1
|
Franklin M, Pollard D, Sah J, Rayner A, Sun Y, Dube F, Sutton A, Qin L. Direct and Indirect Costs of Breast Cancer and Associated Implications: A Systematic Review. Adv Ther 2024:10.1007/s12325-024-02893-y. [PMID: 38833143 DOI: 10.1007/s12325-024-02893-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/14/2024] [Accepted: 05/06/2024] [Indexed: 06/06/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Breast cancer is currently the leading cause of global cancer incidence. Breast cancer has negative consequences for society and economies internationally due to the high burden of disease which includes adverse epidemiological and economic implications. Our aim is to systematically review the estimated economic burden of breast cancer in the United States (US), Canada, Australia, and Western Europe (United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, and Switzerland), with an objective of discussing the policy and practice implications of our results. METHODS We included English-language published studies with cost as a focal point using a primary data source to inform resource usage of women with breast cancer. We focussed on studies published since 2017, but with reported costs since 2012. A systematic search conducted on 25 January 2023 identified studies relating to the economic burden of breast cancer in the countries of interest. MEDLINE, Embase, and EconLit databases were searched via Ovid. Study quality was assessed based on three aspects: (1) validity of cost findings; (2) completeness of direct cost findings; and (3) completeness of indirect cost findings. We grouped costs based on country, cancer stage (early compared to metastatic), and four resource categories: healthcare/medical, pharmaceutical drugs, diagnosis, and indirect costs. Costs were standardized to the year 2022 in US (US$2022) and International (Int$2022) dollars. RESULTS Fifty-three studies were included. Studies in the US (n = 19) and Canada (n = 9) were the majority (53%), followed by Western European countries (42%). Healthcare/medical costs were the focus for the majority (89%), followed by pharmaceutical drugs (25%), then diagnosis (17%) and indirect (17%) costs. Thirty-six (68%) included early-stage cancer costs, 17 (32%) included metastatic cancer costs, with 23% reporting costs across these cancer stages. No identified study explicitly compared costs across countries. Across cost categories, cost ranges tended to be higher in the US than any other country. Metastatic breast cancer was associated with higher costs than earlier-stage cancer. When indirect costs were accounted for, particularly in terms of productivity loss, they tended to be higher than any other estimated direct cost (e.g., diagnosis, drug, and other medical costs). CONCLUSION There was substantial heterogeneity both within and across countries for the identified studies' designs and estimated costs. Despite this, current empirical literature suggests that costs associated with early initiation of treatment could be offset against potentially avoiding or reducing the overall economic burden of later-stage and more severe breast cancer. Larger scale, national, economic burden studies are needed, to be updated regularly to ensure there is an ongoing and evolving perspective of the economic burden of conditions such as breast cancer to inform policy and practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew Franklin
- Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research (SCHARR), School of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.
| | - Daniel Pollard
- Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research (SCHARR), School of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK
| | - Janvi Sah
- Oncology Business Unit, AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, 20878, USA
| | - Annabel Rayner
- Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research (SCHARR), School of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK
| | - Yuxiao Sun
- Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research (SCHARR), School of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK
| | - France Dube
- Oncology Business Unit, AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, 20878, USA
| | - Anthea Sutton
- Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research (SCHARR), School of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK
| | - Lei Qin
- Oncology Business Unit, AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, 20878, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Conic J, Reske T. Trends in Medicare utilization and reimbursement for hematology/oncology procedures from 2012 to 2023: A geriatric oncology perspective. Aging Med (Milton) 2024; 7:171-178. [PMID: 38725700 PMCID: PMC11077331 DOI: 10.1002/agm2.12298] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/26/2023] [Revised: 02/05/2024] [Accepted: 03/28/2024] [Indexed: 05/12/2024] Open
Abstract
Objectives Given the scarcity of data exploring reimbursement trends in the field of hematology/oncology, we sought to characterize these trends for common procedures in this field from 2012 to 2023. Methods Using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool we collected reimbursement data for 40 hematology/oncology procedure codes from 2012 to 2023. Data was adjusted to 2023 United States (US) dollars using the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Results From 2012 to 2023 gross reimbursement for the facility price decreased 4.4% and increased 9.2% for the non-facility price. When adjusted for inflation, compensation decreased 96.1% and 96.6%, respectively. None of the 40 examined Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes increased in net reimbursement over the study period. Conclusions Medicare reimbursement for common hematology/oncology procedures decreased from 2012 to 2023. Further research is necessary to explore the implications of these trends on the delivery of patient care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J. Conic
- Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Geriatric MedicineLouisiana State University Health Sciences CenterNew OrleansLouisianaUSA
| | - T. Reske
- Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Geriatric Medicine and Section of Hematology/OncologyLouisiana State University Health Sciences CenterNew OrleansLouisianaUSA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Garfield KM, Franklin EF, Battaglia TA, Dwyer AJ, Freund KM, Wightman PD, Rohan EA. Evaluating the sustainability of patient navigation programs in oncology by length of existence, funding, and payment model participation. Cancer 2022; 128 Suppl 13:2578-2589. [PMID: 35699609 PMCID: PMC10961851 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.33932] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/06/2020] [Revised: 08/17/2021] [Accepted: 08/18/2021] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND For this study, the authors examined whether specific programmatic factors were associated with the sustainability of patient navigation programs. METHODS This cross-sectional survey explored navigation programmatic factors associated with 3 measures of sustainability: 1) length of program existence, 2) reliance on sustainable funding, and 3) participation in alternative payment models. In total, 750 patient navigators or program administrators affiliated with oncology navigation programs in clinical-based and community-based settings completed the survey between April and July 2019. RESULTS Associations were observed between both accreditation and work setting and measures of program sustainability. Accredited programs and larger, more resourced clinical institutions were particularly likely to exhibit multiple measures of sustainability. The results also identified significant gaps at the programmatic level in data collection and reporting among navigation programs, but no association was observed between programmatic data collection/reporting and sustainability. CONCLUSIONS Navigation is not currently a reimbursable service and has historically been viewed as value-added in oncology settings. Therefore, factors associated with sustainability are critical to understand how to build a framework for successful navigation programs within the current system and also to develop the case for potential reimbursement in the future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kathryn M. Garfield
- Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts
| | | | - Tracy A. Battaglia
- Women’s Health Unit, Section of General Internal Medicine, Boston Medical Center and Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Andrea J. Dwyer
- Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Cancer Center, Denver, Colorado
| | - Karen M. Freund
- Department of Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
| | | | - Elizabeth A. Rohan
- Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Loo S, Mullikin K, Robbins C, Xiao V, Battaglia TA, Lemon SC, Gunn C. Patient navigator team perceptions on the implementation of a citywide breast cancer patient navigation protocol: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res 2022; 22:683. [PMID: 35597947 PMCID: PMC9123866 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-022-08090-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/18/2022] [Accepted: 05/12/2022] [Indexed: 01/25/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In 2018 Translating Research Into Practice (TRIP), an evidence-based patient navigation intervention aimed at addressing breast cancer care disparities, was implemented across six Boston hospitals. This study assesses patient navigator team member perspectives regarding implementation barriers and facilitators one year post-study implementation. METHODS We conducted in-depth qualitative interviews at the six sites participating in the pragmatic TRIP trial from December 2019 to March 2021. Navigation team members involved with breast cancer care navigation processes at each site were interviewed at least 12 months after intervention implementation. Interview questions were designed to address domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), focusing on barriers and facilitators to implementing the intervention that included 1) rigorous 11-step guidelines for navigation, 2) a shared patient registry and 3) a social risk screening and referral program. Analysis was structured using deductive codes representing domains and constructs within CFIR. RESULTS Seventeen interviews were conducted with patient navigators, their supervisors, and designated clinical champions. Participants identified the following benefits provided by the TRIP intervention: 1) increased networking and connections for navigators across clinical sites (Cosmopolitanism), 2) formalization of the patient navigation process (Goals and Purpose, Access to Knowledge and Information, and Relative Advantage), and 3) flexibility within the TRIP intervention that allowed for diversity in implementation and use of TRIP components across sites (Adaptability). Barriers included those related to documentation requirements (Complexity) and the structured patient follow up guidelines that did not always align with the timeline of existing site navigation processes (Relative Priority). CONCLUSIONS Our analysis provides data using real-world experience from an intervention trial in progress, identifying barriers and facilitators to implementing an evidence-based patient navigation intervention for breast cancer care. We identified core processes that facilitated the navigators' patient-focused tasks and role on the clinical team. Barriers encountered reflect limitations of navigator funding models and high caseload. TRIAL REGISTRATION Clinical Trial Registration Number NCT03514433 , 5/2/2018.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie Loo
- Department of Health Law, Policy, and Management, School of Public Health, Boston University, 715 Albany St, Boston, MA, 02118, USA.
| | - Katelyn Mullikin
- Women's Health Unit, Section of General Internal Medicine, Evans Department of Medicine, Boston Medical Center and Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Charlotte Robbins
- Women's Health Unit, Section of General Internal Medicine, Evans Department of Medicine, Boston Medical Center and Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Victoria Xiao
- Women's Health Unit, Section of General Internal Medicine, Evans Department of Medicine, Boston Medical Center and Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Tracy A Battaglia
- Women's Health Unit, Section of General Internal Medicine, Evans Department of Medicine, Boston Medical Center and Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
| | | | - Christine Gunn
- Department of Health Law, Policy, and Management, School of Public Health, Boston University, 715 Albany St, Boston, MA, 02118, USA.,Women's Health Unit, Section of General Internal Medicine, Evans Department of Medicine, Boston Medical Center and Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.,The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice and Dartmouth Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
LeClair AM, Battaglia TA, Casanova NL, Haas JS, Freund KM, Moy B, Parsons SK, Ko NY, Ross J, Ohrenberger E, Mullikin KR, Lemon SC. Assessment of patient navigation programs for breast cancer patients across the city of Boston. Support Care Cancer 2021; 30:2435-2443. [PMID: 34767089 DOI: 10.1007/s00520-021-06675-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/08/2021] [Accepted: 11/01/2021] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Healthcare systems contribute to disparities in breast cancer outcomes. Patient navigation is a widely cited system-based approach to improve outcomes among populations at risk for delays in care. Patient navigation programs exist in all major Boston hospitals, yet disparities in outcomes persist. The objective of this study was to conduct a baseline assessment of navigation processes at six Boston hospitals that provide breast cancer care in preparation for an implementation trial of standardized navigation across the city. METHODS We conducted a mixed methods study in six hospitals that provide treatment to breast cancer patients in Boston. We administered a web-based survey to clinical champions (n = 7) across six sites to collect information about the structure of navigation programs. We then conducted in-person workflow assessments at each site using a semi-structured interview guide to understand site-specific implementation processes for patient navigation programs. The target population included administrators, supervisors, and patient navigators who provided breast cancer treatment-focused care. RESULTS All sites offered patient navigation services to their patients undergoing treatment for breast cancer. We identified wide heterogeneity in terms of how programs were funded/resourced, which patients were targeted for navigation, the type of services provided, and the continuity of those services relative to the patient's cancer treatment. CONCLUSIONS The operationalization of patient navigation varies widely across hospitals especially in relation to three core principles in patient navigation: providing patient support across the care continuum, targeting services to those patients most likely to experience delays in care, and systematically screening for and addressing patients' health-related social needs. Gaps in navigation across the care continuum present opportunities for intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION Clinical Trial Registration Number NCT03514433, 5/2/2018.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amy M LeClair
- Department of Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
| | - Tracy A Battaglia
- Women's Health Unit, Section of General Internal Medicine, Evans Department of Medicine, Boston Medical Center and Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.,Department of General Internal Medicine, Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Nicole L Casanova
- Department of General Internal Medicine, Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Jennifer S Haas
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Karen M Freund
- Department of Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Beverly Moy
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Susan K Parsons
- Department of Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Naomi Y Ko
- Women's Health Unit, Section of General Internal Medicine, Evans Department of Medicine, Boston Medical Center and Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.,Department of General Internal Medicine, Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - JoEllen Ross
- Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | | | - Katelyn R Mullikin
- Department of General Internal Medicine, Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Wakefield DV, Carnell M, Dove APH, Edmonston DY, Garner WB, Hubler A, Makepeace L, Hanson R, Ozdenerol E, Chun SG, Spencer S, Pisu M, Martin M, Jiang B, Punglia RS, Schwartz DL. Location as Destiny: Identifying Geospatial Disparities in Radiation Treatment Interruption by Neighborhood, Race, and Insurance. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 107:815-826. [PMID: 32234552 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.03.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/19/2019] [Revised: 02/11/2020] [Accepted: 03/07/2020] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Radiation therapy interruption (RTI) worsens cancer outcomes. Our purpose was to benchmark and map RTI across a region in the United States with known cancer outcome disparities. METHODS AND MATERIALS All radiation therapy (RT) treatments at our academic center were cataloged. Major RTI was defined as ≥5 unplanned RT appointment cancellations. Univariate and multivariable logistic and linear regression analyses identified associated factors. Major RTI was mapped by patient residence. A 2-sided P value <.0001 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS Between 2015 and 2017, a total of 3754 patients received RT, of whom 3744 were eligible for analysis: 962 patients (25.8%) had ≥2 RT interruptions and 337 patients (9%) had major RTI. Disparities in major RTI were seen across Medicaid versus commercial/Medicare insurance (22.5% vs 7.2%; P < .0001), low versus high predicted income (13.0% vs 5.9%; P < .0001), Black versus White race (12.0% vs 6.6%; P < .0001), and urban versus suburban treatment location (12.0% vs 6.3%; P < .0001). On multivariable analysis, increased odds of major RTI were seen for Medicaid patients (odds ratio [OR], 3.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.25-5.00; P < .0001) versus those with commercial/Medicare insurance and for head and neck (OR, 3.74; 95% CI, 2.56-5.46; P < .0001), gynecologic (OR, 3.28; 95% CI, 2.09-5.15; P < .0001), and lung cancers (OR, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.96-4.97; P < .0001) compared with breast cancer. Major RTI was mapped to urban, majority Black, low-income neighborhoods and to rural, majority White, low-income regions. CONCLUSIONS Radiation treatment interruption disproportionately affects financially and socially vulnerable patient populations and maps to high-poverty neighborhoods. Geospatial mapping affords an opportunity to correlate RT access on a neighborhood level to inform potential intervention strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel V Wakefield
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee; T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Matthew Carnell
- University of Tennessee Health Science Center, College of Medicine, Memphis, Tennessee
| | - Austin P H Dove
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Drucilla Y Edmonston
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee
| | - Wesley B Garner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee
| | - Adam Hubler
- University of Tennessee Health Science Center, College of Medicine, Memphis, Tennessee
| | - Lydia Makepeace
- University of Tennessee Health Science Center, College of Medicine, Memphis, Tennessee
| | - Ryan Hanson
- Department of Earth Sciences, Spatial Analysis and Geographic Education Laboratory, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee
| | - Esra Ozdenerol
- Department of Earth Sciences, Spatial Analysis and Geographic Education Laboratory, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee
| | - Stephen G Chun
- Division of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Sharon Spencer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama
| | - Maria Pisu
- Division of Preventive Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama
| | - Michelle Martin
- Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee
| | - Bo Jiang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Biostatistics, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee
| | - Rinaa S Punglia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - David L Schwartz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee; Division of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Patel MI, Ramirez D, Agajanian R, Agajanian H, Coker T. Association of a Lay Health Worker Intervention With Symptom Burden, Survival, Health Care Use, and Total Costs Among Medicare Enrollees With Cancer. JAMA Netw Open 2020; 3:e201023. [PMID: 32176306 PMCID: PMC7076340 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.1023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Undertreated patient symptoms require approaches that improve symptom burden. OBJECTIVE To determine the association of a lay health worker-led symptom screening and referral intervention with symptom burden, survival, health care use, and total costs among Medicare Advantage enrollees with a new diagnosis of solid or hematologic malignant neoplasms. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This quality improvement study conducted at 9 community oncology practices from November 1, 2016, to October 31, 2018, compared newly diagnosed Medicare Advantage enrollees with solid or hematologic malignant neoplasms with patients diagnosed and treated 1 year prior. Analysis was conducted from August 1, 2019, to January 11, 2020. INTERVENTIONS Usual care augmented by a lay health worker trained to screen symptoms and refer patients to palliative care and behavioral medicine. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was change in symptoms using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale and the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire at baseline and 6 and 12 months after enrollment. Secondary outcomes were between-group comparison of survival, 12-month health care use, and costs. RESULTS Among 425 patients in the intervention group and 407 patients in the control group, the mean (SD) age was 78.8 (8.3) years, 345 (41.5%) were female, and 407 (48.9%) were non-Hispanic white. Patients in the intervention group experienced a lower symptom burden as measured by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale score over time compared with patients in the control group (mean [SD] difference, -1.9 [14.2]; 95% CI, -3.77 to -0.19; P = .01 for the intervention group and 2.32 [17.7]; 95% CI, 0.47 to 4.19; P = .02 for the control group). Similar findings were noted in 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire depression scores (mean [SD] difference, -0.63 [3.99]; 95% CI, -1.23 to -0.028; P = .04 for the intervention group and 1.67 [5.49]; 95% CI, 0.95 to 2.37; P = .01 for the control group). Patients in the intervention group compared with patients in the control group had fewer mean (SD) inpatient visits (0.54 [0.77]; 95% CI, 0.47-0.61 vs 0.72 [1.12]; 95% CI, 0.61-0.83; P = .04) and emergency department visits (0.43 [0.76]; 95% CI, 0.36-0.50 vs 0.57 [1.00]; 95% CI, 0.48-0.67; P = .002) per 1000 patients per year and lower total costs (median, $17 869 [interquartile range, $6865-$32 540] vs median, $18 473 [interquartile range, $6415-$37 910]; P = .02). A total of 180 patients in the intervention group and 189 patients in the control group died within 12 months. Among those who died, patients in the intervention group had greater hospice use (125 of 180 [69.4%] vs 79 of 189 [41.8%]; odds ratio, 3.16; 95% CI, 2.13-4.69; P < .001), fewer mean (SD) emergency department and hospital visits (emergency department: 0.10 [0.30]; 95% CI, 0.06-0.14 vs 0.30 [0.46]; 95% CI, 0.24-0.38; P = .001; hospital: 0.27 [0.44]; 95% CI, 0.21-0.34 vs 0.43 [0.82]; 95% CI, 0.32-0.55; P = .02), and lower costs (median, $3602 [interquartile range, $1076-$9436] vs median, $12 726 [interquartile range, $5259-$22 170]; P = .002), but there was no significant difference in inpatient deaths (18 of 180 [10.0%] vs 30 of 189 [15.9%]; P = .14). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This study suggests that a lay health worker-led intervention may be one way to improve burdensome and costly care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Manali I. Patel
- Division of Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
- Medical Services, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California
- Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research/Health Research and Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | | | - Richy Agajanian
- The Oncology Institute of Hope and Innovation, Downy, California
| | - Hilda Agajanian
- The Oncology Institute of Hope and Innovation, Downy, California
| | - Tumaini Coker
- Seattle Children’s Research Institute, Seattle, Washington
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Freund KM, Haas JS, Lemon SC, Burns White K, Casanova N, Dominici LS, Erban JK, Freedman RA, James TA, Ko NY, LeClair AM, Moy B, Parsons SK, Battaglia TA. Standardized activities for lay patient navigators in breast cancer care: Recommendations from a citywide implementation study. Cancer 2019; 125:4532-4540. [PMID: 31449680 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.32432] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/19/2019] [Revised: 06/07/2019] [Accepted: 07/10/2019] [Indexed: 01/12/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is a need for guidelines on patient navigation activities to promote both the quality of patient navigation and the standards of reimbursement for these services because a lack of reimbursement is a major barrier to the implementation, maintenance, and sustainability of these programs. METHODS A broad community-based participatory research process was used to identify the needs of patients for navigation. A panel of stakeholders of clinical providers was convened to identify specific activities for navigators to address the needs of patients and providers with the explicit goal of reducing delays in the initiation of cancer treatment and improving adherence to the care plan. RESULTS Specific activities were identified that could be generalized to all patient navigation programs for care during active cancer management to address the needs of vulnerable communities. CONCLUSIONS Oncology programs that seek to implement lay patient navigation may benefit from the adoption of these activities for quality monitoring. Such activities are necessary as we consider reimbursement strategies for navigators without clinical training or licensure.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karen M Freund
- Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.,Division of Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Department of Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.,Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Jennifer S Haas
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Stephenie C Lemon
- Division of Preventive and Behavioral Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts
| | - Karen Burns White
- Initiative to Eliminate Cancer Disparities, Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Nicole Casanova
- Section of General Internal Medicine, Center of Excellence in Women's Health, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Laura S Dominici
- Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center, Brigham and Women's Faulkner Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - John K Erban
- Cancer Center and Division of Hematology/Oncology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Rachel A Freedman
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Ted A James
- Department of Surgery, BreastCare Center, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Naomi Y Ko
- Section of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine/Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Amy M LeClair
- Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Beverly Moy
- Division of Hematology/Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Susan K Parsons
- Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.,Cancer Center and Division of Hematology/Oncology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.,Reid R. Sacco AYA Cancer Program, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Tracy A Battaglia
- Section of General Internal Medicine, Center of Excellence in Women's Health, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Bernardo BM, Zhang X, Beverly Hery CM, Meadows RJ, Paskett ED. The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of patient navigation programs across the cancer continuum: A systematic review. Cancer 2019; 125:2747-2761. [PMID: 31034604 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.32147] [Citation(s) in RCA: 75] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/10/2018] [Revised: 03/04/2019] [Accepted: 03/27/2019] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
Published studies regarding patient navigation (PN) and cancer were reviewed to assess quality, determine gaps, and identify avenues for future research. The PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched for studies investigating the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of PN across the cancer continuum. Each included article was scored independently by 2 separate reviewers with the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. The current review identified 113 published articles that assessed PN and cancer care, between August 1, 2010, and February 1, 2018, 14 of which reported on the cost-effectiveness of PN programs. Most publications focused on the effectiveness of PN in screening (50%) and diagnosis (27%) along the continuum of cancer care. Many described the effectiveness of PN for breast cancer (52%) or colorectal cancer outcomes (51%). Most studies reported favorable outcomes for PN programs, including increased uptake of and adherence to cancer screenings, timely diagnostic resolution and follow-up, higher completion rates for cancer therapy, and higher rates of attending medical appointments. Cost-effectiveness studies showed that PN programs yielded financial benefits. Quality assessment showed that 75 of the 113 included articles (65%) had 2 or more weak components. In conclusion, this review indicates numerous gaps within the PN and cancer literature where improvement is needed. For example, more research is needed at other points along the continuum of cancer care outside of screening and diagnosis. In addition, future research into the effectiveness of PN for understudied cancers outside of breast and colorectal cancer is necessary along with an assessment of cost-effectiveness and more rigorous reporting of study designs and results in published articles.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brittany M Bernardo
- Division of Population Sciences, Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
| | - Xiaochen Zhang
- Division of Population Sciences, Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
| | - Chloe M Beverly Hery
- Division of Population Sciences, Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
| | - Rachel J Meadows
- Division of Population Sciences, Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.,Division of Epidemiology, College of Public Health, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
| | - Electra D Paskett
- Division of Population Sciences, Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.,Division of Epidemiology, College of Public Health, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.,Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute, Columbus, Ohio.,Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
| |
Collapse
|