RESUMO

The current study evaluated whether total cost of care (TCOC) and target price were aligned in Oncology Care Model (OCM) hematologic malignancy episodes and identified factors associated with episodes exceeding target price. Hematologic malignancy episodes from OCM performance period 1-4 reconciliation reports were identified from a large academic medical center. Of the 516 hematologic malignancies episodes included in the analysis, 283 (54.8%) exceeded the target price. Episode characteristics found to be statistically significantly associated with exceeding target price were Medicare Part B drug use and Part D drug use, novel therapy use, home health agency, and >730 days from last chemotherapy. The mean TCOC was $85 374 (± $26 342) for the episodes that exceeded target price while the mean target price was $56 106 (±$16 309). The results found a substantial misalignment between the TCOC and target price for hematologic malignancy episodes, adding to the existing evidence on the lack of adequate adjustment to the OCM target price.

Assuntos

Assuntos

RESUMO

Cannabis use and interest continues to increase among patients with cancer and caregivers. High-quality research remains scant in many areas, causing hesitancy or discomfort among most clinical providers. Although we have limitations on hard outcomes, we can provide some guidance and more proactively engage in conversations with patients and family about cannabis. Several studies support the efficacy of cannabis for various cancer and treatment-related symptoms, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea and cancer pain. Although formulations and dosing guidelines for clinicians do not formally exist at present, attention to tetrahydrocannabinol concentration and understanding of risks with inhalation can reduce risk. Conflicting information exists on the interaction between cannabis and immunotherapy as well as estrogen receptor interactions. Motivational interviewing can help engage in more productive, less stigmatized conversations.

Assuntos

Assuntos

RESUMO

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men in the United States. The majority of prostate cancer treatment occurs in the ambulatory setting, and patients and their caregivers take on significant responsibility for monitoring and managing treatment and disease-related toxicity. Digital health coaching has shown promise as a tool to positively influence outcomes. We completed a single-arm pilot study to assess the feasibility of digital health coaching in men with prostate cancer. METHODS: Men with a history of prostate cancer requiring treatment in the past 2 years were eligible for inclusion. Participants engaged in a 12-week health coaching program, consisting of a combination of at least one telephone call and up to four digital nudges (defined as content delivered via text, e-mail, or app on the basis of the participant's preference) per week. Prostate cancer-specific content addressed one of the following topics each week: fatigue, pain management, healthy eating, exercise, managing incontinence, sexual health, managing stress and anxiety, financial toxicity, goal setting during treatment, managing side effects, communicating with the health care team, and medication adherence. Services were provided at no cost to the participant. RESULTS: A hundred patients were consented for the study, and 88 enrolled. The feasibility threshold of 60% was met with 63 of the 88 enrolled individuals completing the 3-month program (proportion = 71.6%; 90% CI, 62.6 to 79.4; P = .016). CONCLUSION: Digital health coaching for men with prostate cancer is feasible. These findings support further evaluation of digital health coaching for men with prostate cancer in larger randomized controlled trials.

Assuntos

RESUMO

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a rapid expansion of telehealth use in oncology, a specialty in which prior utilization was low in part because of barriers perceived by providers. Understanding the changing perceptions of medical oncology providers during the pandemic is critical for continued expansion and improvement of telehealth in cancer care. This study was designed to identify medical oncology providers' perceptions of telehealth video visits as influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with medical oncology providers from November 20, 2020, to January 27, 2021, at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University, a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center in an urban, academic health system in Philadelphia, PA. We assessed provider perceptions of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on (1) provider-level comfort and willingness for telehealth, (2) provider-perceived patient comfort and willingness to engage in telehealth, and (3) continued barriers to successful telehealth use. RESULTS: Volunteer and convenience sampling resulted in the participation of 25 medical oncology providers, including 18 physicians and seven advanced practice providers, in semi-structured interviews. Of the 25 participants, 13 (52%) were female and 19 (76%) were White, with an average age of 48.5 years (standard deviation = 12.6). Respondents largely stated an increased comfort level and willingness for use of video visits. In addition, respondents perceived a positive change in patient comfort and willingness, mostly driven by convenience, accessibility, and reduced risk of COVID-19 exposure. However, several reported technologic issues and limited physical examination capability as remaining barriers to telehealth adoption. CONCLUSION: The rapid adoption of telehealth necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic has increased provider-level and provider-perceived patient comfort and willingness to engage in video visits for cancer care. As both providers and patients increasingly accept telehealth across many use cases, future work should focus on further addressing technology and physical examination barriers and ensuring continued reimbursement for telehealth as a routine part of covered care.

Assuntos

RESUMO

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to develop the Oncology Opportunity Cost Assessment Tool (OOCAT), a survey instrument to evaluate the opportunity costs patients experience when seeking medical oncology care. METHODS: Development of the OOCAT involved extensive patient engagement through both focus groups and interviews. First, the study team developed a list of opportunity cost concepts, which included patients' logistical and financial considerations related to seeking care. We conducted focus groups with patients to expand upon this list of concepts, and then developed a set of questions that incorporated all the concepts generated during the focus groups. To refine these questions, we next performed cognitive interviews with another set of patients to ensure content validity and clarity of instrument items, refining the OOCAT iteratively on the basis of feedback. RESULTS: We engaged 23 participants (17 patients and six caregivers) across four focus groups and 17 participants in cognitive interviews. Focus group participants generated 112 concepts, which resulted in an initial OOCAT with 16 questions. Cognitive interviews resulted in modification of 12 questions and addition of two questions (related to coordination of transportation and impact on home responsibilities). The final OOCAT consisted of 18 items examining time requirements for appointments, financial implications of traveling to appointments for the patient and the caregiver, and logistical and quality-of-life challenges associated with traveling for appointments. CONCLUSION: We developed the OOCAT, an instrument designed to evaluate patient-level opportunity costs of seeking medical oncology care. Further studies to validate the OOCAT are underway.

Assuntos

RESUMO

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.

Assuntos

RESUMO

PURPOSE: Germline testing (GT) for prostate cancer (PCA) is now central to treatment and hereditary cancer assessment. With rising demand for and shortage of genetic counseling (GC), tools to deliver pretest informed consent across practice settings are needed to improve access to GT and precision care. Here, we report on Evaluation and Management for Prostate Oncology, Wellness, and Risk (EMPOWER), a patient-choice study for pretest video-based genetic education (VBGE) versus GC to inform urgent practice needs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men with PCA or at risk for PCA (family history of PCA) were eligible and could choose pretest VBGE or GC. Outcomes included decisional conflict for GT, change in genetics knowledge, satisfaction, and intention to share results with family and/or providers. Descriptive statistics summarized results with counts and percentages for categorical variables and mean ± standard deviation for continuous variables. Data were compared with Fisher's exact, chi-squared, or Wilcoxon two-sample tests. Mean change in genetics knowledge was compared with t tests. The significance level was set a priori at .05. RESULTS: Data on the first 127 participants were analyzed. Characteristics were White (85.8%), bachelor's degree (66.9%), and PCA diagnosis (90.6%). The majority chose VBGE (71%) versus GC (29%; P < .001). No differences were observed in decisional conflict for GT or satisfaction. Cancer genetics knowledge improved in both groups without significant difference (+0.9 VBGE, +1.8 GC, P = .056). Men who chose VBGE had higher intention to share GT results (96.4% VBGE v 86.4% GC, P = .02). Both groups had high rates of GT uptake (VBGE 94.4%, GC 92%). CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of men opted for pretest VBGE, with comparable patient-reported outcomes and uptake of GT. The results support the use of pretest video to address the critical GC shortage in the precision era.

Assuntos

RESUMO

PURPOSE: Telehealth in medical oncology has expanded secondary to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, quantitative research on medical oncology telehealth use shows conflicting results on patient satisfaction, whereas qualitative data are sparse. Our qualitative study aimed to identify the factors influencing patient acceptability of video visits for medical oncology care before and at the onset of the expansion of telehealth because of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted between November 2019 and April 2020 with 20 patients who participated in a telehealth visit with a medical oncology provider at Thomas Jefferson University. RESULTS: Of the 20 participants, 13 (65%) were female and 15 (75%) were White, with a mean (standard deviation) age of 60.5 years (11.8). Patients identified convenience, anxiety, COVID-19, and provider preference as positively influencing the acceptability of video visits; however, some patients noted limitations in provider connection, physical examinations, and visit length as disadvantages. Regarding receipt of serious or bad news, some preferred video visits for privacy, immediacy of results, news processing, and family comfort. Others preferred in-person encounters for provider support and the ability to receive written information and in-person referrals. CONCLUSION: Patient-perceived factors influencing general acceptability, appropriateness of serious and bad news delivery, and future uses of telehealth were unique to each individual, but shared common themes. Understanding each patient's perspective of telehealth acceptability and tailoring use to their preferences is critical for continued utilization. Further research is needed to understand and address reasons for lack of telehealth uptake among certain patients.

Assuntos