to integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice. This study gathered oncology practitioners' experiences with implementing PROs in cancer care. Methods: Between December 2019 and June 2020, we surveyed practitioners who reported spending > 5% of their time providing clinical care to cancer patients. Respondents completed an online survey describing their experiences with and barriers to using PROs in clinical settings. Results: In total, 362 practitioners (physicians 38.7%, nurses 46.7%, allied health professionals 14.6%) completed the survey, representing 41 countries (Asia-Pacific 42.5%, North America 30.1%, Europe 24.0%, others 3.3%). One quarter (25.4%) identified themselves as "high frequency users" who conducted PRO assessments on > 80% of their patients. Practitioners commonly used PROs to facilitate communication (60.2%) and monitor treatment responses (52.6%). The most commonly reported implementation barriers were a lack of technological support (70.4%) and absence of a robust workflow to integrate PROs in clinical care (61.5%). Compared to practitioners from high-income countries, more practitioners in low-middle income countries reported not having access to a local PRO expert (P < .0001) and difficulty in identifying the appropriate PRO domains (P = .006). Compared with nurses and allied health professionals, physicians were more likely to perceive disruptions in clinical care during PRO collection (P = .001) as an implementation barrier. Conclusions: Only a quarter of the surveyed practitioners reported capturing PROs in routine clinical practice. The implementation barriers to PRO use varied across respondents in different professions and levels of socioeconomic resources. Our findings can be applied to guide planning and implementation of PRO collection in cancer care.
An Organizational Perspective on Patenting and Open Innovation

Ajay Bhaskarabhatla,D. Hegde

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2061924

2013-10-03

Abstract:Achange in U.S. patent law in the early 1980s increased the value of patents, particularly for firms in the electronics and semiconductors industry, yet many of the industry's leading firms did not embrace patenting after the change. We show through an in-depth study of International Business Machines IBM, the world's largest patentee, that the company's practices during much of the 1980s discouraged patenting. IBM adopted pro-patent management practices in 1989 after the installation of a new research and development head and in the face of faltering financial performance. IBM's increased patenting and licensing activities improved its financial bottom lines but curtailed its industry-wide knowledge spillovers. These causes and consequences of pro-patent practices are visible in several other large U.S. corporations. Thus, in the context of the "patent explosion" of the 1980s, we show that intraorganizational forces such as inertia, financial pressures, and new leadership shaped established firms' uptake of pro-patent management practices and their success. Our findings also suggest that pro-patent practices associated with "open innovation" may stem the free flow of knowledge across organizational boundaries.
Brief Report on Global Clinician Practices in the First-Line Management of Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Arthi Sridhar,Howard (Jack) West,Eric K. Singhi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cllc.2024.04.013

IF: 4.84

2024-05-01

Clinical Lung Cancer

Abstract:Introduction In the dynamic landscape of metastatic NSCLC (mNSCLC) management, marked by several frontline options and the integration of next generation sequencing (NGS) for informed decision-making, barriers persist despite advancements. This includes challenges in clinical trial recruitment. To gain global insights into clinicians' practices, we conducted a survey on their testing and management approaches for patients with mNSCLC. Methods The survey, conducted from July 12 to August 20, 2023, utilized multiple-choice questions and qualitative research questions, employing the Likert Scale for comprehensive insights. Results A total of 127 individuals responded, with 72% affiliated with academic health systems, and 55% practicing in the USA. Regarding testing practices, 93% consistently ordered NGS for non-squamous histology, while 54% did so for squamous cell histology. Concurrent tissue and liquid biopsies were routinely ordered by 28%, while 39% reported ordering both testing platforms concurrently for select cases only. Respondents cited logistical barriers, such as insufficient tissue and lack of infrastructure, as the most common hindrance to molecular testing (76%), followed by reimbursement challenges (56%) and concerns about delayed turnaround time (50%). While most respondents were confident in interpreting NGS results, 22% lacked confidence. Concerning treatment decisions, 72% preferred awaiting molecular testing results before initiating systemic therapy. Less than 50% routinely referred patients for clinical trials in the frontline setting for mNSCLC. For patients with disease expressing high PD-L1 levels, most oncologists preferred pembrolizumab monotherapy. For disease with low PD-L1 expression, a platinum doublet chemotherapy regimen combined with pembrolizumab was favored. In disease cases with negative PD-L1 expression, a platinum doublet chemotherapy regimen with pembrolizumab was preferred. Key factors influencing oncologists' preferred immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) included experience with one ICI over another, preferred status per national guidelines, availability of trial data with a significant follow-up period, and consideration of drug cost. Conclusion Although this study demonstrates an improved awareness and adoption of ordering NGS for the management of mNSCLC, it underscores the persistence of various barriers that must be addressed to improve upon the quality of care for patients diagnosed with mNSCLC.

oncology
Abstract 1301: Comparing VA and safety-net hospital patient-reported care metrics and provider recommendations to address social determinants of health and demographics

Neha Hippalgaonkar,Michael Weinfeld,Christine Weldon,Julia Trosman,Cindy Chan,Sarah Khan,Swetha Paduri,Vijay Reddy,Auradha Sakhuja,Paramjeet Khosla,Mary Pasquinelli,Lawrence Feldman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.am2024-1301

IF: 11.2

2024-03-28

Cancer Research

Abstract:Background: The Jesse Brown Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center (JBVA) and Sinai Chicago, a safety-net hospital nearby, serve veterans and patients with significant social needs on Chicago's South and West sides. Both institutions are adopting the 4R Oncology Model (Right Info/Care/Patient/Time) for patient-facing care planning and self-management, proven to enhance supportive and health maintenance care delivery (Trosman JCOOP 2021). This abstract depicts a baseline survey of JBVA veterans' and Sinai Chicago patients' experiences in planning and delivering guideline-directed supportive and health maintenance care for new cancer diagnoses, informing 4R implementations. Methods: Patients at JBVA and Sinai Chicago were surveyed from February to September 2023 with participants receiving a $25 gift card. An analysis was conducted using Fisher's two-tailed exact test. Results: The two institutions yielded a 67% survey response rate. Key patient demographics and oncologic and supportive care metrics are outlined in the table below. At JBVA, fewer than 50% of veterans knew their cancer stage at diagnosis, and 63% were aware of their care goals. Furthermore, only 17% of veterans received recommendations for support services offered by JBVA. "Emotional distress or worry" support recommendations were received by < 50% of patients at both institutions. Conclusions: The baseline survey uncovered gaps in care planning, supportive services, and health maintenance care in both institutions, catering to patients with challenging social determinants of health. The implementation of the 4R Oncology Model is designed to address these gaps, providing a personalized care sequence that establishes a clear roadmap through the patient's care trajectory, ultimately enhancing patient-centered care. Further results will be shared when available. Metric Combined% of pts(n=60) JBVA% of pts (n=30) SINAI% of pts(n=30) PVALUE Patient knew stage of their cancer 67 43 86 0.0005 Patient knew goal of their care 77 63 86 0.0442 Cancer care provider recommended to: Get Nutrition consult about how to eat during cancer treatment 35 27 42 0.2997 Talk to your primary care provider about staying as healthy as possible during care treatment 62 57 67 0.4523 Get support for transportation, food, housing, insurance, or other practical needs 44 17 67 0.0001 Get help to stop smoking or vaping* 29 28 31 1.0 Get help for emotional distress or worry* 37 24 46 0.1078 Demographics Age 59 66 53 0.0001 Male 69 93 39 0.0004 Black 59 83 39 0.0001 Hispanic 32 0 58 0.1103 High School education or less 68 57 78 0.1854 Household income less than $30,000 ** 70 59 81 0.1305 Live Alone 37 47 29 0.0001 *of those who reported needing help, **of those who shared income level Citation Format: Neha Hippalgaonkar, Michael Weinfeld, Christine Weldon, Julia Trosman, Cindy Chan, Sarah Khan, Swetha Paduri, Vijay Reddy, Auradha Sakhuja, Paramjeet Khosla, Mary Pasquinelli, Lawrence Feldman. Comparing VA and safety-net hospital patient-reported care metrics and provider recommendations to address social determinants of health and demographics [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular s); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl) nr 1301.

oncology
[The Solenopsis saevissima complex in South America (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)].

E. Wilson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0074-02761952000100003

1952-03-01

Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz

Abstract:
Using Oncology Treatment Pathway Data to Evaluate Serious Illness Communication, Care Utilization, and End-of-Life Care for Patients With Cancer

Cody E Cotner,Angela C Tramontano,Alex Post,Brian Finn,Saima Awan,Nathaniel Gwynne,Sishemo Mwesigwa,Charlotta Lindvall,James A Tulsky,Joseph O Jacobson,David M Jackman,Alexi A Wright,Christopher R Manz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/OP.24.00311

2024-09-30

Abstract:Purpose: Oncology treatment pathways provide decision support and encourage guideline adherence. Pathway data combined with electronic health record (EHR) data can identify patient populations with poor prognoses, low serious illness conversation (SIC) rates, and high acute care utilization that may benefit from targeted interventions. Patients and methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis among adults with cancer treated at seven affiliated sites of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) who had navigations within 21 treatment pathways between July 29, 2019, and March 8, 2023. DFCI clinicians previously identified pathway nodes with an estimated survival less than 1 year, termed poor prognosis (PP) nodes. We combined pathway data with EHR data to calculate the median overall survival (OS) and proportion of patients with SICs, acute care utilization (hospitalizations and emergency department visits), and outpatient palliative care 6 months after treatment node navigation for all, PP, and nonpoor prognosis (nPP) nodes. SICs were identified using the EHR advanced care planning (ACP) tab. Results: There were 15,261 navigations for 10,203 patients (median age 66 years, 55% female, 85% White). The median OS was 13.8 months for all nodes, 7.8 months for PP nodes, and 21.0 months for nPP nodes. The ACP section of the EHR rate 6 months after navigation was 19.6% for PP nodes versus 11.0% for nPP nodes. There was substantial intragroup variability in OS and SIC rates among all nodes. SICs were recorded in the ACP tab for only 34.3% of decedents. Patients who navigated to PP nodes had higher levels of acute care utilization and palliative care encounters. Conclusion: Treatment pathway data enabled identification of patient populations with poor prognoses, low SIC rates, and high acute care utilization.
The Promise and Perils of Oncology Care in Medicare Advantage

Michael Anne Kyle,Nancy L. Keating

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.34650

2024-09-21

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:The design of the traditional Medicare benefit has changed very little since its inception in the 1960s. Enrollees in traditional Medicare can seek care from any clinicians, practices, or health care organizations (hereafter, providers) enrolled in the Medicare program and have unrestricted access to Medicare's covered services. While these benefits are appealing, beneficiary cost sharing is often high. Medicare Advantage addresses limitations of traditional Medicare by reducing cost sharing and setting maximum out-of-pocket cost caps, while also offering additional services (eg, vision, dental). Medicare Advantage plans can provide more generous benefits because they apply strong benefit design policies, including constraining their provider networks and imposing coverage restrictions (such as prior authorization). As enrollment in Medicare Advantage increases—now more than 50% of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in Medicare Advantage—researchers have sought to understand the strengths and weaknesses of traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage and their implications for patients. Elsewhere in JAMA Network Open , Kalidindi and colleagues 1 compared resource use and quality of care for Medicare Advantage vs traditional Medicare enrollees who were undergoing chemotherapy for cancer. They found lower resource use in Medicare Advantage that was primarily associated with savings on physician-administered chemotherapy due to using less expensive chemotherapy regimens and fewer chemotherapy administration visits. The very high and rising spending on oncology drugs relative to other drugs 2 may provide an opportunity to improve the value of care, particularly given the substantial variation in prices for different oncology drugs. Research has demonstrated that plan and patient spending for different guideline-concordant regimens of similar efficacy differs by orders of magnitude. 3 In recent years, spending on infused and oral anticancer drugs accounted for approximately two-thirds of all spending for patients undergoing chemotherapy. 4 If Medicare Advantage plans can prompt the use of lower-priced drugs, they may realize substantial savings. 5 Under fee-for-service compensation models, oncologists are reimbursed for physician-administered drugs based on a percentage of the drug's cost (6% of the average sales price for Medicare). To counteract this incentive to use higher-priced drugs, Medicare Advantage is equipped with utilization management tools. Medicare Advantage plans can—and do—require prescribers to submit prior authorization requests before the plan will approve treatment coverage. They also may implement step therapy and quantity limits. Plans' use of utilization management is increasing, in part due to limited alternatives to control the high prices of drugs and other services. Carefully considered prior authorization policies may be an important tool in improving cancer care value given the extraordinarily high cost of cancer drugs, the wide variation in costs of guideline-supported treatment, and the urgent problem of financial toxicity for cancer patients. Utilization management can reduce resource use, but at a cost. Prior authorization processes impose administrative burdens that may limit access to potentially important medications (not assessed in this study, which included patients already receiving chemotherapy), and it leads to delayed or discontinued care among patients already taking cancer drugs. 6 ,7 Moreover, clinician burnout is a worsening challenge, and physicians are distressed by the rising administrative burden of prior authorization. This dynamic is concerning for patient care in the longer term. Innovation in the design of Medicare coverage for all beneficiaries remains a policy priority. For example, alternative payment models, such as the Oncology Care Model (OCM), have incorporated incentives to use less expensive drugs. OCM practices saw swifter uptake of biosimilar therapies and higher-value use of supportive care drugs, 4 suggesting there may be tools to influence prescribing that are more clinician-friendly than prior authorization. The fewer chemotherapy administration visits for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries observed by Kalindi and colleagues 1 raise questions as to whether plans required less frequent dosing schedules or prioritized chemotherapy regimens with less frequent administration schedules; this is an important question for future study. Another important strategy used by Medicare Advantage plans to lower resource use is defined provider networks. Medicare Advantage plans may seek to steer patients to providers with less-resource intensive practice styles. Alternatively, such networks could result if providers find the utilization management practices of Medicare Advantage plans too onerous. Evidence from Medi -Abstract Truncated-

medicine, general & internal

DISTURBANCES OF THE VERBAL BODY IMAGE: A PARTICULAR SYNDROME OF SENSORY APHASIA

Physician justification for anti-cancer treatment decisions in the evolving oncology market.

Payer perceptions and use of value assessment tools in the United States

Trends in end-of- life (EOL) systemic oncologic treatment in contemporary clinical practice: Insights from real-world data.

Going off Pathway: Problem or Good Care?

Opportunity cost of oncology subspecialist opinion.

The state of professional wellbeing and satisfaction among US oncologists.

[Antibiotics as antineoplastic agents].

Optimizing the oncology ecosystem: Addressing barriers between community and academic oncologists.

Importance of Patient Health Insurance Coverage and Out-of-Pocket Costs for Genomic Testing in Oncologists' Treatment Decisions

Global adoption of remote technologies to enable patient-centric oncology clinical trials: Analysis by the Bloomberg New Economy International Cancer Coalition.

Prioritizing Measures That Matter Within a Person-Centered Oncology Learning Health System

Scoping Review: Anesthesiologist Involvement in Alternative Payment Models, Value Measurement, and Nonclinical Capabilities for Success in the United States of America

The physician payments Sunshine Act and medical oncology: a seven-year financial analysis

The use of patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer care: preliminary insights from a multinational scoping survey of oncology practitioners

An Organizational Perspective on Patenting and Open Innovation

Brief Report on Global Clinician Practices in the First-Line Management of Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Abstract 1301: Comparing VA and safety-net hospital patient-reported care metrics and provider recommendations to address social determinants of health and demographics

[The Solenopsis saevissima complex in South America (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)].

Using Oncology Treatment Pathway Data to Evaluate Serious Illness Communication, Care Utilization, and End-of-Life Care for Patients With Cancer

The Promise and Perils of Oncology Care in Medicare Advantage