Currently Viewing:
The American Journal of Managed Care May 2015
Comparison of Provider and Plan-Based Targeting Strategies for Disease Management
Ann M. Annis, MPH, RN; Jodi Summers Holtrop, PhD, MCHES; Min Tao, PhD; Hsiu-Ching Chang, PhD; and Zhehui Luo, PhD
Making Measurement Meaningful
Christine K. Cassel, MD, President and CEO, National Quality Forum
Care Fragmentation, Quality, and Costs Among Chronically Ill Patients
Brigham R. Frandsen, PhD; Karen E. Joynt, MD, MPH; James B. Rebitzer, PhD; and Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH
Results From a National Survey on Chronic Care Management by Health Plans
Soeren Mattke, MD, DSc; Aparna Higgins, MA; and Robert Brook, MD, ScD
Association Between the Patient-Centered Medical Home and Healthcare Utilization
Rainu Kaushal, MD, MPH; Alison Edwards, MStat; and Lisa M. Kern, MD, MPH
Currently Reading
Transforming Oncology Care: Payment and Delivery Reform for Person-Centered Care
Kavita Patel, MD, MS; Andrea Thoumi, MSc; Jeffrey Nadel, BA; John O'Shea, MD, MPA; and Mark McClellan, MD, PhD
Innovative Care Models for High-Cost Medicare Beneficiaries: Delivery System and Payment Reform to Accelerate Adoption
Karen Davis, PhD, APN; Christine Buttorff, PhD; Bruce Leff, MD; Quincy M. Samus, PhD; Sarah Szanton, PhD, APN; Jennifer L. Wolff, PhD; and Farhan Bandeali, MSPH
Annual Diabetic Eye Examinations in a Managed Care Medicaid Population
Elham Hatef, MD, MPH; Bruce G. Vanderver, MD, MPH; Peter Fagan, PhD; Michael Albert, MD; and Miriam Alexander, MD, MPH
Systematic Review of Benefit Designs With Differential Cost Sharing for Prescription Drugs
Oluwatobi Awele Ogbechie, MD, MBA; and John Hsu, MD, MBA, MSCE
Changing Trends in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Treatment Intensification, 2002-2010
Rozalina G. McCoy, MD; Yuanhui Zhang, PhD; Jeph Herrin, PhD; Brian T. Denton, PhD; Jennifer E. Mason, PhD; Victor M. Montori, MD; Steven A. Smith, MD; Nilay D. Shah, PhD
Medicaid-Insured and Uninsured Were More Likely to Have Diabetes Emergency/Urgent Admissions
Monica A. Fisher, PhD, DDS, MPH, MS; and Zhen-qiang Ma, MD, MPH, MS
Roles of Prices, Poverty, and Health in Medicare and Private Spending in Texas
Chapin White, PhD; Suthira Taychakhoonavudh, PhD; Rohan Parikh, MS; and Luisa Franzini, PhD
Measuring Patient-Centered Medical Home Access and Continuity in Clinics With Part-Time Clinicians
Ann-Marie Rosland, MD, MS; Sarah L. Krein, PhD, RN; Hyungjin Myra Kim, ScD; Clinton L. Greenstone, MD; Adam Tremblay, MD; David Ratz, MS; Darcy Saffar, MPH; and Eve A. Kerr, MD, MPH

Transforming Oncology Care: Payment and Delivery Reform for Person-Centered Care

Kavita Patel, MD, MS; Andrea Thoumi, MSc; Jeffrey Nadel, BA; John O'Shea, MD, MPA; and Mark McClellan, MD, PhD
The authors examine 4 alternative payment models for oncology care that shift away from fee-for-service and move progressively toward greater bundling, either across providers or across payments.
Oncology is a specialty ripe for payment and delivery reform.
  • Many problems facing oncology care today mirror the effects of a system based on fee-for-service, which promotes the use of higher-cost services that may not be related to evidence or better health outcomes.
  • Ranging from incremental to comprehensive reform, alternative payment models (APMs) that are more outcomes- and population-based provide an opportunity to support innovative approaches to oncology care.
  • Preliminary experience with such APMs suggests that these novel models can be adopted by all payer and provider types, and that they offer distinct benefits compared with the baseline model of fee-for-service.
Fee-for-service (FFS) remains the predominant payment mechanism in oncology despite ongo­ing efforts to implement alternative approaches. This form of reimbursement, which reflects the broader healthcare system, promotes high-volume, high-cost procedural services and often undervalues or fails to re­imburse evidence-based, low-cost, high-impact services such as patient education, prevention, and care man­agement. Americans with cancer have clearly benefited from increasingly personalized treatments that prolong and improve quality of life. However, many novel care transformations are not adequately supported by pay­ment reforms that encourage high-value care and mini­mize unnecessary utilization. The lack of support for many aspects of less costly, personalized care may be slowing improvements in cancer outcomes.

Due in part to technological advances and an aging population, cancer care will likely continue to be a pri­mary driver of increasing health spending. A recent study projects total cancer spending to be approximately $157 billion in 2020—a 27% increase from 2010.1 The distribu­tion of total cancer care costs is 32% for chemotherapy drugs, administration, and radiation; 33% for inpatient and physician surgical claims; and 12% for other physi­cian services. The remaining 22% is composed of evalua­tion and management, hospice, laboratory tests, imaging services, and inpatient stays without surgery.2

Growing cost pressures, cost variations across sites of service, and cost of care components such as che­motherapeutics may also reduce access to high-quality care. One major concern tied to this trend is that many higher-cost services are not demonstrably related to evi­dence or better outcomes. Additionally, costs of care are higher in outpatient or inpatient hospital settings than in the community setting. These differentials have cre­ated an incentive for community practice consolidation, potentially raising costs and threatening access, with fewer community providers available to treat people with cancer.3-5

Alongside these challenges, there are many opportunities to realize the goal of a high-quality, high-value healthcare system. Key stakeholders recognize that payment reform in oncology is needed. Many have begun to realign provider payments with care transformations that encourage cost-ef­fective standardization of care and symptom management. Some efforts alter financial incentives for discrete areas of interest, such as end-of-life care or drug procurement, and others take a more comprehensive approach.6 Notably, these changes focus payments around the individual rather than the services provided, making oncology care increas­ingly person-centered and accountable.

Alternative payment models (APMs) may be viewed along a spectrum through greater bundling across either providers or payments (Figure). To varying degrees, all APMs transition from volume- to case-based payments, reduce or limit the FFS component, and use performance measures to hold providers accountable. Providers gain flexibility by decoupling provider payments from the vol­ume and intensity of specific services, but they also face greater accountability for lowering costs, and depending on the performance measures that affect payment, for better quality care and better results. The APMs differ in the extent and type of flexibility and accountability, but share common barriers to implementation. Performance and outcome measures that are meaningful to patients and clinicians are needed to help ensure that greater net revenues are tied to better care. The impact of an APM on care also depends on investments and support, such as the timely collection and analysis of data through the creation of meaningful feedback loops and upgraded health information technology (IT) systems. Moreover, the success of more substantial APM reforms—including oncology patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) and oncology accountable care organizations (ACOs)—will potentially require greater investments in human resources, work flow changes, provider buy-in to transform care, and other aspects of practice transformation, in addition to potentially imposing heavi­er administrative burdens than clinical pathways or bundled payment models.

In this paper, we use 4 distinct APMs— clinical pathways, oncology PCMHs, bundled payments, and oncology ACOs— to illustrate this continuum of payment incentives that can influence the extent to which care delivery changes limit or reduce costs. We selected these APMs because they can support incremen­tal to comprehensive clinical transformations, thereby ac­counting for the breadth and size of all oncology practices, populations served, and payer types. We consider these models person-centered, as they fundamentally shift away from FFS payments, realigning the focus of care toward the beneficiary and away from the number of services the physician provides. A greater investment in patient-focused care ultimately aims to improve patient outcomes and satisfaction rates, while simultaneously delivering ap­propriate care and reducing unnecessary healthcare utili­zation.7 We suggest that these reforms, summarized in the Table,8-18 should be viewed as building blocks along the spectrum of payment reforms.


Building Block 1: Clinical Pathways

Clinical pathways are standardized, evidence-based, cost-effective protocols for the treatment of cancer that require limited structural changes or provider risk.19 This model uses a revenue-neutral supplemental payment to compensate providers for pathway adherence and reaching quality benchmarks, which are necessary to prevent undertreatment or medically contraindicated prescriptions. Providers may receive a per member per month (PMPM) case management fee, typically between $250 and $300 in private insurance plans, for adhering to evidence-based, cost-effective chemotherapy regimens, promoting the use of lower-cost options of equal clinical effectiveness.8 This differs from the current buy-and-bill model for chemotherapeutics. Providers are reimbursed based on the average sales price for the drug itself—6% for Medicare and a variable percentage for commercial payers—and derive revenue margins, similar to a fixed administration fee, based on drug costs. Consequently, expensive chemotherapeutics translate into greater net revenues for a practice.

Early results show that pathways programs can poten­tially blunt cost growth through less use of aggressive treat­ments that are not supported by clinical guidelines.20,21 Studies to date demonstrate that pathways can reduce variation in chemotherapy use, thereby lowering costs while maintaining overall survival rates.14,22 However, these reforms alone may not have a big impact on care coordination or other aspects of personalized care.

Building Block 2: Oncology Patient-Centered Medical Home

Building on clinical pathways, the oncology PCMH is a practice-level approach that promotes care coordina­tion and improvement through payments that are more extensively aligned with practice features expected to im­prove patient outcomes and patient-level performance measures. Providers receive a PMPM case management fee between $200 and $250 upon achieving certain per­formance and outcomes benchmarks.8 Providers can use the PMPM fee in an oncology PCMH to support services that have traditionally not been reimbursed (eg, access through expanded office hours, telephone triage, team-based care models, and advanced health IT) to encour­age better patient education and care coordination and management.23 Although these services require upfront investment, collectively they facilitate care transforma­tion that centers on the needs of patients, families, and caregivers. Furthermore, improved collaboration among an interdisciplinary care team removes barriers to care and removes clinically irrelevant work from the duties of a clinician.

The combination of better care coordination and more support for cost-effective services in the oncology PCMH model potentially reduces hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits, prevents overutilization of unnec­essary high-cost drugs and services, and improves symp­tom management beyond the hospital setting.23,24 Early results from 1 oncology PCMH showed reductions in ED visits (68%), hospital admissions per patient treated with chemotherapy (51%), length of stay for admitted patients (21%), overall outpatient visits (22%), and outpatient visits in the chemotherapy population (12%).23,25 Although the cost of increasing care management services may offset some of the savings, successful oncology PCMH models have reported significant net cost reductions via reduced ED visits and hospitalizations. One oncology PCMH re­ported aggregated savings of approximately $1 million per physician per year.26 Another program also saw substan­tial cost reductions from lower utilization of hospital ad­missions (34%), hospital days (44%), and ED visits (48%).24 However, these savings have not been reproduced in all cases, and evidence is limited on the specific details of the payment and delivery reforms that may influence success.

Building Block 3: Bundled Payment

Both within and outside an oncology PCMH-style de­livery approach, a more comprehensive bundled payment methodology is possible. Providers are compensated with a 1-time prospective or retrospective payment for a spe­cific set of cancer services over a predetermined treatment period.14 To the extent a broader range of services are bun­dled, providers can gain even more flexibility to redirect resources to cost-effective patient-centered activities that FFS does not reimburse, and the greater accountability means more pressure to reduce costs of care.27,28 Recent results from 1 bundled payment pilot show a 34% reduc­tion in total cost of care.29

The scope of a bundled payment in oncology can vary greatly depending on the components that compose the bundle. Most early pilots include limited bundles for the administration of chemotherapy and supportive-care drugs.28,30-32 Some more comprehensive, but still partial, bundles may cover the drug acquisition costs; bundled payments may also provide more support for redesign­ing management by including other expensive cancer care components such as imaging services and radiation therapy. Additionally, bundled payments in radiation oncology present an opportunity to manage high-cost treatments and post treatment side effects.33 As with other APMs, a bundled payment must be carefully tied to per­formance benchmarks to deter adverse effects on access to and quality of care. However, the greater potential for patient cost variation that accompanies larger bundles means that providers face more uncertainty about their net revenues—and this may be why more comprehensive bundles have not been widely adopted.

Building Block 4: Oncology Accountable Care Organization With Clinical and Financial Risk

Copyright AJMC 2006-2020 Clinical Care Targeted Communications Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Welcome the the new and improved, the premier managed market network. Tell us about yourself so that we can serve you better.
Sign Up