Oncologist Support for Consolidated Payments for Cancer Care Management in the United States.
BACKGROUND
The cost of cancer care in the United States continues to rise, with pressure on oncologists to provide high-quality, cost-effective care while maintaining the financial stability of their practice. Existing payment models do not typically reward care coordination or quality of care. In May 2014, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) released a payment reform proposal (revised in May 2015) that includes a new payment structure for quality-of-care performance metrics.


OBJECTIVE
To assess US oncologists' perspectives on and support for ASCO's payment reform proposal, and to determine use of quality-of-care metrics, factors influencing their perception of value of new cancer drugs, the influence of cost on treatment decisions, and the perceptions of the reimbursement climate in the country.


METHODS
Physicians and medical directors specializing in oncology in the United States practicing for at least 2 years and managing at least 20 patients with cancer were randomly invited, from an online physician panel, to participate in an anonymous, cross-sectional, 15-minute online survey conducted between July and November 2014. The survey assessed physicians' level of support for the payment reform, use of quality-of-care metrics, factors influencing their perception of the value of a new cancer drug, the impact of cost on treatment decision-making, and their perceptions of the overall reimbursement climate. Descriptive statistics (chi-square tests and t-tests for discrete and continuous variables, respectively) were used to analyze the data. Logistic regression models were constructed to evaluate the main payment models described in the payment reform proposal.


RESULTS
Of the 231 physicians and medical directors who participated in this study, approximately 50% strongly or somewhat supported the proposed payment reform. Stronger support was seen among survey respondents who were male, who rated the overall reimbursement climate as excellent/good, who have a contract with a commercial payer that reimburses for dispensed oral cancer drugs, or who practice in a hospital setting. The use of at least 1 quality-of-care metric was more common among respondents participating in an accountable care organization (ACO) than among those not participating in an ACO (92.6% vs 83.2%, respectively; P = .0380). The most common metric used by the physicians in their practice setting was patient satisfaction scores (60.1%). Accountability for delivering high-quality care was supported by 74.9% of respondents; those who practice in a hospital setting were twice as likely as those in private practice to support accountability for quality of care (81.3% vs 67.6%; odds ratio, 2.1; P = .0176).


CONCLUSIONS
Support for ASCO's payment reform proposal is mixed among oncology physicians and medical directors, underscoring the importance of continuous and broader engagement of practicing physicians around the country via outreach and dialogue on topics that impact their clinical practices, as well as providing education or awareness activities by ASCO to its membership.
Senior Vice President, Global Evidence, Value & Access, Ipsos Healthcare, when this study was conducted, and is now Executive Vice President, Market Access Solutions, LLC, Raritan, NJ.
Siva
S
Narayanan
Ms Hautamaki is Senior Research Manager, Global Evidence, Value & Access, Ipsos Healthcare, Washington, DC.
Emily
E
Hautamaki
ASCO; cancer care; consolidated payments; oncologists; patient-centered oncology payment model; payment reform; provider perspectives; quality-of-care metrics