Joseph Alvarnas, MD: Well, this has been a great discussion. Before we end, I’d like to ask the panelists for any additional insights regarding their expectation of value-based care in the oncology healthcare setting. Dr Carlson?
Robert Carlson, MD: I always struggle when we talk about value-based care, because value means so many different things to so many different people. Even for individuals, it depends on the context and what we’re talking about in terms of what value really means. My definition of value, when it comes to oncology care, is really whatever the patient tells me it is and that’s what we should focus on. For some patients, that may be finances. For some patients, that may be survival. For some, it may be whether or not they retain the ability to speak after their laryngeal cancer is treated. It can mean many, many different things. So, let the patient tell me what value means, and I’ll accept that definition and work to achieve value for them.
Joseph Alvarnas, MD: Miss Carpenter?
Elizabeth Carpenter: Something that you talked about earlier today was value frameworks and how they are entering into the system. And at Avalere Health, we’ve been partnering with FasterCures, because we’ve looked at value frameworks and not felt like the patient voice has really been represented. So, we are working on a patient-perspective value framework that’s going to take into account feedback from hundreds of patients and stakeholders from across the healthcare system. I would stay tuned for that.
Joseph Alvarnas, MD: Beautiful. And Dr Fox?
John Fox, MD: There’s a new paradigm that the CMMI and the Oncology Care Model are promulgating, and that is physicians being at risk for the total cost of care for cancer patients. I think that for too long, physicians have been insulated from the cost of healthcare, and now they’re actively having discussions about that driven by these value frameworks—including the ASCO Value Framework and the NCCN Evidence Blocks. I think that’s a good thing because it will help get onto the table not only the financial issues that patients face, but also the benefits and risks of the therapies they receive. That’s where the real value is. I agree with Bob that a clear discussion of all the available treatment options and what they cost and what the side effects are is really where we need to go. And I think the patients will drive that, but they need the physicians’ help; they can’t do that in a vacuum.
Joseph Alvarnas, MD: Wonderful. Thank you all. On behalf of our panel, we’d like to thank you for following the Spring 2017 Oncology Stakeholder Summit Series. We hope you found this Peer Exchange® informative, and we hope you will join us as the series continues. Thank you.
Study Highlights BMP7 As a Potential Therapeutic Target for Ovarian Cancer
November 30th 2023High Bone Morphogenetic Protein 7 (BMP7) expression was significantly associated with aggressive phenotypes, including advanced grade, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, residual disease, and adverse overall survival.
Read More
7-Day Dosing of Azacytidine Shows Benefit for Females With High-Risk MDS Not Seen in Males
November 30th 2023Investigators from several medical centers in Japan were surprised to find that women with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) had a survival advantage from a 7-day dosing schedule, but that benefit compared with a reduced schedule was not seen in men.
Read More
Oncology Onward: A Conversation With Thyme Care CEO and Cofounder Robin Shah
October 2nd 2023Robin Shah, CEO of Thyme Care, which he founded in 2020 with Bobby Green, MD, president and chief medical officer, joins hosts Emeline Aviki, MD, MBA, and Stephen Schleicher, MD, MBA, to discuss his evolution as an entrepreneur in oncology care innovation and his goal of positively changing how patients experience the cancer system.
Listen
Contributor: More Informed Management of Preeclampsia Is Necessary
November 29th 2023At present, it is difficult for clinicians to identify patients at greatest risk for developing preeclampsia with severe features and tailor treatment plans for them; this difficulty increases costs significantly.
Read More
Research Points to Potential MCIDs in Diabetes Distress Scale–17
November 29th 2023Researchers identified a value of at least 0.25 to be a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in diabetes distress, and MCID values of 0.38 and 0.39 for emotional and interpersonal distress subscales and physician and regimen distress subscales, respectively.
Read More