Tag Archives: value-based care

On the Road to Value-Based Care: Operational & Cultural Change

By Monique J. Marino, Senior Manager, Publications & Content, ACCC

2017-Open-Road-smWhile there can be no single roadmap for transitioning to value-based care, a panel session at the 2017 Cancer Business Summit, February 6-7, 2017, co-hosted by the Association of Community Cancer Centers, focused on  Operational & Cultural Change  that can help cancer programs move forward on the path ahead.  Sarah Chavarria, Chief People Officer, NantHealth, shared that successful organizational alignment is centered around these key concepts:

  • Strategy: mission, vision, and values; organizational goals; brand.
  • Structure: placing the right talent in the right role; holding people accountable for meeting organizational goals.
  • Talent: managing against a set of value-based competencies; assessing, developing, and growing the “best and brightest.”
  • Rewards: creating incentives that drive collaboration to deliver on organizational goals; these incentives should be flexible in design to attract and retain top talent—in other words, identifying what your employees value so that the organization can package them and reward behavior they want.
  • Systems and processes: these should enable decision making and responsiveness, and support effective execution.

“Cancer programs should create a ‘Deliberate Culture,’” Chavarria concluded. “If you are not deliberate in defining your culture, it will just happen; and it will not be what you want.”

Panelist James Grayson, a High Reliability Organization Specialist at West Cancer Center, outlined five key steps to help cancer programs succeed operationally and culturally:

Step. 1 Set your bar higher than everyone else’s.

Step 2. Hire people with potential.

Step 3. Invest in your front-line management team.

Step 4. Invest heavily in safety, risk management, leadership, and talent development.

Step 5. Be the cancer program your patients and staff need you to be.

Rounding out the panel was 2017 Cancer Business Summit Innovator Award Winner, Barry Russo, MBA, Chief Executive Officer, The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, who told attendees about the steps his cancer program took to move to value-based care, including:

  • Centralizing patient intake from 9 practice locations to 1 location, streamlining and improving care coordination.
  • Establishing triage as its own business unit.
  • Implementing an internal case management program to facilitate proactive intervention and risk stratification of patients.
  • Growing supportive care services (an effort that requires continual identification of new funding avenues), such as palliative care, chaplaincy services, nurse navigation, survivorship, etc.
  • Implementing a new patient education program.
  • Identifying technology gaps and improving decision-support around data and analytics.
  • Developing communication tools around value-based care to share with employer and payer communities.

To help cancer programs prepare for the change to value-based care, Russo offered five high-level takeaways:

  1. Deliver a consistent message; identify the changes needed and understand how to make these changes.
  2. Establish a new norm—while still a physician-centric care delivery model, ALL members of the care team are essential to healing lives after cancer. Value-based care requires cultural change and significant organizational re-engineering.
  3. Understand that staff and clinician education is a journey and not a destination. Accept that leadership must focus on education, re-education, and then more education. Effective team building requires repetition—leadership rounds, nursing forums, regular reports from pillars in the cancer program, etc.
  4. Be aware that nursing needs a hyper-focus. Nurses enjoy the most touch points with patients, so nursing stability is of the utmost importance to successful cancer programs.
  5. Build strong teams at EVERY level of the organization; teams that can process constant change. The move to value-based care is not for the faint of heart. Staff must be able to accept feedback; brutal honesty is essential to the process. Staff must accept that the move to value-based care means change is interrupting their day, not making it easier.

Learn more about what lies ahead for value-based care at the ACCC 43rd Annual Meeting CANCERSCAPE, March 29-31, 2017, in Washington, D.C. Join your peers to hear from leading experts and decision-makers about the evolving healthcare policy landscape, the latest on alternative payment models, data collection and quality measures, and more. Explore the meeting agenda here.

 

Cooling Down ICER? Five Questions to Consider

By ACCC Communications

Three jigsaw puzzles pieces (sm)Although the value-based reimbursement train has definitely left the station and is picking up speed, those in the oncology community continue to grapple with the thorny issues around understanding and defining value in cancer care. Treatment innovations and costs are driving the value discussion in oncology. New and emerging immuno-oncology therapies, while bringing unprecedented clinical value to many patients, often carry price tags of $100,000 a year or more, and are front and center in these discussions. Patient access in an era of high-priced pharmaceuticals continues to be a major challenge, particularly as many of these innovative therapeutics entail high co-pays and/or co-insurance payments. The result is that some patients face major hurdles to accessing these innovative options.

For those in the oncology community, staying up-to-date on current and proposed value frameworks is essential—not only to advance innovation in cancer care and to ensure patient access to new therapeutic options, but also to protect cancer program economic viability in an era where payment and reimbursement may become increasingly tied to value.

In a recent Institute for Clinical Immuno-Oncology (ICLIO) webinar, a panel of leading experts provided real-world perspectives on value framework development in oncology in the U.S., with a particular focus on the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), which has gained prominence in the past 18 months.  For those in the oncology community who may not be familiar with ICER, panelist Jennifer Hinckel, MSc, McGivney Global Advisors, provided background and offered the following five questions to consider in assessing the organization’s recent report related to non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC):

  • Does ICER have the appropriate expertise to interpret complex clinical data given that there are not disease-specific clinical experts on staff or advisory panels?
  • Does ICER have processes in place to adequately prevent or limit bias or policy/political aims from slipping into its reports?
  • Is ICER’s approach of evaluating products close to the time of approval (or pre-approval) appropriate, given its methodology of including only randomized controlled trial (RCT) data?
  • Does ICER have sufficient staffing to review and update reports in disparate disease areas and to ensure accuracy?
  • Would ICER’s various approaches meet the standards of peer view in a widely published journal?

In a recent op-ed published in the Oncology Business Review, leading lung cancer experts (including ICLIO Advisory Committee Chair, Lee Schwartzberg, MD, FACP) suggest some level-setting principles for value frameworks including the following:

  • Have disease experts as evaluators and authors
  • Have patient-centered endpoints, conclusions, and definitions of value
  • Use rigorous methodologies reflecting evidence-based medicine
  • Apply continuous review and revision
  • Hold peer review and authorship to scientific standards.

Listen to the full ICLIO webinar discussion here.

As noted in a newly-released white paper from the Institute for Clinical Immuno-Oncology, all of the existing first-generation value frameworks have strengths and weaknesses. Each wrestles with defining value, and each exposes inherent tensions between payer concepts of value and the perspectives of patients and providers. As the field of immuno-oncology continues to expand, all stakeholders will need to stay informed and be prepared contribute to ongoing development of value frameworks that consider not only cost and clinical benefit, but patients’ perspectives on value in cancer care.  In the months ahead as the oncology community contributes to the discussion on value determination methodologies in the context of payer negotiations and political pressure to lower costs and enact drug pricing reform, as well as working to ensure access to new and emerging immunotherapy and combination therapies, ICLIO will continue to offer support and resources for the multidisciplinary team serving patients in communities close to home.


ICLIO is an Institute of the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC). In September 2016,  ACCC submitted comments in response to ICER’s national call for proposed improvements to its Value Assessment Frameworks. 

ACCC Annual Meeting: Five Key Takeaways

by Amanda Patton, ACCC Communications

ACCC 42nd Annual MeetingNearly 500 oncology professionals gathered in Washington, D.C., last week for the 42nd ACCC Annual Meeting, CANCERSCAPE. Throughout sessions centered on policy, value, and quality, attendees heard a recurrent message: Your experience, perspective, and input on the issues of value-based care, quality measures, and outcomes are essential as the healthcare system and oncology transition to the new world of alternative payment models and value-based care.

From ACCC Capitol Hill Day last Wednesday throughout the meeting sessions, attendees were urged to educate policymakers and payers about the real-world processes involved in delivering quality cancer care.

In the meeting’s opening session, Congressman Rick Nolan (MN-D)  called out the vital role ACCC members can play in helping educate legislators and policymakers, “No one can articulate need, challenges, potential to ultimately cure cancer [better] than the people in this room today,” he said.

Can precision medicine be reconciled with value-based care? “Absolutely” said Kavita Patel, MD, MS, of the Brookings Institution.  Oncology already delivers personalized (or precision) medicine through targeted therapies for some cancers, she pointed out. Communicating about the oncology care process so that policymakers understand real-world cancer care delivery is imperative, Patel said. Part of that conversation should aim to help policymakers understand the demanding intuitive thought process that is part of today’s oncology care, along with the tremendous amount of information cancer care providers must keep up with given the pace and variety of emerging therapies. “It’s not writing prescriptions,” she said.

Five Key CANCERSCAPE Takeaways

High-level meeting takeaways that interconnect value, policy, and quality include:

  1. Alignment. For value and quality measures to work in oncology, alignment among payers, providers, and patients is essential.
  2. Put your data to work. Cancer programs and practices are finding ways to harness their data to improve quality patient-centered care and reduce costs. In a presentation on Collaboration Across Specialties to Improve Care and Curb Costs, Matthew Manning, MD,  from Cone Health demonstrated how his program used data to identify “hotspotters,” assess gaps in care, improve outcomes, and reduce costs.
  3. Communicate. Support conversations across silos and among stakeholders. Engage with patients to understand their goals of care and to define value and quality. While value frameworks are generic, “all patients are different” agreed panelists in a Town Hall discussion on Value Framework Tools.
  4. Be proactive. Don’t wait until USP Chapter 800 goes into effect to assess your facilities readiness. Don’t wait until HRSA issues its final 340B mega-regulation. Take steps today to assess your program’s compliance. “Be prepared” was also the message in a Biosimilars Update from Nisha Pherwani, PharmD, BCOP, clinical director of Oncology, Cardinal Health. She urged attendees to:
    • Understand the FDA approval process for biosimilars
    • Provide a concise review to your P&T committee
    • Review the FDA guidances on biosimilars
    • Stay tuned for more on how interchangeability will impact regulations.
  5. Speak up. Oncology providers can best articulate the care they provide and the issues impacting care delivery. Leadership in oncology has to step forward to help define quality and value and inform policy. Work with ACCC to make your voice heard.

This week’s CMS release of a proposed rule designed to test new Medicare Part B drug payment models makes clear the critical need for the oncology community stay on top of what is happening among policymakers in Washington, D.C.  ACCC has voiced strong opposition to CMS’s proposal. Among other concerns, ACCC points to the lack of opportunity for stakeholder input on the development of this proposal.

ACCC urges its members speak up and ask Congress to stop the CMS Medicare Part B Drug Payment Model.  Click here to contact your legislators.

Transformation ⇒ From Volume to Value

Centers_for_Medicare_and_Medicaid_Services_logoBy Leah Ralph, Manager, Provider Economics and Public Policy, ACCC

This week the CMS Innovation Center announced the launch of the Oncology Care Model—the agency’s newest payment and service delivery model, described as a multi-payer, oncology practitioner-focused model designed to improve the quality of cancer care while lowering cost.

According to the CMS announcement, key facets of the model include:

  • Episode-based payment that targets chemotherapy and related care during a six-month period following the start of chemotherapy treatment.
  • Multi-payer design with Medicare fee-for-service and other payers working in tandem to promote care redesign for oncology patients.
  • Requiring physician practices to engage in practice transformation to improve quality and coordination of care.

This is the latest signal that the shift from volume-based reimbursement to payment for value and quality is gaining momentum. The interest in moving healthcare payment away from a system that incentivizes quantity has been reflected in every major healthcare law in recent years—from the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) in 2003 to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010.

In fact, the ACA created the $10 billion Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) with the sole aim of developing and testing innovative ways to pay providers. And on Feb. 12 the Innovation Center provided its first model for oncology care.

The launch of this model is not unexpected given that in January 2015, for the first time in Medicare’s history, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced explicit goals for tying Medicare payments to alternative payment models and value-based payments. According to the HHS timeline, 30 percent of all fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare payments will be tied to alternative payment models by 2016—including, but not limited to, Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), medical homes, and bundled payments for episodes of care. By 2018, 50 percent of payments will be tied to these models. CMS also set a goal of tying 85 percent of traditional Medicare payments to quality or value by 2016 and 90 percent by 2018 through such programs as the Hospital Value Based Purchasing or Hospital Readmissions Reduction programs.

Ambitious Goals

The initial benchmark of 2016 sets a laudable, but ambitious, goal. Certainly the announcement signals the Obama Administration is making this issue a priority, and we can expect to see an accelerated push to transition Medicare payments and, in turn, private payers.

This shift is a huge undertaking that will not only affect payments, but fundamentally change incentives for how providers deliver care. Implementation will take time, and will require the right balance of forward momentum and important safeguards to ensure that patients continue to receive the most appropriate, quality care. As HHS moves full steam ahead, the provider community must speak up and urge policymakers to:

  • continue to work to find consensus on appropriate quality measures,
  • establish a sound, fair methodology for calculating financial benchmarks and risk adjustment, and
  • allow providers the time, resources, and flexibility they need to implement these new payment models.

The just-announced Oncology Care Model (OCM) will test the bundling of payments for chemotherapy administration. But with other models, such as the Medicare Shared Savings Program (Medicare ACOs) that are primary care focused, it’s still unclear how oncologists will be included or even participate. Caring for cancer patients is complex and often expensive, leaving inherent challenges in how to account for cancer care in alternative models. How will high-cost drugs and innovative therapies be treated in the construct of an ACO? Will high-cost cancer patients be included in the financial benchmark? What is oncology’s role in shared risk and savings? ACCC and other organizations are continuing to work with CMS to answer these questions.

Call to Action

ACCC encourages the provider community to remain informed and active participants in the policy-making dialogue to ensure that we do, in fact, achieve meaningful, realistic payment reform. One of the best ways to get engaged is meeting with your legislators at ACCC’s upcoming Capitol Hill Day on March 16. The next day, at ACCC’s Annual Meeting, CANCERSCAPE on March 17, we’ll be hearing from Ron Kline, MD, Medical Officer with the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation – an author of the Oncology Care Model. Now is the time to come to Washington D.C. – get your questions answered and voices heard at a pivotal moment for oncology care. Join us!