Funding Cancer Quality Improvement: Payer's Perspective

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 180-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heidi Schumacher

The CMS Innovation Center has developed an oncology payment model, the Oncology Care Model, which aims to test the effect of care coordination on cancer care.

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

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

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.


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.


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.


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.


2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (7) ◽  
pp. e632-e645 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald M. Kline ◽  
L. Daniel Muldoon ◽  
Heidi K. Schumacher ◽  
Larisa M. Strawbridge ◽  
Andrew W. York ◽  
...  

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services developed the Oncology Care Model as an episode-based payment model to encourage participating practitioners to provide higher-quality, better-coordinated care at a lower cost to the nearly three-quarter million fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries with cancer who receive chemotherapy each year. Episode payment models can be complex. They combine into a single benchmark price all payments for services during an episode of illness, many of which may be delivered at different times by different providers in different locations. Policy and technical decisions include the definition of the episode, including its initiation, duration, and included services; the identification of beneficiaries included in the model; and beneficiary attribution to practitioners with overall responsibility for managing their care. In addition, the calculation and risk adjustment of benchmark episode prices for the bundle of services must reflect geographic cost variations and diverse patient populations, including varying disease subtypes, medical comorbidities, changes in standards of care over time, the adoption of expensive new drugs (especially in oncology), as well as diverse practice patterns. Other steps include timely monitoring and intervention as needed to avoid shifting the attribution of beneficiaries on the basis of their expected episode expenditures as well as to ensure the provision of necessary medical services and the development of a meaningful link to quality measurement and improvement through the episode-based payment methodology. The complex and diverse nature of oncology business relationships and the specific rules and requirements of Medicare payment systems for different types of providers intensify these issues. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services believes that by sharing its approach to addressing these decisions and challenges, it may facilitate greater understanding of the model within the oncology community and provide insight to others considering the development of episode-based payment models in the commercial or government sectors.


JAMA Oncology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 298 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emeline M. Aviki ◽  
Stephen M. Schleicher ◽  
Samyukta Mullangi

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18310-e18310
Author(s):  
Maureen Canavan ◽  
Tannaz Sedghi ◽  
Cary Philip Gross ◽  
Stacey Lane ◽  
Jeanette Bogdan ◽  
...  

e18310 Background: Cancer care is complex, requiring multidisciplinary care over time and settings. Our implementation strategy for participation in CMS’ Oncology Care Model included the development of a new care management program to provide elderly patients with cancer support and continuity between inpatient and outpatient care with the goal of reducing acute care utilization. With no published models of care coordination in cancer, we launched this program using nurses experience to risk stratify and manage the needs of nearly 2500 patients. To optimize their work, we sought to understand the activity breakdown of their working time and to identify areas that can be managed more efficiently. Methods: Care coordinators are nurses responsible for completing the Institute of Medicine (IOM) care plan, stratifying patients by risk and comorbidity and administering weekly symptom assessment scales to those at high risk for disease and treatment complications. We created, pilot tested and refined a data collection tool that care coordinators could self-report the time they spent in activities of direct and indirect patient care. We performed a desk audit to measure the amount of time that oncology care coordinators spend on various activities and to explore differences in academic center versus care center care coordinators. A total of seven care coordinators self-reported activity specific time for 5 working days. Data were analyzed to assess variation in the proportion of activity time by care coordinator, site of care and day of the week using anova and t-test for the difference in mean activity time. Results: Care coordinators spent the majority of their time in indirect patient care (58%) with the highest percentage of their time specifically on charting/documentation (28%) while only 42% of their time included activities that were direct patient care. We observed no significant difference in the proportion of time spent in direct versus indirect patient care across care coordinators (p = 0.47, day of the week (p = 0.35) or by location of care (p = 0.68). Conclusions: A minority of care coordinators time is spent on providing direct patient care and substantial time is spent on indirect activities including charting and documentation. The efficiency of the care coordination model may be improved by transferring tasks that do not require the clinical expertise of these nurses.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document