Quantifying episode-based costs of care under the oncology care model: Analysis of Medicare beneficiaries in the UAB cancer community network.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (8_suppl) ◽  
pp. 19-19
Author(s):  
Courtney Williams ◽  
Andres Azuero ◽  
Maria Pisu ◽  
Karina I. Halilova ◽  
Warner King Huh ◽  
...  

19 Background: The Oncology Care Model (OCM) is a specialty care model developed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid (CMS) Innovation Center aimed at providing higher quality, more highly coordinated cancer care and reducing costs for patients undergoing chemotherapy. The OCM calculates costs of care in a novel way by anchoring costs within episodes of care, defined as six-month intervals triggered by initial anti-cancer treatment, as opposed to diagnosis date. The purpose of this study is to assess costs within the OCM episodes of care. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of Medicare administrative claims data for beneficiaries 65 and older with cancer who received anti-cancer drug treatment (chemotherapy, hormone therapy) between 2012-2015 at an institution in the UAB Cancer Community Network (CCN). Total and service-specific costs (Medicare reimbursement to providers) per patient-episode were summed from inpatient, outpatient, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, testing/pathology, evaluation and management (E/M), home health, skilled nursing facility (SNF), and hospice claims. Prescription drug costs were not included. Mean costs for the first three OCM episodes were calculated and compared to (1) diagnosis-based costs (six-month intervals starting at cancer diagnosis) and (2) service type. Results: Average total cost in the first three OCM episodes of care was $24,922 (n=13,902), $18,534 (n=6,618), and $16,548 (n=4,672). Compared to episode-based cost, average total diagnosis-based cost was higher in the first episode of care ($33,244, n=9,615), and lower in the second and third episodes ($17,143, n=9,110; $12,897, n=8,002). Episode-based outpatient, inpatient, and chemotherapy costs were the highest service-specific costs in all three episodes of care (1st: $8,374, $5,493, $2,445; 2nd: $6,188, $3,913, $3,158; 3rd: $5,909, $3,251, $3,399). Conclusions: Costly chemotherapy and inpatient and outpatient visits indicate an opportunity for targeted improvement resulting in higher value care. Knowledge of current costs of care will aid oncology practices in transition to the OCM and in usage of value-based services for better quality cancer care.

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. e375-e383 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabrielle B. Rocque ◽  
Courtney P. Williams ◽  
Kelly M. Kenzik ◽  
Bradford E. Jackson ◽  
Karina I. Halilova ◽  
...  

Purpose: The Oncology Care Model (OCM) is a highly controversial specialty care model developed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid aimed to provide higher-quality care at lower cost. Because oncologists will be increasingly held accountable for spending as well as quality within new value-based health care models like the OCM, they need to understand the drivers of total spending for their patients. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients ≥ 65 years of age with primary fee-for-service Medicare insurance who received antineoplastic therapy at 12 cancer centers in the Southeast from 2012 to 2014. Medicare administrative claims data were used to identify health care spending during the prechemotherapy period (from cancer diagnosis to antineoplastic therapy initiation) and during the OCM episodes of care triggered by antineoplastic treatment. Total health care spending per episode includes all types of services received by a patient, including nononcology services. Spending was further characterized by type of service. Results: Average total health care spending in the three OCM episodes of care was $33,838 (n = 3,427), $23,811 (n = 1,207), and $19,241 (n = 678). Antineoplastic drugs accounted for 27%, 32%, and 36% of total health care spending in the first, second, and third episodes. Ten drugs, used by 31% of patients, contributed 61% to drug spending ($18.8 million) in the first episode. Inpatient spending also substantially contributed to total costs, representing 17% to 20% ($30.5 million) of total health care spending. Conclusion: Health care spending was heavily driven by both antineoplastic drugs and hospital use. Oncologists’ ability to affect these types of spending will determine their success under alternative payment models.


2017 ◽  
Vol 101 (5) ◽  
pp. 569-571 ◽  
Author(s):  
LK Mortimer ◽  
LM Strawbridge ◽  
EW Lukens ◽  
A Bassano ◽  
PH Conway ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6632-6632
Author(s):  
Valerie P Csik ◽  
Jared Minetola ◽  
Andrew E. Chapman ◽  
Neal Flomenberg

6632 Background: The Oncology Care Model (OCM) is a 5-year demonstration project led by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to create a framework for the future of oncology care in the United States. More than half way through the project, our large, urban NCI-designated cancer center chose to focus on and invest in resources and personnel for patient navigation and the development of clinical pathways. Although navigation has shown to reduce emergency department (ED) visits by as much as 6% per quarter compared to non-navigated patients, sustaining it is a challenge because it is a nonbillable service. Clinical pathways are a tool to reduce care variation by addressing drug expenditures, and represent an opportunity to reduce outpatient costs by as much as 35% when patients are treated on pathway.3 Many OCM practices made similar investments and all are facing the question: How will the infrastructure and efforts developed during OCM be sustainable after the demonstration project ends? Methods: An analysis of average ED cost and utilization as well as drug expenditures was conducted using OCM feedback data (Q1-Q8). Total utilization of ED visits and ED admits were used to determine a projected annualized cost which was compared to a budgeted navigation team. Similarly, projected annualized drug expenditures were compared to the annual cost of the pathways tool. Results: We found that ED visits and ED admits would need to be reduced by 11% to cover navigation costs. Similarly, a 0.7% reduction in total drug expenditures would cover the cost of clinical pathways. The OCM data represents a timeframe prior to implementation of these programs and an average increase of 1.6% per quarter for ED admits, a 0.6% decrease in ED visits and 2.7% increase in drug expenditures. This will serve as a baseline to measure progress towards our sustainability targets. Conclusions: Long term sustainability of the infrastructure developed during OCM to support cancer care transformation will be dependent on reducing high cost and highly utilized services. Aligning impact areas with resources/tools to ensure sustainability is an approach that can help define targets for OCM practices.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (27_suppl) ◽  
pp. 113-113
Author(s):  
Jonathan Karl Kish ◽  
Ting-Chun Yeh ◽  
Ajeet Gajra ◽  
Yolaine Smith ◽  
Bruce A. Feinberg

113 Background: The Oncology Care Model (OCM) is a Medicare-sponsored delivery and payment innovation pilot under the broader concept of value-based care (VBC). OCM aims to provide better quality and coordinated cancer care at reduced cost. The OCM participants, 176 practices and 10 payers who provide care to nearly half of Medicare beneficiaries, entered into payment arrangements based on financial and performance accountability for episodes of care surrounding chemotherapy administration. We sought to understand the impact of OCM adoption on community physicians 3 years into the pilot. Methods: A live meeting in April 2019 convened a sample of US-based community oncologists to discuss “The OCM Experience”. Audience response survey methodology addressed: participation in OCM and/or related commercial programs, implementation, operation and perceptions of outcomes to patient care and practice. Results: Regarding VBC initiatives at the practices (n = 48) of 57 providers: 61% identified their practice participated in OCM, 31% in other commercial payer pathway program, and 17% in other commercial payer VBC reimbursement (not mutually exclusive). Regarding impact of OCM on improving access to care: 60% indicated having same-day appointments, 45% 24/7 HCP access, 22% weekend hours and 18% evening clinic hours. Regarding changes to patient care: 58% stated OCM driven initiatives reduced ER visits, 48% reduced hospitalizations, 62% increased palliative care referrals, and 54% increased hospice referrals. Regarding impact on practice: 41% felt an increased administrative burden with 50% hiring administrative staff, advanced practice providers, and patient navigators, but only 11% hiring physicians. The 13-component oncology care plan was reported by 53% as “not easy” to devise. The “most challenging” components included estimating total out of pocket expenses (61%) and creating a plan to address psychosocial needs (16%). 49% respondents found their practices’ OCM transformation meaningful and 46% found it not very/not at all meaningful. Conclusions: The impact of OCM/VBC transformation upon community oncologists and their practices appear to be quite profound, while the precise impact on their patients remains to be determined.


2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (11) ◽  
pp. e699-e710 ◽  
Author(s):  
James R. Baumgardner ◽  
Ahva Shahabi ◽  
Mark T. Linthicum ◽  
Christopher Zacker ◽  
Darius N. Lakdawalla

Purpose: Performance-based payments to oncology providers participating in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Oncology Care Model (OCM) are based, in part, on overall spending in 6-month episodes of care, including spending unrelated to oncology care. The amount of spending likely to occur outside of oncologists’ purview is unknown. Methods: Following the OCM definition of an episode, we used SEER-Medicare data from 2006 to 2013 to identify episodes of cancer care for the following diagnoses: breast cancer (BC), non–small-cell lung cancer, renal cell carcinoma, multiple myeloma (MM), and chronic myeloid leukemia. Claims were categorized by service type and, separately, whether the content fell within the purview of oncology providers (classified as oncology, with all other claims nononcology). We calculated the shares of episode spending attributable to oncology versus nononcology services. Results: The percentage of oncology spending within OCM episodes ranged from 62.4% in BC to 85.5% in MM. The largest source of oncology spending was antineoplastic drug therapy, ranging from 21.8% of total episode spending in BC to 67.6% in chronic myeloid leukemia. The largest source of nononcology spending was acute hospitalization and inpatient physician costs, ranging from 6.6% of overall spending for MM to 10.4% for non–small-cell lung cancer; inpatient oncology spending contributed roughly similar shares to overall spending. Conclusion: Most spending in OCM-defined episodes was attributable to services related to cancer care, especially antineoplastic drug therapy. Inability to control nononcology spending may present challenges for practices participating in the OCM, however.


2018 ◽  
Vol 199 (4S) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy Shelton ◽  
Richard David ◽  
Shirley Lee ◽  
Melanie Reed ◽  
Kambiz Dardashti ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. e238-e246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald D. Ennis ◽  
Anish B. Parikh ◽  
Mark Sanderson ◽  
Mark Liu ◽  
Luis Isola

PURPOSE: The Oncology Care Model (OCM) must be clinically relevant, accurate, and comprehensible to drive value-based care. METHODS: We studied OCM data detailing observed and expected expenses for 6-month-long episodes of care for patients with prostate cancer. We constructed seven disease state–treatment dyads into which we grouped each episode on the bases of diagnoses, procedures, and medications in OCM claims data. We used this clinical-administrative stratification model to facilitate a comparative cost analysis, and we evaluated emergency department and hospital utilization and drug therapy as potential drivers of cost. RESULTS: We examined 377 episodes of care, pertaining to 210 patients, that took place within our health system from January 2012 to June 2015. Ninety-six percent of episodes were assigned to clinically meaningful dyads. Excessive expenses were seen in metastatic, castration-resistant dyads containing second-line hormone therapy (ratio of observed to expected expenses [O/E], 2.66), chemotherapy (O/E, 2.09), and radium-223/sipuleucel-T (O/E, 3.01). An OCM update correcting for castration-resistant prostate cancer led to small differences in observed expenses (0% to +2%) but large changes in expected expenses (−17% to −27% for hormone-sensitive dyads and +136% to +141% for castration-resistant dyads). O/E increased up to 38% for hormone-sensitive dyads and decreased up to 58% for castration-resistant dyads. Emergency department and hospital utilization seems to drive cost for castration-resistant dyads but not for hormone-sensitive dyads. In the revised OCM model, overall O/E for all episodes improved by 22%, from 1.48 to 1.15. CONCLUSION: Our experience with OCM highlights the limitations of administrative claims data within this model and illustrates a method of translating these data into clinically meaningful information to improve value.


Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (12) ◽  
pp. 3636
Author(s):  
Silvia Vivarelli ◽  
Saverio Candido ◽  
Giuseppe Caruso ◽  
Luca Falzone ◽  
Massimo Libra

Malignancies heterogeneity represents a critical issue in cancer care, as it often causes therapy resistance and tumor relapse. Organoids are three-dimensional (3D) miniaturized representations of selected tissues within a dish. Lately, organoid technology has been applied to oncology with growing success and Patients Derived Tumor Organoids (PDTOs) constitute a novel available tool which fastens cancer research. PDTOs are in vitro models of cancer, and importantly, they can be used as a platform to validate the efficacy of anti-cancer drugs. For that reason, they are currently utilized in clinics as emerging in vitro screening technology to tailor the therapy around the patient, with the final goal of beating cancer resistance and recurrence. In this sense, PDTOs biobanking is widely used and PDTO-libraries are helping the discovery of novel anticancer molecules. Moreover, they represent a good model to screen and validate compounds employed for other pathologies as off-label drugs potentially repurposed for the treatment of tumors. This will open up novel avenues of care thus ameliorating the life expectancy of cancer patients. This review discusses the present advancements in organoids research applied to oncology, with special attention to PDTOs and their translational potential, especially for anti-cancer drug testing, including off-label molecules.


Author(s):  
Ron Kline ◽  
Kerin Adelson ◽  
Jeffrey J. Kirshner ◽  
Larissa M. Strawbridge ◽  
Marsha Devita ◽  
...  

Cancer care delivery in the United States is often fragmented and inefficient, imposing substantial burdens on patients. Costs of cancer care are rising more rapidly than other specialties, with substantial regional differences in quality and cost. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Innovation Center (CMMIS) recently launched the Oncology Care Model (OCM), which uses payment incentives and practice redesign requirements toward the goal of improving quality while controlling costs. As of March 2017, 190 practices were participating, with approximately 3,200 oncologists providing care for approximately 150,000 unique beneficiaries per year (approximately 20% of the Medicare Fee-for-Service population receiving chemotherapy for cancer). This article provides an overview of the program from the CMS perspective, as well as perspectives from two practices implementing OCM: an academic health system (Yale Cancer Center) and a community practice (Hematology Oncology Associates of Central New York). Requirements of OCM, as well as implementation successes, challenges, financial implications, impact on quality, and future visions, are provided from each perspective.


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (12) ◽  
pp. e1433-e1440
Author(s):  
Elizabeth F. Franklin ◽  
Helen M. Nichols ◽  
Linda Bohannon

PURPOSE: The Oncology Care Model (OCM) was developed to improve care while also supporting patient-centered practices. This model could significantly affect experiences of patients with cancer; however, previous studies have not explored patient perspectives. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study used focus group and survey methodology to explore patient experiences in the OCM. The sample included 213 patients (OCM patients, n = 130 recruited within OCM practices; non-OCM patients, n = 83 recruited via e-mail from the Cancer Support Community Cancer Experience Registry). RESULTS: Findings suggest that patients in OCM practices were more likely to report that their cancer care team asked about social/emotional distress or concerns and more likely to have social/emotional resources offered. OCM patients were also more likely to have discussed advance directives with providers. They were also more likely to be satisfied with provider explanations of treatment benefits as well as treatment risks and adverse effects. Lastly, OCM patients were significantly more satisfied with discussion of treatment costs and provided higher ratings of preparation by their cancer care team for management of adverse effects. CONCLUSION: Patients in this study reported experiences consistent with many of the key goals of the OCM. This is promising and may indicate the need to expand the model. However, because of the potential selection bias of our sampling method, more research is needed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document