Biosimilars in Oncology: Reality Could Bite the Copycats, Dog Potential Major Savings

No one knows how much of an effect biosimilars will have on oncology expenditures. Pricing and market share are in a large, opaque "to be determined" cloud. But there's certainly potential for a major impact that could lower oncology expenditures by millions, if not billions.

A Systematic Review of the Effect of Cancer Treatment on Work Productivity of Patients and Caregivers

BACKGROUND

Cancer is a leading cause of death with substantial financial costs. While significant data exist on the economic burden of care, less is known about the indirect costs of treatment and, specifically, the effect on work productivity of patients and their caregivers. To examine the full effect of cancer and the potential value of new therapies, all aspects of care, including indirect costs and patient-reported outcomes, should be evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of the literature examining the effect of cancer treatment on work productivity in patients and their caregivers.

METHODS

Articles, abstracts, and bibliographies were searched in MEDLINE, Cochrane, Scopus, CINAHL, and conference lists from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, and Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy up to January 2016. The PRISMA guidelines were used. Controlled search terminology included individual pharmacologic therapies for cancer and terms related to patient and caregiver work productivity. Citations were included if they evaluated the effect of cancer treatment on work productivity, used and described productivity assessments and instruments, and were written in English. Studies that reported only clinical outcomes or assessed only nonpharmacological treatments were excluded. Identified studies were screened and extracted for study inclusion by 2 independent reviewers, with adjudication by 2 secondary reviewers during the final eligibility phase.

RESULTS

Of 978 potential citations, 62 articles or abstracts were included. Forty-six studies (74.2%) evaluated patient-related productivity; 10 studies (16.1%) focused on caregivers, and 6 studies (9.7%) were a combination. Sixteen countries contributed literature, including 26 studies (41.2%) conducted in the United States. The most commonly studied cancer was breast cancer (53.2%). Nearly 22% of the studies were conducted on multiple types of cancer. The significant diversity of study methodologies and measurements rendered a single unifying conclusion difficult. A variety of metrics were used to quantify productivity (hours lost, return to work, change of status, and activity impairment). The Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire was the most commonly used standardized tool (n = 9; 14.5%). Factors found to be associated with impairment in productivity included disease- and treatment-related effects, such as disease progression and severity, cognitive and neurological impairments, poor physical and psychological status, receipt of chemotherapy, and time and expenses required to receive therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights the considerable variety of studies that have assessed work productivity for cancer treatment and the multifaceted reasons affecting patients and caregivers. With increasing emphasis being given to understanding the value that patients assign to various aspects of cancer treatment, more streamlined information on productivity may be important to patients as they play a greater role in selecting treatment goals through shared decision making with their providers.

DISCLOSURES

This study was funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals, which provided the concept, general oversight, and research collaboration on the project. Covvey and Kamal received research funding from Novartis Pharmaceuticals and the College of Psychiatric and Neurologic Pharmacists. Zacker is employed by, and owns stock in, Novartis Pharmaceuticals. A related poster abstract was presented at the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy April 2016 Annual Meeting and published as Kamal KM, Covvey JR, Dashputre A, Ghosh S, Zacker C. A conceptual framework for valuebased oncology treatment: a societal perspective. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2016;22(4 Suppl A):S28. A publication-only abstract was presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2016 Annual Meeting and published as Covvey JR, Kamal KM, Dashputre A, Ghosh S, Zacker C. The impact of cancer treatment on work productivity of patients and caregivers: a systematic review of the evidence. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(Suppl):e18249. Study concept and design were contributed by Zacker, Kamal, and Covvey. Dashputre and Ghosh took the lead in data collection, along with Kamal and Covvey, and data interpretation was performed primarily by Shah and Bhosle, along with Ghosh, Dashputre, Covvey, and Kamal. The manuscript was written by Kamal, Covvey, Shah, and Bhosle and revised primarily by Zacker, along with Shah, Bhosle, Kamal, and Covvey.

[Evaluation of Anti-cancer Therapies with Reimbursement Limited to Comprehensive Cancer Centres Using the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale]

BACKGROUND

The costs of oncology treatments are increasing, due to the rising prevalence of malignant diseases and the introduction of expensive novel anti-cancer agents. The new European Society for Clinical Oncology (ESMO) has recently developed a new parametric system to evaluate the clinical benefit of drugs. The Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) compares the contribution of a novel drug based on overall and progression-free survival and quality of life with those of current treatment options.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An expert group of the Czech Oncological Society conducted an assessment based on published data and an ESMO-MCBS methodology for antineoplastic agents used for the treatment of solid tumors with limited reimbursement to Comprehensive Cancer Centers. We evaluated drugs categorized as "S" that were eligible for public health insurance as of January 1, 2017.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The ESMO-MCBS score is a promising new parameter for the evaluation of new anticancer drugs. The ESMO-MCBS method for assessing the clinical benefit of drugs is simple, robust, and reproducible. The advantage of the assessment is that it is not based on a single index but rather combines several dimensions of drug performance. This parameter will be gradually added to Czech cancer guidelines. Scores obtained in the majority of cases correspond to the observed benefit of a drug in routine clinical practice.Key words: tumors - farmacotherapy - assesment study as a subject - survival - protocols of anti-cancer therapy The authors declare they have no potential conflicts of interest concerning drugs, products, or services used in the study. The Editorial Board declares that the manuscript met the ICMJE recommendation for biomedical papers.Submitted: 3. 5. 2017Accepted: 20. 6. 2017.

Clinical Pathways and the Patient Perspective in the Pursuit of Value-Based Oncology Care

The art of practicing oncology has evolved substantially in the past 5 years. As more and more diagnostic tests, biomarker-directed therapies, and immunotherapies make their way to the oncology marketplace, oncologists will find it increasingly difficult to keep up with the many therapeutic options. Additionally, the cost of cancer care seems to be increasing. Clinical pathways are a systematic way to organize and display detailed, evidence-based treatment options and assist the practitioner with best practice. When selecting which treatment regimens to include on a clinical pathway, considerations must include the efficacy and safety, as well as costs, of the therapy. Pathway treatment regimens must be continually assessed and modified to ensure that the most up-to-date, high-quality options are incorporated. Value-based models, such as the ASCO Value Framework, can assist providers in presenting economic evaluations of clinical pathway treatment options to patients, thus allowing the patient to decide the overall value of each treatment regimen. Although oncologists and pathway developers can decide which treatment regimens to include on a clinical pathway based on the efficacy of the treatment, assessment of the value of that treatment regimen ultimately lies with the patient. Patient definitions of value will be an important component to enhancing current value-based oncology care models and incorporating new, high-quality, value-based therapeutics into oncology clinical pathways.

The Oncology Care Model: Perspectives From the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and Participating Oncology Practices in Academia and the Community

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.

Surge in Philanthropy Fuels Cancer Research

Philanthropy could lead to faster cures by funding riskier research-projects more likely to fail but with potentially high impact-and promoting better teamwork among researchers. However, researchers and fundraisers say that it should augment, not replace, government funding.

Distribution and Patterns of Industry-Related Payments to Oncologists in 2014

BACKGROUND

Industry-physician collaboration is critical for anticancer therapeutic development, but financial relationships introduce conflicts of interest. We examined the specialty variation and context of physician payments and ownership interest among oncologists.

METHODS

We performed a population-based multivariable analysis of 2014 Open Payments reports of industry payments to US physicians matched to physician and practice data, including sex, specialty, practice location, and sole proprietor status. Payment data were aggregated per physician and compared by specialty (medical, radiation, surgical, and nononcology), and practice location linked with spending level (low, average, and high). Primary outcomes included likelihood, mean annual amount, and number of general payments. Secondary outcomes included likelihood of holding ownership interests and receipt of royalty/license payments. Estimates for each outcome were determined using multivariable models, including logistic regression for likelihood and linear regression with gamma distribution and log-link for value, adjusted for physician specialty, sex, sole proprietor status, and practice spending. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

In 2014, there were 883 438 physicians, including 22 712 oncologists, licensed to practice in the United States. Among oncology specialties, 52.4% to 63.0% of physicians received a general payment in 2014, totaling $76 million, $4 million, and $5 million to medical, radiation, and surgical oncology, respectively. The median annual per-physician payment to medical oncologists was $632 (IQR = 136-2500), compared with $124 (IQR = 39-323) in radiation oncology and $250 (IQR = 84-1369) in surgical oncology. After controlling for physician and practice characteristics, oncologists were 1.09 to 1.75 times as likely to receive a general payment compared with nononcologists (overall P < 001). There was a 67.6% difference (95% confidence interval [CI] = 63.6 to 71.5, P < .001) in the mean annual value of payments between medical oncology and nononcology specialties (vs -92.7%, 95%CI = -100.2 to -85.0, P < .001] for radiation oncology). Medical and radiation oncologists were more likely to hold ownership interest (adjusted OR = 3.72, 95% CI = 3.22 to 4.27, and 2.27, 95% CI = 1.65 to 3.03, respectively, P < .001 both comparisons).

CONCLUSIONS

In 2014, industry-oncologist financial relationships were common, and their impact on oncology practice should be further explored.

Oncology pharma costs to exceed $150 billion by 2020

Worldwide costs of oncology drugs will rise above $150 billion by 2020, according to a report by the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics. Many factors are in play, according to IMS, including the new wave of expensive immunotherapies. Pembrolizumab (Keytruda), priced at $150,000 per year per patient, and nivolumab (Opdivo), priced at $165,000, may be harbingers of the market for cancer immunotherapies.

Challenges in Measuring Cost and Value in Oncology: Making It Personal

Oncology patients often find themselves facing an incurable disease with limited treatment options and increasing patient fragility. The importance of patient preferences and values increases in shared decision making especially when the cost of cancer care is continuing its steep rise. As our understanding of cancer systems biology increases, we are justifiably optimistic about therapeutic improvements but recognize that this has complicated the traditional Food and Drug Administration approval of drug indications based on organ-specific cancer for a particular drug. Dynamic and agile clinical guidelines that reflect a rapidly changing knowledge base for decision-making support are needed. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has been working on three initiatives to tackle these complex issues. The first initiative is ASCO's collaboration with other international organizations to create a framework to assess drugs for the World Health Organization's Essential Medicines List, including nongenerics. The second initiative aims to define clinically meaningful outcomes as precision medicine expands the definition of cancers, leading to increased demand for the use of targeted drugs as single agents or in combination. The third initiative is ASCO's value framework, published in 2015, focusing on patient-physician shared decision making. The framework incorporates three parameters: 1) the meaningfulness of the clinical benefit, 2) the toxicity of the treatment, and 3) the patient's financial out-of-pocket cost. ASCO is concerned about the rising cost of cancer care when the clinical complexity and the pace of change in oncology are accelerating, and it is committed to help improve patient outcomes and value in cancer care as well as to engage the broader health care community in a process of collaborative improvement.

Those Who Pay Have a Say: A View on Oncology Drug Pricing and Reimbursement

Four recommendations are made to address the high costs of cancer therapy: remove coverage mandates from state and federal insurance law, create performance transparency for drug regimens, cap profit margins for administering drugs, and place every patient with a genetic mutation in a clinical trial.

The Value of In Vitro Diagnostic Testing in Medical Practice: A Status Report

BACKGROUND

In vitro diagnostic (IVD) investigations are indispensable for routine patient management. Appropriate testing allows early-stage interventions, reducing late-stage healthcare expenditure (HCE).

AIM

To investigate HCE on IVDs in two developed markets and to assess the perceived value of IVDs on clinical decision-making. Physician-perceived HCE on IVD was evaluated, as well as desired features of new diagnostic markers.

METHODS

Past and current HCE on IVD was calculated for the US and Germany. A total of 79 US/German oncologists and cardiologists were interviewed to assess the number of cases where: physicians ask for IVDs; IVDs are used for initial diagnosis, treatment monitoring, or post-treatment; and decision-making is based on an IVD test result. A sample of 201 US and German oncologists and cardiologists was questioned regarding the proportion of HCE they believed to be attributable to IVD testing. After disclosing the actual IVD HCE, the physician's perception of the appropriateness of the amount was captured. Finally, the association between physician-rated impact of IVD on decision-making and perceived contribution of IVD expenditure on overall HCE was assessed.

RESULTS

IVD costs account for 2.3% and 1.4% of total HCE in the US and Germany. Most physicians (81%) believed that the actual HCE on IVDs was >5%; 19% rated the spending correctly (0-4%, p<0.001). When informed of the actual amount, 64% of physicians rated this as appropriate (p<0.0001); 66% of decision-making was based on IVD. Significantly, more physicians asked for either additional clinical or combined clinical/health economic data than for the product (test/platform) alone (p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate a poor awareness of actual HCE on IVD, but a high attributable value of diagnostic procedures for patient management. New markers should deliver actionable and medically relevant information, to guide decision-making and foster improved patient outcomes.

NCI Posts New "Provocative Questions"

The NCI has earmarked another $40 million over the next 2 years for its Provocative Questions Initiative, aimed at funding neglected or understudied areas of cancer research that relate to gaps in current knowledge or address unresolved questions.

Hospital academic status and value of care for nonmetastatic colon cancer

PURPOSE

The relationship between oncologic hospital academic status and the value of care for stage II and III colon cancer is unknown.

METHODS

Retrospective SEER-Medicare analysis of patients age ≥ 66 years with stage II or III colon cancer and seen by medical oncology. Eligible patients were diagnosed 2000 to 2009 and followed through December 31, 2010. Hospitals reporting a major medical school affiliation in the NCI Hospital File were classified as academic medical centers. The association between hospital academic status and survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models. The association with mean cost of care was estimated using generalized linear models with log link and gamma family and with cost of care at various quantiles using quantile regression models.

RESULTS

Of 24,563 eligible patients, 5,707 (23%) received care from academic hospitals. There were no significant differences in unadjusted disease-specific median survival or adjusted risk of colon cancer death by hospital academic status (stage II hazard ratio = 1.12; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.28; P = .103; stage III hazard ratio = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.08; P = .763). Excepting patients at the upper limits of the cost distribution, there was no significant difference in adjusted cost by hospital academic status.

CONCLUSION

We found no survival differences for elderly patients with stage II or III colon cancer, treated by a medical oncologist, between academic and nonacademic hospitals. Furthermore, cost of care was similar across virtually the full range of the cost distribution.

Collaboration Between Surgeons and Medical Oncologists and Outcomes for Patients With Stage III Colon Cancer

PURPOSE

Collaboration between specialists is essential for achieving high-value care in patients with complex cancer needs. We explore how collaboration between oncologists and surgeons affects mortality and cost for patients requiring multispecialty cancer care.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with stage III colon cancer from SEER-Medicare diagnosed between 2000 and 2009. Patients were assigned to a primary treating surgeon and oncologist. Collaboration between surgeon and oncologist was measured as the number of patients shared between them; this has been shown to reflect advice seeking and referral relationships between physicians. Outcomes included hazards for all-cause mortality, subhazards for colon cancer-specific mortality, and cost of care at 12 months.

RESULTS

A total of 9,329 patients received care from 3,623 different surgeons and 2,319 medical oncologists, representing 6,827 unique surgeon-medical oncologist pairs. As the number of patients shared between specialists increased from to one to five (25th to 75th percentile), patients experienced an approximately 20% improved survival benefit from all-cause and colon cancer-specific mortalities. Specifically, for each additional patient shared between oncologist and surgeon, all-cause mortality improved by 5% (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95%CI, 0.92 to 0.97), and colon cancer-specific mortality improved by 5% (subhazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91 to 0.97). There was no association with cost.

CONCLUSION

Specialist collaboration is associated with lower mortality without increased cost among patients with stage III colon cancer. Facilitating formal and informal collaboration between specialists may be an important strategy for improving the care of patients with complex cancers.

Challenges of coverage policy development for next-generation tumor sequencing panels: experts and payers weigh in

BACKGROUND

Next-generation tumor sequencing (NGTS) panels, which include multiple established and novel targets across cancers, are emerging in oncology practice, but lack formal positive coverage by US payers. Lack of coverage may impact access and adoption. This study identified challenges of NGTS coverage by private payers.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 14 NGTS experts on potential NGTS benefits, and with 10 major payers, representing more than 125,000,000 enrollees, on NGTS coverage considerations. We used the framework approach of qualitative research for study design and thematic analyses and simple frequencies to further describe findings.

RESULTS

All interviewed payers see potential NGTS benefits, but all noted challenges to formal coverage: 80% state that inherent features of NGTS do not fit the medical necessity definition required for coverage, 70% view NGTS as a bundle of targets versus comprehensive tumor characterization and may evaluate each target individually, and 70% express skepticism regarding new evidence methods proposed for NGTS. Fifty percent of payers expressed sufficient concerns about NGTS adoption and implementation that will preclude their ability to issue positive coverage policies.

CONCLUSIONS

Payers perceive that NGTS holds significant promise but, in its current form, poses disruptive challenges to coverage policy frameworks. Proactive multidisciplinary efforts to define the direction for NGTS development, evidence generation, and incorporation into coverage policy are necessary to realize its promise and provide patient access. This study contributes to current literature, as possibly the first study to directly interview US payers on NGTS coverage and reimbursement.

The consequences of diminishing industry support on the independent education landscape: an evidence-based analysis of the perceived and realistic impact on professional development and patient care among oncologists

In recent years, commercial funding for continuing medical education (CME) has dropped significantly. Yet, little has been written about how this might affect CME in oncology, a field in which new drugs and advances emerge at a rapid pace. This study examines the role oncologists and oncology fellows say that CME plays in their ongoing professional development and their attitudes about the potential and realistic impact upon both the dissemination of medical information and the impact on patient care if commercial support were removed from CME. The study is based upon a national survey of 368 oncology clinicians (283 oncologists and 85 oncology fellows). Respondents indicated that CME is an important part of their ongoing professional development. The majority of oncologists (90%) and oncology fellows (78%) "agreed" or "strongly agreed" that commercial support may be more necessary for oncology than for other specialties due to the rate at which cancer therapies are introduced. Respondents felt loss of commercial support would impact cost, format, and availability of oncology CME programs. Half of oncologists thought eliminating commercial support for CME would have a negative impact on application of new therapies in oncology. Yet, both oncologists and oncology fellows were reluctant to claim the removal of commercial support would negatively affect the practice of evidence-based medicine, patient outcomes, or patient safety. A possible explanation of this apparent contradiction is found in the social sciences literature.

Oncology reimbursement in the era of personalized medicine and big data

Little has been written about reimbursement in the era of big data–driven personalized medicine. The way the United States pays for the majority of its health care is a hindrance to the provision of personalized oncology care.

Developing clinical research incentives for academic oncologists

Incentive plans can be developed to promote clinical research activities for academic oncologists. Such plans encourage faculty to devote the necessary time and effort to enroll patients in clinical trials. It is crucial to decide what types of activities will be incentivized and to define expectations at the outset. An incentive program requires resources that should remain stable over time. A resource allocation ideally would be indexed to a level of clinical research activity so that, as activity increases, more funding is available for distribution as incentives. Most academic oncologists are familiar with incentive-based reimbursement for clinical activities; a similar structure for academic pursuits such as clinical research can be incorporated into, or used in conjunction with, a clinical incentive plan.

Cost trend analysis of initial cancer treatment in Taiwan

Background

Despite the high cost of initial cancer care, that is, care in the first year after diagnosis, limited information is available for specific categories of cancer-related costs, especially costs for specific services. This study purposed to identify causes of change in cancer treatment costs over time and to perform trend analyses of the percentage of cancer patients who had received a specific treatment type and the mean cost of care for patients who had received that treatment.

Methodology/Principal Findings

The analysis of trends in initial treatment costs focused on cancer-related surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and treatments other than active treatments. For each cancer-specific trend, slopes were calculated for regression models with 95% confidence intervals. Analyses of patients diagnosed in 2007 showed that the National Health Insurance (NHI) system paid, on average, $10,780 for initial care of a gastric cancer patient and $10,681 for initial care of a lung cancer patient, which were inflation-adjusted increases of $6,234 and $5,522, respectively, over the 1996 care costs. During the same interval, the mean NHI payment for initial care for the five specific cancers increased significantly (p<0.05). Hospitalization costs comprised the largest portion of payments for all cancers. During 1996–2007, the use of chemotherapy and radiation therapy significantly increased in all cancer types (p<0.05). In 2007, NHI payments for initial care for these five cancers exceeded $12 billion, and gastric and lung cancers accounted for the largest share.

Conclusions/Significance

In addition to the growing number of NHI beneficiaries with cancer, treatment costs and the percentage of patients who undergo treatment are growing. Therefore, the NHI must accurately predict the economic burden of new chemotherapy agents and radiation therapies and may need to develop programs for stratifying patients according to their potential benefit from these expensive treatments.

Patient experience and attitudes toward addressing the cost of breast cancer care

BACKGROUND

The American Society of Clinical Oncology views patient-physician discussion of costs as a component of high-quality care. Few data exist on patients' views regarding how cost should be addressed in the clinic.

METHODS

We distributed a self-administered, anonymous, paper survey to consecutive patients with breast cancer presenting for a routine visit within 5 years of diagnosis at an academic cancer center. Survey questions addressed experience and preferences concerning discussions of cost and views on cost control. Results are primarily descriptive, with comparison among participants on the basis of disease stage, using chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. All p values are two-sided.

RESULTS

We surveyed 134 participants (response rate 86%). Median age was 61 years, and 28% had stage IV disease. Although 44% of participants reported at least a moderate level of financial distress, only 14% discussed costs with their doctor; 94% agreed doctors should talk to patients about costs of care. Regarding the impact of costs on decision making, 53% felt doctors should consider direct costs to the patient, but only 38% felt doctors should consider costs to society. Moreover, 88% reported concern about costs of care, but there was no consensus on how to control costs.

CONCLUSION

Most breast cancer patients want to discuss costs of care, but there is little consensus on the desired content or goal of these discussions. Further research is needed to define the role of cost discussions at the bedside and how they will contribute to the goal of high-quality and sustainable cancer care.

Potential approaches to sustainable, long-lasting payment reform in oncology

With unsustainable and rising health care costs reaching what are regularly termed crisis levels, the United States' current fragmented and inefficient health care system is in need of reforms that will allow oncology practices to adapt to changing delivery systems that put the patient at the center of care. Oncology accounts for roughly 10% of all health care costs and is a prime target for reform-minded stakeholders, particularly in the realm of reimbursement for care. ASCO believes that successful physician payment reform will be physician led and driven. This article was developed by the ASCO Clinical Practice Committee Payment Reform Workgroup and underwent subsequent review and approval by the full Clinical Practice Committee and the ASCO Board of Directors. The following represents an abridged version of the original document, edited for length. The entire document may be found at www.asco.org/paymentreform. It includes a critical survey of the current reimbursement landscape and lays out the foundation for a comprehensive, multifaceted solution that would replace the current fee for service structure. This foundation includes quality measurements and incentives, a replacement for the current "buy and bill" system for chemotherapy drugs, value-based pathways, episodic or bundled care payments, and care coordination to decrease use of expensive resources. ASCO intends to pursue further development, modeling, and testing of these concepts and invites others in the oncology community to prepare to lead efforts to a more rational and stable payment plan that will support high-quality care for our patients.

Policy Statement on the 340B Drug Pricing Program by the American Society of Clinical Oncology

ASCO summarizes issues and recommendations related to the 340B Drug Pricing Program for policymakers to consider from the perspective of professionals dedicated to the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of cancer.

Physician behavior impact when revenue shifted from drugs to services

OBJECTIVES

In partnership with a large nonprofit healthcare insurer for the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States, we launched the first cancer clinical pathway in the United States in August 2008. Due to its early success with regard to savings and physician participation and compliance, a second-generation pathways program-the Oncology Medical Home-was piloted in 2011. This program offered a physician reimbursement model that shifted the source of revenue from drug reimbursement margin to professional charges for cognitive services (evaluation and management codes). We report our observations of the impact of that reimbursement model on physician prescribing behavior.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective analysis.

METHODS

A select group of practices that participated in the first-generation pathways program were invited to voluntarily participate in the Oncology Medical Home and its cognitive weighted reimbursement design. A matched control group was chosen from the first-generation pathways participants. Comparisons of physician behavior parameters were made pre- and postimplementation and between the Oncology Medical Home practices and the first-generation pathways control group.

RESULTS

Physician behavior was not significantly modified by cognitive weighted reimbursement. No significant change in frequency of office visits for established patients was observed. No change in chemotherapy prescribing was observed. Observed increases in generic regimen use were no different than matched control.

CONCLUSIONS

Observations from this oncology medical home pilot program suggest that reimbursement methodology alternatives to the prevailing fee-for-service may have less impact on prescribing behavior than has been conjectured. Future research is ongoing to validate these observations and assess additional influences on prescribing behavior.

Health utilities in gynecological oncology and mastology in Germany

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Cost increases in the healthcare system are leading to a need to distribute financial resources in accordance with the value of each service performed. Health-economic decision-making models can support these decisions. Due to the previous unavailability of health utilities in Germany (scored states of health as a basis for calculating quality-adjusted life-years, QALYs) for women undergoing treatment, international data are often used for such models. However, these may widely deviate from the values for a woman actually living in Germany. It is, therefore, necessary to collect and analyze health utilities in Germany.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a questionnaire survey, health utilities were collected, along with data for a healthy control group, for 580 female patients receiving treatment in the fields of mastology and gynecological oncology using a German version of the EuroQol questionnaire (EQ-5D) and a visual analogue scale (VAS). Data were also collected for the patients' medical history, tumor disease, and treatment.

RESULTS

Significant differences with regard to quality of life were measured in relation to the individual tumor entities and in comparison to the controls. Apart from the healthy control group, patients with breast or cervical carcinoma had the best quality of life. In patients with recurrent and metastatic disease, those with breast carcinoma experienced the greatest impairment of their quality of life. According to current treatment, the most important impairment of life quality occurred in patients under radiotherapy and after surgical treatment. There are significant differences from the health utilities recorded for other countries - for example, the state of health declines much more markedly in patients with metastatic disease among American women with breast carcinoma than among German women, in whom recurrent disease and a first diagnosis of metastasis were comparable. Overall, the VAS was able to distinguish more adequately than the EQ-5D questionnaire between the different situations and impairments resulting from diagnosis and therapy.

CONCLUSION

Health utilities are now, for the first time, available for further health-economics analyses in the field of gynecological oncology and mastology for women living in Germany. Important differences in these utilities from those of other countries are evident.

Community oncology in an era of payment reform

Patients and payers (government and private) are frustrated with the fee-for-service system (FFS) of payment for outpatient health services. FFS rewards volume and highly valued services, including expensive diagnostics and therapeutics, over lesser valued cognitive services. Proposed payment schemes would incent collaboration and coordination of care among providers and reward quality. In oncology, new payment schemes must address the high costs of all services, particularly drugs, while preserving the robust distribution of sites of service available to patients in the United States. Information technology and personalized cancer care are changing the practice of oncology. Twenty-first century oncology will require increasing cognitive work and shared decision making, both of which are not well regarded in the FFS model. A high proportion of health care dollars are consumed in the final months of life. Effective delivery of palliative and end-of-life care must be addressed by practice and by new models of payment. Value-based reimbursement schemes will require oncology practices to change how they are structured. Lessons drawn from the principles of primary care's Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH) will help oncology practice to prepare for new schemes. PCMH principles place a premium on proactively addressing toxicities of therapies, coordinating care with other providers, and engaging patients in shared decision making, supporting the ideal of value defined in the triple aim-to measurably improve patient experience and quality of care at less cost. Payment reform will be disruptive to all. Oncology must be engaged in policy discussions and guide rational shifts in priorities defined by new payment models.