Fostering a High-Functioning Team in Cancer Care Using the 4R Oncology Model: Assessment in a Large Health System and a Blueprint for Other Institutions.

PURPOSE: Delivering cancer care by high-functioning multidisciplinary teams promises to address care fragmentation, which threatens care quality, affects patient outcomes, and strains the oncology workforce. We assessed whether the 4R Oncology model for team-based interdependent care delivery and patient self-management affected team functioning in a large community-based health system. METHODS: 4R was deployed at four locations in breast and lung cancers and assessed along four characteristics of high-functioning teams: recognition as a team internally and externally; commitment to an explicit shared goal; enablement of interdependent work to achieve the goal; and engagement in regular reflection to adapt objectives and processes. RESULTS: We formed an internally and externally recognized team of 24 specialties committed to a shared goal of delivering multidisciplinary care at the optimal time and sequence from a patient-centric viewpoint. The team conducted 40 optimizations of interdependent care (22 for breast, seven for lung, and 11 for both cancers) at four points in the care continuum and established an ongoing teamwork adaptation process. Half of the optimizations entailed low effort, while 30% required high level of effort; 78% resulted in improved process efficiency. CONCLUSION: 4R facilitated development of a large high-functioning team and enabled 40 optimizations of interdependent care along the cancer care continuum in a feasible way. 4R may be an effective approach for fostering high-functioning teams, which could contribute to improving viability of the oncology workforce. Our intervention and taxonomy of results serve as a blueprint for other institutions motivated to strengthen teamwork to improve patient-centered care.

Resource and Reimbursement Barriers to Comprehensive Cancer Care Delivery: An Analysis of Association of Community Cancer Centers Survey Data.

PURPOSE: Comprehensive cancer care (CCC) delivery is recommended in guidelines and considered essential for high-quality cancer management. Barriers, such as insufficient reimbursement, prevent consistent access to and delivery of CCC. Association of Community Cancer Centers conducted a national survey to elucidate capacity and barriers to CCC delivery to inform policy and value-based payment reform. METHODS: Survey methodology included item generation with expert review, iterative piloting, and cognitive validity testing. In the final instrument, 27 supportive oncology services were assessed for availability, reasons not offered, and coverage/reimbursement. RESULTS: 204 of 704 member programs completed survey questions. Despite most services being reported as offered, a minority were funded through insurance reimbursement. The services least likely to obtain reimbursement were those that address practical and family/childcare needs (0.7%), caregiver support (1.5%), advanced care directives (1.7%), spiritual services (1.8%), and navigation (2.7%). These findings did not vary by region or practice type. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of sufficient reimbursement, staffing, and budget to provide CCC across the United States. Care models and reimbursement policies must include CCC services to optimize delivery of cancer care.

Perspectives of private payers on multicancer early-detection tests: informing research, implementation, and policy.

Emerging blood-based multicancer early-detection (MCED) tests may redefine cancer screening, reduce mortality, and address health disparities if their benefit is demonstrated. U.S. payers' coverage policies will impact MCED test adoption and access; thus, their perspectives must be understood. We examined views, coverage barriers, and evidentiary needs for MCED from 19 private payers collectively covering 150 000 000 enrollees. Most saw an MCED test's potential merit for cancers without current screening (84%), but fewer saw its merit for cancers with existing screening (37%). The largest coverage barriers were inclusion of cancers without demonstrated benefits of early diagnosis (73%), a high false-negative rate (53%), and lack of care protocols for MCED-detected but unconfirmed cancers (53%). The majority (58%) would not require mortality evidence and would accept surrogate endpoints. Most payers (64%) would accept rigorous real-world evidence in the absence of a large randomized controlled trial. The majority (74%) did not expect MCED to reduce disparities due to potential harm from overtreatment resulting from an MCED and barriers to downstream care. Payers' perspectives and evidentiary needs may inform MCED test developers, researchers producing evidence, and health systems framing MCED screening programs. Private payers should be stakeholders of a national MCED policy and equity agenda.

Genetic counselors' experience with reimbursement and patient out-of-pocket cost for multi-cancer gene panel testing for hereditary cancer syndromes.

Multi-cancer gene panels for hereditary cancer syndromes (hereditary cancer panels, HCPs) are widely available, and some laboratories have programs that limit patients' out-of-pocket (OOP) cost share. However, little is known about practices by cancer genetic counselors for discussing and ordering an HCP and how insurance reimbursement and patient out-of-pocket share impact these practices. We conducted a survey of cancer genetic counselors based in the United States through the National Society of Genetic Counselors to assess the impact of reimbursement and patient OOP share on ordering of an HCP and hereditary cancer genetic counseling. Data analyses were conducted using chi-square and t tests. We received 135 responses (16% response rate). We found that the vast majority of respondents (94%, 127/135) ordered an HCP for patients rather than single-gene tests to assess hereditary cancer predisposition. Two-thirds of respondents reported that their institution had no protocol related to discussing HCPs with patients. Most respondents (84%, 114/135) indicated clinical indications and patients' requests as important in selecting and ordering HCPs, while 42%, 57/135, considered reimbursement and patient OOP share factors important. We found statistically significant differences in reporting of insurance as a frequently used payment method for HCPs and in-person genetic counseling (84% versus 59%, respectively, p < 0.0001). Perceived patient willingness to pay more than $100 was significantly higher for HCPs than for genetic counseling(41% versus 22%, respectively, p < 0.01). In sum, genetic counselors' widespread selection and ordering of HCPs is driven more by clinical indications and patient preferences than payment considerations. Respondents perceived that testing is more often reimbursed by insurance than genetic counseling, and patients are more willing to pay for an HCP than for genetic counseling. Policy efforts should address this incongruence in reimbursement and patient OOP share. Patient-centered communication should educate patients on the benefit of genetic counseling.

Assessing Breast Cancer Risks to Improve Care for an Increased-Risk Population within Eastern North Carolina.

BACKGROUND The average lifetime risk of breast cancer for an American woman is 12.5%, but individual risks vary significantly. Risk modeling is a standard of care for breast cancer screening and prevention with recommended tools to stratify individual risks based on age, family history, breast density, and a host of other known risk factors. Because of a lack of resources rurally, we have not consistently met this standard of care within all of North Carolina.METHODS We implemented a quality improvement project to assess the risk for breast cancer by gathering data on community risks. We implemented an evidence-based tool (Tyrer-Cuzick) for quantifying risk within a mostly rural population of Eastern North Carolina and developed customized services for women meeting elevated-risk definition. These services included additional imaging for elevated-risk women and a risk-reduction program. We also assessed genetic risks for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in our at-risk population using National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines based on family history and added local genetics extenders to help test more women. We analyzed data regularly using Plan-Do-Study-Act methods to improve outcomes over 1 year.RESULTS We screened a population of 4500 women at a community hospital over a 1-year period for their individual lifetime cancer risk and genetic risk. Breast cancer risk was quantitated at the time of mammography, and women were stratified into 3 groups for risk management. Within our screening population, 6.3% of women were at high risk (defined by a lifetime breast cancer risk greater than or equal to 20%) and another 8.1% were above-average risk (defined by a lifetime breast cancer risk of 15%-20%). These women (14.4%) could potentially benefit from additional risk-management strategies. Additionally, 20% of all unaffected women within a typical screening population of Eastern North Carolina met NCCN guidelines for hereditary breast cancer and ovarian cancer testing independent of their cancer risk score. Using a model of targeted intervention within a population with elevated risks can be helpful in improving outcomes.LIMITATIONS This population within Eastern North Carolina is mostly rural and represents a potentially biased population, as it involves older women undergoing annual mammography. It may not be broadly applicable to the entire population based on age, geography, and other risks.CONCLUSIONS This model for improving cancer risk assessment and testing at a small community hospital in Eastern North Carolina was successful and addressed a community need. We discovered a high rate of increased-risk women who can benefit from individualized risk management, and a higher percentage of women who potentially benefit from genetic testing. These higher cumulative risks may in part explain some of the disparities seen for breast-cancer-specific outcomes in some parts of the state.

Hereditary cancer panel testing challenges and solutions for the latinx community: costs, access, and variants.

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancers (HBOCs) are common among the Latinx population, and risk testing is recommended using multi-gene hereditary cancer panels (HCPs). However, little is known about how payer reimbursement and out-of-pocket expenses impact provider ordering of HCP in the Latinx population. Our objective is to describe key challenges and possible solutions for HCP testing in the Latinx population. As part of a larger study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with key provider informants (genetic counselors, oncologist, nurse practitioner) from safety-net institutions in the San Francisco Bay Area. We used a deductive thematic analysis approach to summarize themes around challenges and possible solutions to facilitating HCP testing in Latinx patients. We found few financial barriers for HCP testing for the Latinx population due to laboratory patient assistance programs that cover testing at low or no cost to patients. However, we found potential challenges related to the sustainability of low-cost testing and out-of-pocket expenses for patients, access to cascade testing for family members, and pathogenic variants specific to Latinx. Providers questioned whether current laboratory payment programs that decrease barriers to testing are sustainable and suggested solutions for accessing cascade testing and ensuring variants specific to the Latinx population were included in testing. The use of laboratories with payment assistance programs reduces barriers to HCP testing among the US population; however, other barriers are present that may impact testing use in the Latinx population and must be addressed to ensure equitable access to HCP testing for this population.

Influence of payer coverage and out-of-pocket costs on ordering of NGS panel tests for hereditary cancer in diverse settings.

The landscape of payment for genetic testing has been changing, with an increase in the number of laboratories offering testing, larger panel offerings, and lower prices. To determine the influence of payer coverage and out-of-pocket costs on the ordering of NGS panel tests for hereditary cancer in diverse settings, we conducted semi-structured interviews with providers who conduct genetic counseling and order next-generation sequencing (NGS) panels purposefully recruited from 11 safety-net clinics and academic medical centers (AMCs) in California and North Carolina, states with diverse populations and divergent Medicaid expansion policies. Thematic analysis was done to identify themes related to the impact of reimbursement and out-of-pocket expenses on test ordering. Specific focus was put on differences between settings. Respondents from both safety-net clinics and AMCs reported that they are increasingly ordering panels instead of single-gene tests, and tests were ordered primarily from a few commercial laboratories. Surprisingly, safety-net clinics reported few barriers to testing related to cost, largely due to laboratory assistance with prior authorization requests and patient payment assistance programs that result in little to no patient out-of-pocket expenses. AMCs reported greater challenges navigating insurance issues, particularly prior authorization. Both groups cited non-coverage of genetic counseling as a major barrier to testing. Difficulty of access to cascade testing, particularly for family members that do not live in the United States, was also of concern. Long-term sustainability of laboratory payment assistance programs was a major concern; safety-net clinics were particularly concerned about access to testing without such programs. There were few differences between states. In conclusion, the use of laboratories with payment assistance programs reduces barriers to NGS panel testing among diverse populations. Such programs represent a major change to the financing and affordability of genetic testing. However, access to genetic counseling is a barrier and must be addressed to ensure equity in testing.

US private payers' perspectives on insurance coverage for genome sequencing versus exome sequencing: A study by the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research Consortium (CSER).

PURPOSE: There is limited payer coverage for genome sequencing (GS) relative to exome sequencing (ES) in the U.S. Our objective was to assess payers' considerations for coverage of GS versus coverage of ES and requirements payers have for coverage of GS. The study was conducted by the NIH-funded Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research Consortium (CSER). METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with representatives of private payer organizations (payers, N = 12) on considerations and evidentiary and other needs for coverage of GS and ES. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: We described four categories of findings and solutions: demonstrated merits of GS versus ES, enhanced methods for evidence generation, consistent laboratory processes/sequencing methods, and enhanced implementation/care delivery. Payers see advantages to GS vs. ES and are open to broader GS coverage but need more proof of these advantages to consider them in coverage decision-making. Next steps include establishing evidence of benefits in specific clinical scenarios, developing quality standards, ensuring transparency of laboratory methods, developing clinical centers of excellence, and incorporating the role of genetic professionals. CONCLUSION: By comparing coverage considerations for GS and ES, we identified a path forward for coverage of GS. Future research should explicitly address payers' conditions for coverage.

Evaluation of the Novel 4R Oncology Care Planning Model in Breast Cancer: Impact on Patient Self-Management and Care Delivery in Safety-Net and Non-Safety-Net Centers.

PURPOSE: Optimal cancer care requires patient self-management and coordinated timing and sequence of interdependent care. These are challenging, especially in safety-net settings treating underserved populations. We evaluated the 4R Oncology model (4R) of patient-facing care planning for impact on self-management and delivery of interdependent care at safety-net and non-safety-net institutions. METHODS: Ten institutions (five safety-net and five non-safety-net) evaluated the 4R intervention from 2017 to 2020 with patients with stage 0-III breast cancer. Data on self-management and care delivery were collected via surveys and compared between the intervention cohort and the historical cohort (diagnosed before 4R launch). 4R usefulness was assessed within the intervention cohort. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 63% (422/670) in intervention and 47% (466/992) in historical cohort. 4R usefulness was reported by 79.9% of patients receiving 4R and was higher for patients in safety-net than in non-safety-net centers (87.6%, 74.2%, P = .001). The intervention cohort measured significantly higher than historical cohort in five of seven self-management metrics, including clarity of care timing and sequence (71.3%, 55%, P < .001) and ability to manage care (78.9%, 72.1%, P = .02). Referrals to interdependent care were significantly higher in the intervention than in the historical cohort along all six metrics, including primary care consult (33.9%, 27.7%, P = .045) and flu vaccination (38.6%, 27.9%, P = .001). Referral completions were significantly higher in four of six metrics. For safety-net patients, improvements in most self-management and care delivery metrics were similar or higher than for non-safety-net patients, even after controlling for all other variables. CONCLUSION: 4R Oncology was useful to patients and significantly improved self-management and delivery of interdependent care, but gaps remain. Model enhancements and further evaluations are needed for broad adoption. Patients in safety-net settings benefited from 4R at similar or higher rates than non-safety-net patients, indicating that 4R may reduce care disparities.

Telemedicine in Oncology and Reimbursement Policy During COVID-19 and Beyond.

The first confirmed case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the United States was reported on January 20, 2020. As of September 17, 2020, there were more than 6.6 million confirmed cases and 196,277 deaths. Limited data are available on outcomes of immunocompromised patients, but early published reports from China indicate that those with cancer have a 3.5 times higher risk of ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or death than those without cancer. Because of the uncertain behavior of COVID-19, it has become imperative for practices to limit exposure to vulnerable patients. Telemedicine has been one of the cornerstones of caring for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. This review provides an overview of reimbursement policy by public and private payers before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, describes implications in cancer care, and offers considerations for future reimbursement policy.

Systematic Patient Navigation Strategies to Scale Breast Cancer Disparity Reduction by Improved Cancer Prevention and Care Delivery Processes.

PURPOSE: Patient navigation uses trained personnel to eliminate barriers to timely care across all phases of the health care continuum, thereby reducing health disparities. However, patient navigation has yet to be systematized in implementation models to improve processes of care at scale rather than remain a band-aid approach focused solely on improving care for the individual patient. The 4R systems engineering approach (right information and right treatment to the right patient at the right time) uses project management discipline principles to develop care sequence templates that serve as patient-centered project plans guiding patients and their care team. METHODS: A case-study approach focused on the underserved patient shows how facilitators to timely breast cancer screening and care pragmatically identified as emergent data by patient navigators can be actionized by iteratively revising 4R care sequence templates to incorporate new insights as they emerge. RESULTS: Using a case study of breast cancer screening of a low-income patient, we illustrate how 4R care sequence templates can be revised to incorporate emergent facilitators to care identified through patient navigation. CONCLUSION: Use of care sequence templates can inform the care team to optimize a particular patient's care, while functioning as a learning health care system for process improvement of patient care and patient navigation scaling. A learning health care system approach that systematically integrates data patterns emerging from multiple patient navigation experiences through in-person navigators and 4R care sequence templates may improve processes of care and allow patient navigation scaling to reduce cancer disparities.

Insights From a Temporal Assessment of Increases in US Private Payer Coverage of Tumor Sequencing From 2015 to 2019.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the temporal trajectory of insurance coverage for next-generation tumor sequencing (sequencing) by private US payers, describe the characteristics of coverage adopters and nonadopters, and explore adoption trends relative to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' National Coverage Determination (CMS NCD) for sequencing. METHODS: We identified payers with positive coverage (adopters) or negative coverage (nonadopters) of sequencing on or before April 1, 2019, and abstracted their characteristics including size, membership in the BlueCross BlueShield Association, and whether they used a third-party policy. Using descriptive statistics, payer characteristics were compared between adopters and nonadopters and between pre-NCD and post-NCD adopters. An adoption timeline was constructed. RESULTS: Sixty-nine payers had a sequencing policy. Positive coverage started November 30, 2015, with 1 payer and increased to 33 (48%) as of April 1, 2019. Adopters were less likely to be BlueCross BlueShield members (P < .05) and more likely to use a third-party policy (P < .001). Fifty-eight percent of adopters were small payers. Among adopters, 52% initiated coverage pre-NCD over a 25-month period and 48% post-NCD over 17 months. CONCLUSIONS: We found an increase, but continued variability, in coverage over 3.5 years. Temporal analyses revealed important trends: the possible contribution of the CMS NCD to a faster pace of coverage adoption, the interdependence in coverage timing among BlueCross BlueShield members, the impact of using a third-party policy on coverage timing, and the importance of small payers in early adoption. Our study is a step toward systematic temporal research of coverage for precision medicine, which will inform policy and affordability assessments.

Perspectives of US private payers on insurance coverage for pediatric and prenatal exome sequencing: Results of a study from the Program in Prenatal and Pediatric Genomic Sequencing (P3EGS).

PURPOSE: Exome sequencing (ES) has the potential to improve management of congenital anomalies and neurodevelopmental disorders in fetuses, infants, and children. US payers are key stakeholders in patient access to ES. We examined how payers view insurance coverage and clinical utility of pediatric and prenatal ES. METHODS: We employed the framework approach of qualitative research to conduct this study. The study cohort represented 14 payers collectively covering 170,000,000 enrollees. RESULTS: Seventy-one percent of payers covered pediatric ES despite perceived insufficient evidence because they saw merit in available interventions or in ending the diagnostic odyssey. None covered prenatal ES, because they saw no merit. For pediatric ES, 50% agreed with expanded aspects of clinical utility (e.g., information utility), and 21% considered them sufficient for coverage. For prenatal ES, payers saw little utility until in utero interventions become available. CONCLUSION: The perceived merit of ES is becoming a factor in payers' coverage for serious diseases with available interventions, even when evidence is perceived insufficient. Payers' views on ES's clinical utility are expanding to include informational utility, aligning with the views of patients and other stakeholders. Our findings inform clinical research, patient advocacy, and policy-making, allowing them to be more relevant to payers.

Private payer coverage policies for exome sequencing (ES) in pediatric patients: trends over time and analysis of evidence cited.

PURPOSE: Exome sequencing (ES) is being adopted for neurodevelopmental disorders in pediatric patients. However, little is known about current coverage policies or the evidence cited supporting these policies. Our study is the first in-depth review of private payer ES coverage policies for pediatric patients with neurodevelopmental disorders. METHODS: We reviewed private payer coverage policies and examined evidence cited in the policies of the 15 largest payers in 2017, and trends in coverage policies and evidence cited (2015-2017) for the five largest payers. RESULTS: There were four relevant policies (N = 5 payers) in 2015 and 13 policies (N = 15 payers) in 2017. In 2015, no payer covered ES, but by 2017, three payers from the original registry payers did. In 2017, 8 of the 15 payers covered ES. We found variations in the number and types of evidence cited. Positive coverage policies tended to include a larger number and range of citations. CONCLUSION: We conclude that more systematic assessment of evidence cited in coverage policies can provide a greater understanding of coverage policies and how evidence is used. Such assessments could facilitate the ability of researchers to provide the needed evidence, and the ability of clinicians to provide the most appropriate testing for patients.

From the Past to the Present: Insurer Coverage Frameworks for Next-Generation Tumor Sequencing.

Next-generation sequencing promises major advancements in precision medicine but faces considerable challenges with insurance coverage. These challenges are especially important to address in oncology in which next-generation tumor sequencing (NGTS) holds a particular promise, guiding the use of life-saving or life-prolonging therapies. Payers' coverage decision making on NGTS is challenging because this revolutionary technology pushes the very boundaries of the underlying framework used in coverage decisions. Some experts have called for the adaptation of the coverage framework to make it better equipped for assessing NGTS. Medicare's recent decision to cover NGTS makes this topic particularly urgent to examine. In this article, we discussed the previously proposed approaches for adaptation of the NGTS coverage framework, highlighted their innovations, and outlined remaining gaps in their ability to assess the features of NGTS. We then compared the three approaches with Medicare's national coverage determination for NGTS and discussed its implications for US private payers as well as for other technologies and clinical areas. We focused on US payers because analyses of coverage approaches and policies in the large and complex US health care system may inform similar efforts in other countries. We concluded that further adaptation of the coverage framework will facilitate a better suited assessment of NGTS and future genomics innovations.

Payer Coverage for Hereditary Cancer Panels: Barriers, Opportunities, and Implications for the Precision Medicine Initiative.

Background: Hereditary cancer panels (HCPs), testing for multiple genes and syndromes, are rapidly transforming cancer risk assessment but are controversial and lack formal insurance coverage. We aimed to identify payers' perspectives on barriers to HCP coverage and opportunities to address them. Comprehensive cancer risk assessment is highly relevant to the Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI), and payers' considerations could inform PMI's efforts. We describe our findings and discuss them in the context of PMI priorities. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 11 major US payers, covering >160 million lives. We used the framework approach of qualitative research to design, conduct, and analyze interviews, and used simple frequencies to further describe findings. Results: Barriers to HCP coverage included poor fit with coverage frameworks (100%); insufficient evidence (100%); departure from pedigree/family history-based testing toward genetic screening (91%); lacking rigor in the HCP hybrid research/clinical setting (82%); and patient transparency and involvement concerns (82%). Addressing barriers requires refining HCP-indicated populations (82%); developing evidence of actionability (82%) and pathogenicity/penetrance (64%); creating infrastructure and standards for informing and recontacting patients (45%); separating research from clinical use in the hybrid clinical-research setting (44%); and adjusting coverage frameworks (18%). Conclusions: Leveraging opportunities suggested by payers to address HCP coverage barriers is essential to ensure patients' access to evolving HCPs. Our findings inform 3 areas of the PMI: addressing insurance coverage to secure access to future PMI discoveries; incorporating payers' evidentiary requirements into PMI's research agenda; and leveraging payers' recommendations and experience to keep patients informed and involved.