Jeff Patton, MD, chief executive officer of Tennessee Oncology, discusses results from Oncology Care Model (OCM) performance period 3 (PP3) and challenges his practice still experiences with the model.
Jeff Patton, MD, CEO of Tennessee Oncology, discusses results from Oncology Care Model (OCM) performance period 3 (PP3) and challenges his practice still experiences with the model.
With results from PP3 of the OCM now out, how did your results compare with PP2?
We have 4 pillars of trying to impact value in OCM; we do clinical pathways, we have nurse navigation, we have a triage platform, and we do palliative care. Through those, in each performance period, we’ve increased our savings. We’ve beat our benchmark every time, we’ve not hit the target, and so we haven’t had shared savings. But, every time, we’ve increased. PP3, we had 2.5% of savings. Now, if you remember, that includes the MEOS [Monthly Enhanced Oncology Services] payments, which is about 3%, so if you exclude the MEOS payments, we’ve saved 5.5% in the total cost of care. So, we’re excited about our results and going forward.
What are the most pressing challenges your practice still experiences with OCM and its reporting requirements?
You said it—the reporting requirements are probably the most onerous. We also think that risk stratification is not right and there’s some flaws there. And then the third and maybe the biggest is the novel therapy adjustment. If you’re an early adopter of a novel therapy, you get penalized. Even though there’s an adjustment, it’s an 80% adjustment, so by definition, you’re 20% in the hole with only an 80% adjustment. We think being penalized for being innovative is just not fair.