Factors associated with target price status within the oncology care model population.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 72-72
Author(s):  
Matthew Molaei ◽  
Karen Walsh ◽  
Scott W. Keith ◽  
Valerie Pracilio Csik ◽  
Amy Leader ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Drug Use ◽  
Radiation Treatment ◽  
Cost Of Care ◽  
Medicare Part ◽  
Cancer Type ◽  
Cancer Stage ◽  
Care Model ◽  
Target Price ◽  
Medicare Part B ◽  
Oncology Care

72 Background: The Oncology Care Model (OCM) is an alternative payment model put forth by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which aims to improve quality of care for cancer beneficiaries, while reducing cost. One of the strategies implemented by CMS to achieve this goal was the development of an episode target price (TP), which uses historical data and episode specific adjusters to calculate a total cost of care goal for each episode. The goal of this analysis was to better understand how CMS risk adjustments could account for episode characteristics, as well as how these characteristics affect likelihood of meeting target price. Methods: OCM performance claims data were abstracted retrospectively from performance periods (PP) 1-6 (episodes initiated from 7/1/2016 – 12/31/2019), in which each episode captured 6 months of care. EHR data was linked to identify cancer staging for OCM Beneficiaries. Any OCM beneficiary with at least one episode in PP 1-6 was included. To assess odds of meeting TP, a logistic regression model with a generalized estimating equation was used to account for patients who contributed multiple episodes. Specific factors evaluated for their association with meeting TP included patient’s age and sex, cancer stage, cancer type, cancer related surgery, clinical trial participation, hospice status, inpatient admissions, observational stays, Medicare part B drug use and radiation therapy. Results: 4,612 episodes were included in analysis, which translated to 2,459 patients, who had an average age of 72 years old and were majority female (50.5%). 2,790 (60.5%) of the episodes met the TP set by OCM. When controlling for covariates, radiation treatment (OR = 1.75, 95%CI: 1.39-2.23), stage 2 compared to stage 4 cancers (OR = 1.86, 95%CI: 1.23-2.80), colorectal cancers (OR = 1.75, 95%CI: 1.11-2.77) and melanomas (OR = 4.35, 95%CI: 2.18-8.67) were significantly associated with increased odds of meeting TP. Novel therapies (OR = 0.19, 95%CI: 0.14-0.26), inpatient admissions (OR = 0.27, 95%CI: 0.22-0.33), observational stays (OR = 0.66, 95%CI: 0.51-0.87) and part B drug use (OR = 0.75, 95%CI: 0.60-0.93) were associated with significantly reduced odds of meeting TP. Conclusions: Our analysis suggests that radiation treatment, as well as selected cancer stage and types may contribute to increased likelihood of meeting TP, which may point to potential areas of cost savings. Conversely, specific resource utilizations such as novel therapy use, inpatient admissions, observational stays, and Medicare part B drug use may decrease the odds of meeting TP, despite being adjusted for in the OCM model. While CMS has recognized that late stage cancers require a more sensitive TP with the metastatic adjustment, other adjustments should also be considered to adequately account for episode characteristics. External validation at other OCM-participating practices is needed to corroborate these results.

Breast Cancer Stage Is Associated With Exceeding Target Price in the Oncology Care Model

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan B. Thomas ◽  
Vittorio Maio ◽  
Anna Chen ◽  
Seojin Park ◽  
Dexter Waters ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Cost Of Care ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Cancer Stage ◽  
Care Model ◽  
Target Price ◽  
Old Patients ◽  
Oncology Care

PURPOSE: To explore mean difference between Oncology Care Model (OCM) total costs and target price among breast cancer episodes by stage under the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services OCM payment methodology. METHODS: Breast cancer episodes from OCM performance period 1-4 reconciliation reports (July 1, 2016-July 1, 2018) were linked with health record data from a large, academic medical center. Demographics, total cost of care (TCOC), and target price were measured by stage. Adjusted differences between TCOC and target price were compared across cancer stage using multivariable linear regression. RESULTS: A total of 539 episodes were evaluated from 252 unique patients with breast cancer, of which 235 (44%) were stage I, 124 (23%) stage II, 33 (6%) stage III, and 147 (27%) stage IV. About 37% of episodes exceeded target price. Mean differences from target price were –$1,782, $2,246, –$6,032, and $11,379 all in US dollars (USD) for stages I through IV, respectively. Stage IV episodes had highest mean TCOC ($44,210 USD) and mean target price ($32,831 USD) but also had higher rates of chemotherapy, inpatient admission, and novel therapy use. After adjusting for covariates, stage IV and ≥ 65-year-old patients had the highest mean difference from target price ($17,175 USD; 95% CI, $12,452 to $21,898 USD). CONCLUSION: Breast cancer episodes in older women with distant metastases most frequently exceeded target price, suggesting that target price did not adequately account for complexity of metastatic cancers. A metastatic adjustment introduced in PP7 represents a promising advancement in the target price methodology and an impact evaluation will be needed.

scholarly journals Influence of Pomalidomide and Lenalidomide on Total Cost of Care for Medicare Beneficiaries with Multiple Myeloma Under the Oncology Care Model (OCM)

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2252-2252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haley Hines Theroux ◽  
Luis M Isola ◽  
Mark Liu ◽  
Alaysia Williams
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Bone Marrow ◽  
Cost Of Care ◽  
Cancer Type ◽  
Novel Therapies ◽  
Care Model ◽  
Target Price ◽  
Total Cost ◽  
Oncology Care ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background: In July of 2016, CMMI started a five year bundled payment program called OCM. Beneficiaries are attributed to practices providing their cancer care for a 6 month episode triggered by the administration or distribution of specified cancer drugs. The model provides risk adjustments to the target price based on risk factors such as age, chemotherapy and the receipt of certain treatments (radiation or bone marrow transplant). Target prices are adjusted by geographic region, novel therapy use, and a trend factor. Multiple Myeloma was identified in our practice as a cancer type with high variance on expenditures after the first Performance Period within the model (July 2016-December 2016). Chemotherapy represented 52% of total episode expenditures with oral chemotherapy and hormone therapy representing 24%. The average cost of lenalidomide for one year is $115,000. The model adjusts for novel therapies, including new drugs approved by the FDA after December 31, 2014 with status lasting two years. However, literature demonstrates that this does not fully adjust for the high costs of novel therapies (Muldoon et at., Health Affairs, 2018). Unlike solid tumors, Multiple Myeloma staging may not improve risk adjustment and target price. Methods: We analyzed the total cost of care of beneficiaries who triggered an OCM episode for Performance Period 1 (PP1). Beneficiaries were identified by diagnosis of Multiple Myeloma, and then segregated into cohorts of those who received lenalidomide and/or pomalidomide and those who did not. Observed vs. Expected (O/E) target price for each episode was determined for both cohorts comparing the actual episode expenditures and the target price per episode calculated by the Oncology Care Model. A two sample t-test was conducted followed by a linear regression to determine relation between drug days prescribed and O/E. Results: There were 125 attributed beneficiaries with a Multiple Myeloma diagnosis who triggered an episode during PP1. The average O/E of the cohort which received the chemotherapy, Cohort A, was 1.624 compared to 0.986 for those that did not, Cohort B. The difference in average O/E in the two cohorts was 39% higher in Cohort A, p<0.001. There were no significant differences in the amount of inpatient claims, ED visits, or Bone Marrow Transplants between the two cohorts (Table 1). Figure 1 demonstrates the positive linear relationship (p<0.01, r=.40) between number of days supplied and O/E. Discussion: This is the first report on the impact of lenalidomide and pomalidomide on the total cost of care in an OCM practice. The results demonstrate the lack of adequate adjustment to the CMS target price for episodes in which one or both of these drugs were prescribed. Lenalidomide and pomalidomide are first and second line drugs used both for induction and maintenance. Both drugs are frequently used for prolonged periods of time in patients and trigger more than one episode in OCM. Therefore, the use of these agents greatly affects the total cost of care against a target price that is not adequately adjusted. Academic Medical Centers that care for larger populations of multiple myeloma patients may be disproportionately affected and this will impede their success under the OCM methodology. Additional analysis similar to this will inform CMMI as to further refinements to the OCM adjusters. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Development of a complex patient identification process for the CMS’ Oncology Care Model.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (8_suppl) ◽  
pp. 32-32
Author(s):  
Naralys Sinanis ◽  
Osama Abdelghany ◽  
Michael Strait ◽  
Catherine A. Lyons ◽  
Kerin B. Adelson
Keyword(s):  
Medicare Part D ◽  
Medicare Part ◽  
Care Model ◽  
Patient Identification ◽  
Oral Drugs ◽  
Candidate List ◽  
Part D ◽  
Identification Process ◽  
Medicare Part B ◽  
Oncology Care

32 Background: The CMS’ Oncology Care Model (OCM) provides practices with enhanced monthly payments for beneficiaries with cancer receiving chemotherapy. While the program will distribute a retrospective beneficiary list, practices need to track and identify eligible patients upfront to initiate care management and financial counseling processes and to bill for the enhanced payment. The eligibility criteria require information that many practices do not have. We describe a stepwise approach to patient identification that can be used by other OCM practices. Methods: We ran a report that identified patients with Medicare who received an OCM-eligible drug. We classified drugs into four categories: IV chemo confirmed by our own billing, oral specialty tracked and/or filled by our specialty pharmacy, general prescriptions filled at offsite pharmacies, and oral drugs billed under Medicare Part B. Because patients on general oral drugs receive 11 refills when first prescribed, we could not rely on a new prescription to trigger enrollment; we created a candidate list of patients who received oral prescriptions in the last year. Our pharmacists manually checked QS1, to verify Medicare Part D status and Surescripts to confirm that patients filled their prescription. Results: The build took time to validate due to disparate data and incomplete insurance information. 1039 IV chemo, 249 oral chemo, 196 oral Medicare Part B, were definitively eligible. 2991 with general prescriptions made the oral candidate list, which required additional verification of last visit date, Medicare Part D status, and prescription fill date. Approximately 70% of our patients have Medicare Part D and over 90% filled their prescription. We billed IV for July and August and are awaiting final confirmation of drug fill before billing the patients from the oral categories. Conclusions: The patient identification process was more complex than expected. Implementation required a multi-disciplinary effort with extensive collaboration across several departments as well as a time-intensive manual insurance and drug fill-verification process. Opportunities exist to automate Medicare Part D verification using our real-time eligibility software.

scholarly journals Multiple Myeloma Cost of Care Under the Oncology Care Model: The Influence of High-Cost Therapies

2020 ◽  
pp. JOP.19.00569 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haley Theroux ◽  
Alaysia Williams ◽  
Mark Liu ◽  
Alyssa Dahl ◽  
Theresa Dreyer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Cost Of Care ◽  
Care Model ◽  
Target Price ◽  
Chemotherapy Agent ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Episodes Of Care ◽  
Oncology Care ◽  
The Impact

PURPOSE: As expenditures for cancer care continue to grow substantially, value-based payment models are being tested to control costs. The Oncology Care Model (OCM) is the largest value-based payment program in oncology. The primary objective of this analysis was to determine the impact of high-cost novel agents on total cost of care for multiple myeloma (MM) episodes of care in the OCM. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis using Medicare claims data for 258 MM OCM episodes initiated between July 1, 2016, and July 1, 2017. Patients were organized into 3 cohorts: those who received pomalidomide (cohort A), those who received lenalidomide (cohort B), and those who did not receive either drug but had received another chemotherapy agent (cohort C). We compared the actual episode expenditures and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid target price to create an observed versus expected (O/E) ratio. RESULTS: The average O/E for cohort A (n = 73) was 1.73, compared with 1.31 for cohort B (n = 84) and 1.01 for cohort C (n = 101). The difference the in O/E ratio among the groups was statistically significant ( P < .001). The average episode target price for cohorts A, B, and C was $66,149, $63,483, and $63,937, respectively. Despite the high cost of pomalidomide and lenalidomide, there was no significant difference in the average episode target prices of the cohorts. CONCLUSION: The O/E ratio and target prices of the cohorts demonstrate a lack of adequate adjustment to the OCM target price for episodes in which pomalidomide and lenalidomide were used to treat patients with MM.

The Oncology Care Model: A Critique

2016 ◽  
pp. e109-e114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian A. Thomas ◽  
Jeffrey C. Ward
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Expenditures ◽  
Critical Discussion ◽  
Cost Of Care ◽  
Fee For Service ◽  
Care Model ◽  
Patient Admissions ◽  
Pilot Model ◽  
Oncology Care ◽  
The Cost

Rapidly increasing national health care expenditures are a major area of concern as threats to the integrity of the health care system. Significant increases in the cost of care for patients with cancer are driven by numerous factors, most importantly the cost of hospital care and escalating pharmaceutical costs. The current fee-for-service system (FFS) has been identified as a potential driver of the increasing cost of care, and multiple stakeholders are interested in replacing FFS with a system that improves the quality of care while at the same time reducing cost. Several models have been piloted, including a Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation (CMMI)–sponsored medical home model (COME HOME) for patients with solid tumors that was able to generate savings by integrating a phone triage system, pathways, and seamless patient care 7 days a week to reduce overall cost of care, mostly by decreasing patient admissions to hospitals and referrals to emergency departments. CMMI is now launching a new pilot model, the Oncology Care Model (OCM), which differs from COME HOME in several important ways. It does not abolish FFS but provides an additional payment in 6-month increments for each patient on active cancer treatment. It also allows practices to participate in savings if they can decrease the overall cost of care, to include all chemotherapy and supportive care drugs, and fulfill certain quality metrics. A critical discussion of the proposed model, which is scheduled to start in 2016, will be provided at the 2016 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting with practicing oncologists and a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) representative.

The Oncology Care Model and lung cancer: Retrospective review of claims and clinical data at a large academic medical center.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 62-62
Author(s):  
Chetan Vakkalagadda ◽  
Bijal Desai ◽  
Nisha Anjali Mohindra ◽  
Sheetal Mehta Kircher
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Systemic Therapy ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Drug Costs ◽  
Care Model ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Target Price ◽  
Total Cost ◽  
Oncology Care

62 Background: The Oncology Care Model (OCM) is a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) alternative payment model designed to enhance value in cancer care. Based on a practice’s historical performance, the model predicts a target price for a 6-month episode of care and adjusts for factors such as age, modality received, geographic location, trend factor, and receipt of a novel therapy. Practices are incentivized to reduce costs of care, allowing for a performance based payment if the total cost of care is below the predicted OCM target price. At our OCM practice, when compared to other malignancy types, lung cancer has disproportionately failed to meet the OCM target. The purpose of our review was to explore the contribution of systemic therapy to total cost within the OCM model for lung cancer episodes. Methods: We reviewed claims and clinical data for the OCM Performance Period 6 (PP6), which corresponds to episodes beginning between 1/2/19-7/1/19 and ending between 7/2/19-12/31/19, for all OCM lung cancer episodes at Northwestern Medical Group. Results: 142 patients were identified with non-small cell (n = 128, 91%) and small cell lung cancer (n = 14, 9%). Patients received a PD1 inhibitor either alone or in combination with chemotherapy (n = 87), tyrosine kinase inhibitors (n = 18), both a PD1 inhibitor and a TKI (n = 2), or chemotherapy alone (n = 35). All systemic therapy use was deemed guideline compliant. 46 patients (33%) had at least 1 cancer-related hospital admission during the episode. 19 patients (13.4%) died during the OCM performance period. 39/142 (27.5%) of patients’ episode costs achieved the OCM target. Among the 103 patients whose total costs exceeded the target, drug costs alone exceeded the target in 67 (65%). Drug costs alone exceeded the total target in 59% (n = 63/107) of those who received PD1 inhibitor or TKI therapy and 11.4% (4/35) of those who received chemotherapy alone. 94% (n = 63/67) of patients for whom drug costs alone exceeded the OCM target received anti-PD1 therapy or a TKI. Conclusions: Drug cost alone exceeded the total target in the majority of OCM lung cancer episodes that did not achieve savings, highlighting the dominant role drugs play in the OCM model. With targeted therapy and immunotherapy already the standard of care in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer, and gaining a foothold in earlier stages of disease, accounting for these therapies in the OCM target price methodology will be critical for oncology practices to be successful within such value-based payment models.

Transitioning adriamycin ifosfamide mesna (AIM) chemotherapy in sarcoma patients to the outpatient setting: Evaluation of outpatient chemotherapy in an oncology care model setting.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19149-e19149
Author(s):  
Cindy Banh ◽  
Kendall Valsvik ◽  
Alejandra Arredondo ◽  
Kassie Notbohm ◽  
Abhijeet Kumar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Outpatient Setting ◽  
Cost Of Care ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Total Hospital Cost ◽  
Care Model ◽  
Caregiver Support ◽  
Oncology Care ◽  
Bed Days

e19149 Background: The combination of doxorubicin, ifosfamide and mesna (AIM) significantly improves outcomes among patients with advanced soft tissue sarcomas. The rising cost of inpatient care, alternative payment model changes and patient preferences has prompted institutions to consider shifting therapy to the outpatient setting. However, the safety and feasibility of outpatient AIM chemotherapy is not well established. The University of Arizona Cancer Center developed an Outpatient Program (OP) to facilitate administration of traditional inpatient chemotherapy regimens in the outpatient setting. We transitioned AIM based chemotherapy to the outpatient setting based on selective criteria and caregiver support. The transition to outpatient treatment could lead to large cost-savings implications under the oncology care model. Methods: The current retrospective analysis evaluated the safety and efficacy of outpatient AIM chemotherapy for sarcoma administered in the outpatient setting. An economic study evaluated AIM in the outpatient setting, address, cost of labs, chemotherapy and bed days saved from transitioning chemotherapy from the inpatient setting. Results: Twenty-one patients with soft-tissue sarcoma were treated with outpatient AIM, for a total of 83 cycles. The median age was 60 (27-73) with 6 females and 15 males being evaluated. The median number of cycles per patient was 3.9 (range, 1-6), an average of 4.68 days of infusion days per cycle. Notable side effects included three patients ifosfamide-induced neurologic syndrome and 2 with hematuria. Acute grade 3 and 4 hematological toxicities were observed in 16 and 15 of patients, respectively with 11 occurrences of febrile neutropenia in 9 patients. Of the 21 patients, 15 patients (71%) were hospitalized at least once and 9 patients (43%) were hospitalized due to neutropenic fever. Total bed days saved by transitioning AIM outpatient was 390, for a total hospital cost savings of $1,043,250. Current costs savings for laboratory, chemotherapy and patient assistance access is still being tabulated. Conclusions: The combination of ifosfamide and mesna as a continuous outpatient infusion is feasible and well-tolerated using proper selection of patient and caregiver evaluation. This new model of administration provides an opportunity to decrease cost of care, improve patient satisfaction and reduce utilization of healthcare resource for community and academic cancer center sites.

Oncology practice changes during a multistep Oncology Care Model practice transformation project.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 88-88
Author(s):  
Debra Wujcik ◽  
Susan T. Owenby ◽  
Moh'd M. Khushman ◽  
Daniel Cameron ◽  
Thomas Wayne Butler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Organizational Support ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Cost Of Care ◽  
Care Model ◽  
Oncology Care ◽  
Ed Visits

88 Background: Treatment of lung cancer has seen a paradigm shift in recent years. While the availability of newer treatment options such as targeted therapy and immunotherapy have provided new hope for better outcomes, this has added to the cost of care. Participation in the Center for Medicare Services’ Oncology Care Model (OCM) provides opportunities for oncology practices to identify practice transformation (PT) change strategies that result in improved quality of care (QOL) and cost savings. Methods: A lung cancer PT team convened to facilitate changes that improve patient outcomes and decrease costs at an OCM organization. The year-long project included clinical treatment updates, quantitative and qualitative assessments, and data sharing. Practice changes focused on biomarker driven treatment selection, nurse navigation to better manage symptoms and decrease emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations, and earlier advanced care planning (ACP) discussions. Surveys were completed by oncology physicians and nurse practitioners at baseline (n = 9) and end of the project (n = 7). Results: After education, there were more correct responses in 3 of 6 knowledge questions and providers noted less concern about performance status or co-morbidities when prescribing immunotherapy. Providers noted fewer barriers with biomarker documentation; self-reported confidence in 4 questions of biomarker selection was unchanged. Providers reported increased participation of nurse navigators to impact ED visits and hospitalizations over time. Documentation of ACP discussions increased, 42% (8/19) to 56% (13/23), but did not reach statistical significance due to sample size. Although providers reported changes toward earlier ACP discussions, 1 in 3 still wait until performance status declines to initiate discussion. Conclusions: Systematic PT can improve quality of patients care and measures used in value-based care reimbursement models. Providers need ongoing education, practice feedback, and organizational support to effect positive practice changes. In addition, new strategies to increase provider ability to initiate end of life discussions need to be explored.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document