Achieving a multilevel evidence-based approach to improve cancer care in the U.S. post-COVID era: What is the role of management?

In 2013, the Institute of Medicine already had declared the state of U.S. cancer care as "a delivery system in crisis." Beginning in early 2020, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically revealed the fragile nature of the U.S. health system. As a microcosm of that larger health system, cancer care can provide us with opportunities for innovative thinking and new solutions. This paper describes a series of public and private-sector cancer care initiatives that are the building blocks for a multilevel evidence-based approach to improve cancer care in the post-COVID era. Achieving these objectives requires significant managerial policy decisions, some risk taking, and the development of organizational strategies that involve collaboration within the managerial and clinical leadership. Such strategies should reflect adaptability to navigate the complex and changing science, policy and financing environment, while retaining the central values of patient-centered care. As suggested by Edward Deming, an early pioneer in quality-improvement initiatives, the problems are with the system, and the system belongs to management. Though future challenges are undefined and likely to be significant, the foundational elements of a multilevel, evidence-based approach for improving cancer care are established and able to be built upon and will offer application in the post-COVID era.

Achieving flexible competence: bridging the investment dichotomy between infectious diseases and cancer.

Today's global health challenges in underserved communities include the growing burden of cancer and other non-communicable diseases (NCDs); infectious diseases (IDs) with epidemic and pandemic potential such as COVID-19; and health effects from catastrophic 'all hazards' disasters including natural, industrial or terrorist incidents. Healthcare disparities in low-income and middle-income countries and in some rural areas in developed countries make it a challenge to mitigate these health, socioeconomic and political consequences on our globalised society. As with IDs, cancer requires rapid intervention and its effective medical management and prevention encompasses the other major NCDs. Furthermore, the technology and clinical capability for cancer care enables management of NCDs and IDs. Global health initiatives that call for action to address IDs and cancer often focus on each problem separately, or consider cancer care only a downstream investment to primary care, missing opportunities to leverage investments that could support broader capacity-building. From our experience in health disparities, disaster preparedness, government policy and healthcare systems we have initiated an approach we call flex-competence which emphasises a systems approach from the outset of program building that integrates investment among IDs, cancer, NCDs and disaster preparedness to improve overall healthcare for the local community. This approach builds on trusted partnerships, multi-level strategies and a healthcare infrastructure providing surge capacities to more rapidly respond to and manage a wide range of changing public health threats.

How vision and leadership shaped the U.S. National Cancer Institute's 50-year journey to advance the evidence base of cancer control and cancer care delivery research.

In 1971, Congress passed the National Cancer Act, landmark legislation that reorganized the National Institutes of Health's National Cancer Institute (NCI). The Act included a new focus on cancer control, including the requirement that the NCI award research grants and contracts, in collaboration with other public agencies and private industry, to conduct cancer control activities related to the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of cancer. The requirement placed the NCI at the nexus of a rapidly changing science and a complex and dynamic healthcare delivery system and involved an evolutionary transformation to advance cancer control and cancer care delivery research along the cancer care continuum. Analysis is based on a qualitative ethnographic approach using historical records, oral histories, and targeted interviews. The multimethod approach provided the opportunity to describe the vision, leadership, and struggle to build an infrastructure, expand expertise, and forge collaboration with the NCI and a complex and changing healthcare system. As the 50th anniversary of the National Cancer Act approaches in 2021, the process and these achievements are at risk of being taken for granted or lost in the flow of history. Documenting the process, milestones, and key players provides insight and guidance for continuing to improve cancer care, advance research, and reduce cancer incidence and mortality. Cancer care is a microcosm of the larger healthcare system providing insight and lessons on the importance of developing and maintaining a research infrastructure and the role of multi-level collaboration and partnerships involving both the private and public sectors.

Findings from an opt-in eye examination service in English special schools. Is vision screening effective for this population?

Our objective was to present the findings of an opt-in, school-based eye care service for children attending 11 special schools in England and use these findings to determine whether a vision screening programme would be appropriate for this population. Data from eye examinations provided to 949 pupils (mean age 10.7 years) was analysed to determine the prevalence and aetiology of visual deficiencies and reported eye care history. For 46.2% (n = 438) of pupils, a visual deficiency was recorded. 12.5% of all the children seen (n = 119) had a visual deficiency that was previously undiagnosed. Referral for a medical opinion was made for 3.1% (n = 29) of pupils seen by the service. Spectacle correction was needed for 31.5% (n = 299) of pupils; for 12.9% (122) these were prescribed for the first time. 3.7% (n = 11) of parents/carers of pupils needing spectacles chose not to use the spectacle dispensing service offered in school. Eye care history was available for 847 pupils (89.3%). Of the pupils for whom an eye care history was available, 44% (n = 373) reported no history of any previous eye care and10.7% (n = 91) reported a history of attending a community optical practice/opticians. Only one pupil from the school entry 4-5 age group (0.6% of age group n = 156) would have passed vision screening using current Public Health England screening guidelines. Children with a diagnosis of autism were significantly less likely to be able to provide a reliable measurement of visual acuity. This study supports previously published evidence of a very high prevalence of visual problems in children with the most complex needs and a significant unmet need in this group. It demonstrates routine school entry vision screening using current Public Health England guidelines is not appropriate for this group of children and very low uptake of community primary eye care services.

The strategic case for establishing public-private partnerships in cancer care.

BACKGROUND: In 2007, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) launched the NCI Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) as a public-private partnership with community hospitals with a goal of advancing cancer care and research. In order to leverage federal dollars in a time of limited resources, matching funds from each participating hospital were required. The purpose of this paper is to examine hospitals' level of and rationale for co-investment in this partnership, and whether there is an association between hospitals' co-investment and achievement of strategic goals. METHODS: Analysis using a comparative case study and micro-cost data was conducted as part of a comprehensive evaluation of the NCCCP pilot to determine the level of co-investment made in support of NCI's goals. In-person or telephone interviews with key informants were conducted at 10 participating hospital and system sites during the first and final years of implementation. Micro-cost data were collected annually from each site from 2007 to 2010. Self-reported data from each awardee are presented on patient volume and physician counts, while secondary data are used to examine the local Medicare market share. RESULTS: The rationale expressed by interviewees for participation in a public-private partnership with NCI included expectations of increased market share, higher patient volumes, and enhanced opportunities for cancer physician recruitment as a result of affiliation with the NCI. On average, hospitals invested resources into the NCCCP at a level exceeding $3 for every $1 of federal funds. Six sites experienced a statistically significant change in their Medicare market share. Cancer patient volume increased by as much as one-third from Year 1 to Year 3 for eight of the sites. Nine sites reported an increase in key cancer physician recruitment. CONCLUSIONS: Demonstrated investments in cancer care and research were associated with increases in cancer patient volume and perhaps in recruitment of key cancer physicians, but not in increased Medicare market share. Although the results reflect a small sample of hospitals, findings suggest that hospital executives believe there to be a strategic case for a public-private partnership as demonstrated through the NCCCP, which leveraged federal funds to support mutual goals for advancing cancer care and research.

The role of a public-private partnership: translating science to improve cancer care in the community.

Health reform is bringing about changes in the healthcare environment, but an equally significant transformation is occurring in science with the sequencing of the human genome and the increasing role of personalized medicine in the delivery of new cancer therapies. These changes directly affect the ability of hospitals to provide value-based, state-of-the-art care and represent major strategic decisions that must be made by management. In the United States, an estimated 85% of cancer patients receive care in community settings, but patients' outcomes are often not equivalent to those achieved in academic health centers. Care of cancer patients in the community is often fragmented, as most oncologists are in private practice and have limited access to formal mechanisms for coordinating care across specialties or with primary care physicians. Furthermore, genetic analysis, advanced diagnostic tests, and clinical trials are not always available to patients in these settings. The evolution of cancer care requires a reconfiguration of processes and investment in new services. In response, the National Cancer Institute launched the Community Cancer Centers Program in 2007 as a public-private partnership with 16 community hospitals. This article draws on the results of an external evaluation of the pilot program and assesses the role of such a partnership as a means of facilitating the translation of the developing science to the community setting, with reference to the role of management in the implementation of such partnerships.

Improving clinical research and cancer care delivery in community settings: evaluating the NCI community cancer centers program.

BACKGROUND: In this article, we describe the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) pilot and the evaluation designed to assess its role, function, and relevance to the NCI's research mission. In doing so, we describe the evolution of and rationale for the NCCCP concept, participating sites' characteristics, its multi-faceted aims to enhance clinical research and quality of care in community settings, and the role of strategic partnerships, both within and outside of the NCCCP network, in achieving program objectives. DISCUSSION: The evaluation of the NCCCP is conceptualized as a mixed method multi-layered assessment of organizational innovation and performance which includes mapping the evolution of site development as a means of understanding the inter- and intra-organizational change in the pilot, and the application of specific evaluation metrics for assessing the implementation, operations, and performance of the NCCCP pilot. The assessment of the cost of the pilot as an additional means of informing the longer-term feasibility and sustainability of the program is also discussed. SUMMARY: The NCCCP is a major systems-level set of organizational innovations to enhance clinical research and care delivery in diverse communities across the United States. Assessment of the extent to which the program achieves its aims will depend on a full understanding of how individual, organizational, and environmental factors align (or fail to align) to achieve these improvements, and at what cost.

Are CRF receptor antagonists potential antidepressants?

Corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF) is the major regulator of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, and plays a key role in coordinating the endocrine, as well as autonomic and behavioral responses of an organism to stress. Direct CNS administration of CRF to laboratory animals produces an aggregate of effects that mimic the mammalian stress response. Impeding CRF function with CNS administration of a peptidergic CRF antagonist can block these manifestations of the stress response whether produced by exogenous CRF or occurring naturally in response to a stressor. A role for hypersecretion of CRF in the pathophysiology of depression is suggested by the finding that CNS administration of CRF mirrors many of the signs and symptoms utilized as diagnostic criteria for major depression. In addition, a large body of clinical evidence points to excess hypothalamic secretion of CRF and an accompanying HPA axis hyperactivity in patients with major depression. The recent development of selective, small molecule CRF(1) receptor antagonists, which block the effects of CRF both in vitro and in vivo, suggest that these compounds may be effective in the treatment of affective and anxiety disorders. Early evidence indicates that these agents possess anxiolytic and antidepressant activity in animal behavioral models. Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.