scholarly journals Cost of Care at NCI-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers Vs. Other Treatment Sites for Young Adults with Newly-Diagnosed Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL)

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 3531-3531
Author(s):  
Julie A. Wolfson ◽  
Smita Bhatia ◽  
Jill Ginsberg ◽  
Laura Becker ◽  
David Bernstein ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Young adults (22-39y) with ALL treated at an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCC) have a superior survival when compared with those treated at a non-CCC site. (Wolfson et al, CEBP, 2017) Despite superior outcomes, specialized cancer centers (such as CCC) have been generally criticized for a higher cost of cancer care (Nardi et al, JNCCN, 2016). However, the magnitude of difference in cost of care for ALL patients by treatment site has not been explored. Here we examine cost of cancer care at CCC and non-CCC sites in YA with ALL. Methods: Using commercial insurance data (OptumLabs® Data Warehouse), we established a cohort of 309 patients with ALL diagnosed between 2001 and 2014, at age 22y to 39y. Patients were included if they had ≥30 days of continuous insurance enrollment after ALL diagnosis, were treated with chemotherapy, and were followed from diagnosis until 3y, disenrollment, or 3/31/2017, whichever came first. Patients undergoing hematopoietic cell transplant were not included in the current analyses. Primary outcomes included total monthly medical costs paid by: (1) health plan; (2) patient (out-of-pocket [OOP] costs). The primary predictor of interest was the classification of the facility where the patient received cancer-related treatment, as NCI-designated CCC vs. non-CCC. Multivariable models were adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, education, comorbidity, year of diagnosis and radiation therapy. Monthly costs were modeled using generalized linear models with log link (gamma distribution); bootstrapping obtained 95% confidence intervals (CI). To accommodate censoring, each one-month cost was weighted by the inverse probability of not being censored. Adjusting for covariates, average costs were estimated by CCC status at each monthly interval. Monthly costs were summed over the 36-month study period, and adjusted at the claim-line level to reflect 2016 pricing. Results: Patients were diagnosed at a median age of 32y (range 22-39); 53% of the cohort was male, 46% non-Hispanic white, 42% had some college education or higher, and 70% had an annual household income of ≥$50,000. Following diagnosis, patients were enrolled in the insurance plan for a median 753 days after ALL diagnosis (34 to 4,899 days). Half of the cohort (n=153, 49.5%) was not treated at a CCC. There was no difference between CCC and non-CCC patients with respect to age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, income, comorbidities, year of diagnosis, or length of follow-up. A greater proportion of patients received radiation at CCC vs. non-CCC (23% vs 13% p=0.02). Costs Paid byHealth Plan: The average unadjusted mean 3y costs paid by the health plan per person (HPP) were $540,822/patient for CCC patients vs. $210,075/patient for non-CCC patients (p<0.001). The average adjusted mean 3y HPP costs were almost 3 times higher for patients treated in CCC vs. non-CCC patients ($782,438/patient vs. $288,359/patient; p<0.001). HPP costs were highest for all patients within the first 12 months (CCC: $469,190/patient; non-CCC: $200,049/patient; p<0.001 [Fig 1]), consistent with the fact that ALL treatment regimens include a more intense first 12 months followed by a longer maintenance phase that relies mostly on oral chemotherapy. OOP CostsPaid by Patient: Unadjusted average 3y mean OOP costs per patient were $9,869 in CCC patients and $5,976 in non-CCC patients (p<0.001). The average adjusted mean OOP costs per patient were 1.7 times higher in CCC as compared to non-CCC patients ($14,190 vs. $8,457; p<0.001). OOP costs were also highest in the first 12 months (CCC: $5,483/patient; non-CCC: $3,575/patient [Fig 2]). Conclusions: Using a commercial insurance database, we find that for patients diagnosed with ALL between the ages of 22y and 39y, the costs paid by the health plan are 3 times higher for those receiving care at an NCI-designated CCC as compared to a non-CCC site. Along the same lines, out of pocket costs are 1.7 times higher for those receiving care at an NCI-designated CCC as compared to a non-CCC site. The difference in cost is highest during the first year of therapy. We are currently examining the details of what drives the higher cost of care at CCC. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Lyman: Generex Biotechnology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Other: Research support; Halozyme; G1 Therapeutics; Coherus Biosciences: Consultancy.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (30_suppl) ◽  
pp. 178-178
Author(s):  
Karma L. Kreizenbeck ◽  
Catherine R. Fedorenko ◽  
Erin E. Hughes ◽  
Joshua Shoemaker ◽  
Oscar Lucas ◽  
...  

178 Background: The ASCO Choosing Wisely campaign aims to reduce the use of interventions that lack evidence of benefit in cancer care. This project characterized adherence to the 2012 ASCO Choosing WiselyRecommendations by linking health plan claims data to a regional cancer registry in order to identify areas for research interventions to improve adherence. Methods: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) records for patients diagnosed with cancer in Western Washington state between 2007 and 2013 were linked with enrollment and claims from a large regional commercial insurance plan. Using claims and SEER records, algorithms were developed to characterize each Choosing Wisely measure. Results: For the 5 recommendations measured, adherence rates were as follows: (see Table). Conclusions: Using algorithms involving insurance claims and cancer registry records, we found variable adherence to the 2012 ASCO Choosing Wisely recommendations. While 100% adherence is not expected due to limitations of claims data, such records may be useful to identify areas for intervention and estimating potential savings from improved adherence. [Table: see text]


Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 12-13
Author(s):  
Steven J Gibson ◽  
Jennifer A Thornton ◽  
Christin B DeStefano

Background Multiple myeloma (MM) is a disease of the elderly, with less than 3% of cases diagnosed in adolescents and young adults (AYA). Data on demographics, use of autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), second primary malignancies (SPMs) and survival are scant to non-existent in the AYA MM population. To our knowledge, this study is the first to better understand characteristics and survival trends of this unique population. Methods The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-18 and Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) datasets were utilized. Inclusion criteria were patients younger than 40 years old diagnosed with MM (ICD-O code 9732/3) between 2000-2017 (SEER) and 2008-2018 (CIBMTR). Variables assessed included age (&lt;30 vs. 30-39), gender, income (&lt;65K vs. ≥65K), race/ethnicity, place of residence (metropolitan vs. non-metropolitan), and year diagnosed (2000-2005 vs. 2006-2011 vs. 2012-2017). Incident SPMs were characterized as standardized incidence ratios (SIR). Analyses were conducted with STATA and data were censored at time of death or loss to follow up. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated for myeloma-specific survival (MSS). Individual variables were compared via log rank tests and Cox proportional hazard regression models. Model fit was assessed with Akaike's information criterion and Snell residuals. Assumptions of the Cox proportional hazards model were evaluated with log-time. Results There were 1,087 and 1,142 patients meeting criteria in SEER and CIBMTR, respectively. Median MSS was 181 months (15 years). The most common causes of death were MM (76%), SPMs (5.5%), and infection (3.6%). Statistically significant incident SPMs were lung cancers (SIR 4.94, p&lt;0.05), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) (SIR 5.28, p&lt;0.05), and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) (SIR 14.62, p&lt;0.05). Year of diagnosis strongly influenced survival. Compared to those diagnosed in 2000-2005, there was a 36% reduction in the risk of death among those diagnosed 2006-2011 (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.49-0.82, p=0.001), and a 61% reduction among those diagnosed 2012-2017 (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.26-0.58, p&lt;0.001). Race/ethnicity, gender, and age did not impact MSS. Among the AYA MM patients who received ASCT, notably 26% had a hematopoietic cell transplant comorbidity index (HCT-CI) of ≥ 3, nearly all received melphalan conditioning, and 80% received ASCT within the first year of diagnosis. One and four-year post-ASCT survival were 96% and 81%, respectively. Discussion To our knowledge, this is the first study assessing MM trends in the AYA population. Despite AYAs being underrepresented in MM clinical trials, the dramatic improvement in survival over time reflects efficacy of new drug approvals in this young population. It is also interesting that racial and socioeconomic disparities which are pervasive in the older adult MM population were not demonstrated in AYAs. AYA patients died from SPMs at rates similar to the adult MM population (3-6%), and notable incident SPMs in the AYA population were lung cancer, NHL, and AML. Also noteworthy was the high number of AYA MM patients who underwent up-front ASCT, which was nearly the same number of patients from the SEER dataset over half the amount of time. Since AYA MM patients have been underrepresented in trials utilizing ASCT, a survival benefit of ASCT in this population has not been demonstrated in the era of novel therapies. Further, given possible underlying genetic predisposition in AYA MM patients, long-term post-ASCT follow up is needed to better understand long-term toxicities including risk of hematological SPMs. Disclosures The findings and opinions contained herein are those of the authors and do not represent the views/opinions of the United States Air Force, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, David Grant Medical Center, Department of Defense, or the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR). Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 1323-1323 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renata Abrahão ◽  
Ruth H Keogh ◽  
Daphne Y Lichtensztajn ◽  
Rafael Marcos-Gragera ◽  
Bruno C. Medeiros ◽  
...  

Abstract Background A better understanding of factors associated with early death and survival may guide future health policy aimed at improving outcomes among children, adolescents and young adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Methods We examined trends in early death and survival among 3,935 patients aged 0-39 years diagnosed with de novo AML in California during 1988-2011. We estimated overall survival and applied logistic and Cox regression to evaluate the association between sociodemographic and selected clinical factors with early death and survival. Results There was a trend towards decline in early death from 9.7% in 1988-1995 to 7.1% in 2004-2011 (P=0.062). Survival improved substantially over time, but 5-year survival was still only 50% (95% CI 47%-53%) even in the most recent calendar period. Overall, the main factors associated with poor outcomes were older age at diagnosis, treatment at hospitals not affiliated with National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers, and black race/ethnicity. For patients diagnosed during 1996-2011, survival was lower for patients without health insurance and those who did not receive a hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). The association between survival and sociodemographic and clinical factors were stronger among patients aged 30-39 years. Conclusions Mortality after AML remained strikingly high and increased with age. To improve outcomes, strategies may include wider insurance coverage, treatment at hospitals affiliated with NCI-designated cancer centers and access to HSCT for high-risk patients. Collaborative clinical trials aimed to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of novel agents for each subtype of disease are warranted. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


Author(s):  
Elisa K. Tong ◽  
Terri Wolf ◽  
David T. Cooke ◽  
Nathan Fairman ◽  
Moon S. Chen

Tobacco treatment is increasingly recognized as important to cancer care, but few cancer centers have implemented sustainable tobacco treatment programs. The University of California Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center (UCD CCC) was funded to integrate tobacco treatment into cancer care. Lessons learned from the UCD CCC are illustrated across a systems framework with the Cancer Care Continuum and by applying constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Findings demonstrate different motivational drivers for the cancer center and the broader health system. Implementation readiness across the domains of the Cancer Care Continuum with clinical entities was more mature in the Prevention domain, but Screening, Diagnosis, Treatment, and Survivorship domains demonstrated less implementation readiness despite leadership engagement. Over a two-year implementation process, the UCD CCC focused on enhancing information and knowledge sharing within the treatment domain with the support of the cancer committee infrastructure, while identifying available resources and adapting workflows for various cancer care service lines. The UCD CCC findings, while it may not be generalizable to all cancer centers, demonstrate the application of conceptual frameworks to accelerate implementation for a sustainable tobacco treatment program. Key common elements that may be shared across oncology settings include a state quitline for an adaptable intervention, cancer committees for outer/inner setting infrastructure, tobacco quality metrics for data reporting, and non-physician staff for integrated services.


2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement 2) ◽  
pp. 244s-244s
Author(s):  
N. Abdelmutti ◽  
A. Chudak ◽  
M. Merali ◽  
T. Sullivan ◽  
M. Escaf ◽  
...  

Background and context: Comprehensive cancer centers or programs form a nucleus of cancer care delivery. Although there are frameworks for population cancer control, no similar published framework exists for cancer centers. Aim: We sought to develop a framework for designing and implementing a comprehensive cancer center or program within the context of a population-based model of cancer control that spans diagnosis, treatment, supportive care, and palliative care as well as integration with primary care and the community. Strategy/Tactics: The framework was constructed with the patient at the center and provides a system-level perspective as well as a granular view of the fundamental resources and structures needed to build and maintain individual cancer centers and programs. Due to its breadth, we focused the framework on essential information while linking to a wide range of vetted publications that detail additional standards, guidelines and best practices. Program/Policy process: “Cancerpedia” emerged as a cohesive framework for the delivery of high-quality cancer care within and beyond the cancer center. It provides an overview of the cancer control and care delivery framework, describes cancer care services (e.g., radiotherapy, chemotherapy, palliative care) and details infrastructure and core services (e.g., physical facilities, human resources). In addition to these services, the framework presents guidelines for governance that ensure oversight and quality, describes the critical need for integrating education and research and presents the best practices for engaging in philanthropy. Cancerpedia also outlines the role of the comprehensive cancer center in integration with the community and influencing policy and regulation. Over 30 chapters provide a detailed description of each element and include a description of the service or function, resources requirements such as people, equipment and facilities, management structures, quality performance guidelines and future trends in innovation. Outcomes: To our knowledge, no comparable published framework exists as a reference for developing comprehensive cancer centers. Cancerpedia was designed to serve as a global public good and is adaptable and applicable to diverse contexts and healthcare environments. It is relevant to high-, middle- and low-income countries alike and provides a reference point from which to structure a plan for growth. What was learned: While it is important to describe the various elements required for cancer care delivery, it is critical to consider and address the integration and interdependencies of these various elements. Future opportunities for learning include seeking input from a global audience to gauge the utility and applicability of Cancerperdia to local contexts.


Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 324-324
Author(s):  
Theresa H.M. Keegan ◽  
Elysia Alvarez ◽  
Qian Li ◽  
Ann M Brunson ◽  
Ted Wun ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction: We previously demonstrated that receiving all cancer treatment at specialized cancer centers (SCCs; versus community hospitals) through end of therapy is associated with better leukemia-specific survival in children (0-18 years) and young adults (YA; 19-39 years) diagnosed with ALL in California. While both age groups benefit from care at a SCC, we found only a minority of YAs (36%), compared with children (84%), received care at a SCC. Our prior findings highlight the need for these patients to be referred to and treated at SCCs, but there are potential cost differences associated with this recommendation that have not been previously examined. Methods: Using the California Cancer Registry linked to the Office of Statewide Health and Planning and Development (OSHPD) statewide hospitalization database, we identified children and YAs (19-39 years) with first primary ALL who received inpatient treatment from 1995-2014 and had at least 3 years of follow-up. Patients were classified as receiving all or part/none of their treatment at a SCC (Children's Oncology Group or National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers for children and National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers for YAs) within 3 years of diagnosis to capture the full time of potential primary treatment. Total charges for each admission and hospital level financial information were used to calculate costs (adjusted for inflation to 2016 US dollars) for each admission, excluding peri-partum admissions and those associated with traumatic accidents. One large health maintenance organization system in California did not report charges to OSHPD and was excluded from the analysis (13% of the patient population). In addition, patients needed to have at least 80% of charge data to be included in the primary analysis, resulting in a study population of 5,167 ALL patients. We determined the number of inpatient days and cumulative inpatient costs within 3 years of diagnosis. Mean and median costs overall and per day by age group and location of care were compared using t-tests and Kruskal Wallace tests. We conducted sensitivity analyses 1) limiting our analyses to only patients with all charge data available (n=5,118) and 2) excluding patients with stem cell transplant (n=693) to determine the impact of these factors on study findings. Results: The mean cost for children receiving all care at SCCs vs non-SCCs was $216,439 (median=$121,039) vs $191,082 (median=$84,529) (p mean = 0.008; p median = <0.001). The cost per day was higher at SCCs (mean=$2,840; median=$2,529) than non-SCCs (mean=$2,283; median=$1,865) (p mean < 0.001; p median < 0.001). In children, the mean number of inpatient days within 3 years of diagnosis was similar for those who did (n=70 days) and did not (72 days) receive all cancer care in SCCs (p=0.70). Among YAs, the mean cost for patients receiving all treatment at SCCs was $380,556 (median=$308,864) vs $346,706 (median=$241,847) at non-SCCs (p mean=0.02; p median < 0.001). The cost per day was higher at SCCs (mean=$3,730; median=$3,537) than non-SCCs (mean=$3,224; median=$2,917) (p mean < 0.001; p median < 0.001). YAs receiving all cancer care at SCCs (99 days) had a similar mean number of inpatient days to those receiving care at non-SCCs (101 days) (p=0.97). In the sensitivity analyses excluding patients receiving a transplant, the mean cost was lower at both SCCs and non-SCCs, but the differences in costs in children and YAs by location of care remained. In addition, results were similar when analyses were limited to patients with complete charge data. Conclusion: In this large, population-based cohort of pediatric and YA patients with ALL, we found that inpatient costs and number of inpatient days were higher among YAs than children with ALL. In addition, in each age group, the costs of inpatient care during the full course of therapy for primary ALL was higher in patients receiving all of their care at SCCs compared patients receiving part or none of their care at an SCC. As inpatient costs do not reflect the total burden associated with cancer care, future studies should consider how location of care impacts outpatient, emergency department and out-of-pocket costs. Given findings of better outcomes among children and YAs receiving all care at SCCs, we believe the marginal increased cost should be considered in view of the better outcomes at SCCs. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1582-1582
Author(s):  
Patricia Jewett ◽  
Rachel I. Vogel ◽  
Rahel G. Ghebre ◽  
Arpit Rao ◽  
Jane Yuet Ching Hui ◽  
...  

1582 Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, most cancer care in the United States transitioned to telehealth (phone or video visits) to reduce infection risks for patients and providers. Telehealth may simplify care logistics (e.g. reduce travel and waiting times), but it may also unintentionally exacerbate existing disparities in healthcare utilization by race/ethnicity, age, or rural/urban status. As telehealth will likely continue long-term, we examined telehealth use at a comprehensive cancer center during the COVID-19 pandemic across patient populations with established disparities in cancer treatment and outcomes. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed telehealth visits from March until December 2020 among individuals diagnosed with cancer at the University of Minnesota Masonic Cancer Center (MCC). We used Chi-squared tests and GEE logistic regression to compare video vs. phone visits by age, urban/rural status, and race/ethnicity (American Indian / American Native [AIAN], Asian, Non-Hispanic Black/African American [NH Black/AA], Hispanic, Multiple, Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander [NHPI], NH White). Results: Over the study period, 42,171 telehealth visits were performed with 11,097 patients at the MCC. Patients had a mean age of 62.7±13.9 years; 59.2% were female; 88.7% lived in urban areas; 90.0% of patients were NH White, 4.4% NH Black/AA, 3.0% Asian, 1.5% Hispanic, 0.8% AIAN, 0.3% of multiple races, and 0.1% NHPI. The most common cancer sites were breast (24.1%), hematological (21.0%), gynecologic (10.0%), and lung (8.4%). NH White individuals were more likely (53.9%) to use video than AIAN (39.7%), Black/AA (37.8%), or NHPI individuals (34.9%). Video use was less common among rural (45.3%) than urban (53.7%; p<.0001) residents, and among individuals aged 65 or older (45.2%) vs. younger than 65 (59.5%; p<.0001). In a logistic regression, adjusted for continuous age and urban/rural status, all race/ethnic groups except Multiple were less likely to use video than NH White individuals (vs. phone; Table). Conclusions: Our findings underscore disparities in telehealth use for cancer care across historically underserved populations. Future research should evaluate potential underlying contributors to these disparities such as technology access, internet capability, and fear of discrimination. Additional research is also needed to determine whether video vs. phone visits affect cancer outcomes, therefore indicating true disparity.[Table: see text]


2021 ◽  
pp. 216769682110004
Author(s):  
Ayanda Chakawa ◽  
Steven K. Shapiro

While 75% mental health problems emerge by young adulthood, there is a strong reluctance during this developmental stage to seek professional help. Although limitations in mental health literacy, such as incorrect problem recognition, may hinder professional help-seeking intentions, the relationship between these variables has been understudied among young adults in the United States (U.S.) and racial/ethnic differences in help-seeking intentions for specific disorders have not been well explored. Using a vignette-based design, the current study examines the association between psychological disorder recognition and professional help-seeking intentions among 1,585 Black/African American and White/European American young adults. Correctly identifying a psychological disorder was significantly associated with intentions to seek professional help for several disorders and race/ethnicity significantly influenced intentions to seek professional help for some disorders. Implications for ways to address unmet mental health care needs, especially among racially/ethnically diverse young adults, and directions for future research are discussed.


Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 2675
Author(s):  
Pandora Patterson ◽  
Kimberley R. Allison ◽  
Helen Bibby ◽  
Kate Thompson ◽  
Jeremy Lewin ◽  
...  

Adolescents and young adults (aged 15–25 years) diagnosed with cancer have unique medical and psychosocial experiences and care needs, distinct from those of paediatric and older adult patients. Since 2011, the Australian Youth Cancer Services have provided developmentally appropriate, multidisciplinary and comprehensive care to these young patients, facilitated by national service coordination and activity data collection and monitoring. This paper reports on how the Youth Cancer Services have conceptualised and delivered quality youth cancer care in four priority areas: clinical trial participation, oncofertility, psychosocial care and survivorship. National activity data collected by the Youth Cancer Services between 2016–17 and 2019–20 are used to illustrate how service monitoring processes have facilitated improvements in coordination and accountability across multiple indicators of quality youth cancer care, including clinical trial participation, access to fertility information and preservation, psychosocial screening and care and the transition from active treatment to survivorship. Accounts of both service delivery and monitoring and evaluation processes within the Australian Youth Cancer Services provide an exemplar of how coordinated initiatives may be employed to deliver, monitor and improve quality cancer care for adolescents and young adults.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document