Monday, November 26, 2012

The Cost of Cancer Care, Part 3

The next topic I will cover is controlling costs in cancer care based on the next article availabe from CancerNetwork.com. Here's a little factoid:

"Cancer patients under active treatment comprise 1% of a payer’s patients but as much as 10% of costs."

Or 'Ouch!'.

Cancer care is expensive. How can the costs be controlled by still providing the patients with the optimal level of care in what is largely still a guessing game? Initial chemotherapy doses are often based on body weight. Then if a patient reacts, the doses can be adjusted down. If one treatmetn doesn't work or has adverse results, then a new treatment is tried. All of which may be very expensive.

Here's a 'brilliant' idea. Have physicians take cost into consideration when prescribing treatment. Well whoop de doo. What about the patient who is the center of all this? They should be the primary consideration.

So then why is cost a consideration? Because costs of treatment are too high and insurance companies are dictating treatment based on their perception of need vs. costs.

"Care for oncology patients, particularly in the adjuvant setting, is often given over predictable time frames. Instead of paying for each element of care separately, episode-of-care payments either can either pay a flat fee per unit of time or a flat fee for a defined care plan. The availability of accepted guidelines in oncology facilitates this payment approach.

Bach et al proposed such a model for metastatic lung cancer.[9] In this model, oncologists would receive a monthly payment derived from the average cost of caring for all patients with metastatic lung cancer. This payment would bundle the costs of chemotherapy, supportive care medications, and administration. Medicare payments would then be adjusted over time based on claims submitted during prior episodes. Physicians would have to demonstrate that treatment conformed to an accepted standard of care. The intent of the program would be to achieve savings by making physicians discretionary purchasers based on price. The downstream effect would also pressure pharmaceutical manufacturers to adjust drug prices downward in order to be economical within the structure of the payment model."

The crux of the problem is cost is so out of proportion to other medical costs that it must be considered for cancer patients. The problem though is the patient's life can depend on the chosen treatment.  I like the end result noted above that pharmaceutical manufacturers would need to adjust their pricing. Which is the real goal -  make the treatments less expensive - particularly in the US where patients unevenly absorb the research costs that are less frequently distributed to overseas patients.

Another model being reviewed is the Oncology Model Home:

"The medical home model of oncology care is another critical opportunity in the evolving delivery of oncology care, to both ensure quality and reduce cost.[12] The model emphasizes improved care coordination, recognizing that fragmented care acts as an important cost driver in oncology. This model began with the efforts of Dr. John Sprandio with Consultants in Medical Oncology and Hematology, the first oncology practice to achieve level III recognition from the National Committee for Quality Assurance.

The model employs several elements, with its key strength being its synthesis of multiple separate but important efforts in oncology: care coordination, open access, quality measurement, guideline adherence, and cost savings by preventing emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalization. Patient performance status is a key metric for decision-making, including eligibility for chemotherapy administration. This helps to ensure that patients are appropriate for active treatment vs palliative care. Dr. Sprandio’s practice has achieved reductions in ED visits per chemotherapy patient by 68% and hospitalizations per chemotherapy patient by 51%.[13] These are meaningful accomplishments, since the cost of hospitalization may equal or exceed spending on oncology drugs."

I like this idea better. Coordinating care with patient performance as a significant part of the decision making process. This makes the  patient the centerpiece as they should be.

Cost containment should never include rationing of care or so called 'death panels' as they are not humane options. In my mind the two issues are costs of care and the patients treatment/quality of life. Any other suggestions are welcome.

No comments: