美国不断变化的肿瘤护理管理趋势:医疗决策者调查。

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Gary Oderda, Diana Brixner, Joseph Biskupiak, James Harnett, Chieh-I Chen, Ruben G W Quek
{"title":"美国不断变化的肿瘤护理管理趋势:医疗决策者调查。","authors":"Gary Oderda, Diana Brixner, Joseph Biskupiak, James Harnett, Chieh-I Chen, Ruben G W Quek","doi":"10.18553/jmcp.2024.30.8.825","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is limited knowledge of how US managed care professionals view and prioritize quality metrics/performance measures, care models, alternative payment models, and clinical pathways in oncology settings.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To characterize payor perspectives on, and the use of, oncology clinical pathways and performance measures in their reimbursement/access decision-making process.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A survey was implemented via SurveyMonkey software and distributed electronically to a national sample of the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) Market Insights Panel members from July 11 through August 5, 2022. The survey was created by a steering committee based on literature reviews of the current and future oncology care landscapes. The survey consisted of 47 questions, including those to establish respondents' position, responsibilities, and demographics. The results are presented as descriptive statistics for 7 key questions that covered the perceptions and use of quality metrics/performance measures, alternative payment models, and oncology care pathways as prioritized by the steering committee.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 695 AMCP panel members who were sent the survey, 73 responded (response rate 10.5%), 54 were eligible to continue, and 31 completed the entire questionnaire; the low response rate may limit generalizability of the survey results. Specific oncology clinical and economic measures of performance were currently used (70%-88%) but generally received less endorsement for future use (39%-49%) except for chemotherapy during end of life, which was considered for future use by 80% of respondents but was only currently used by 31%. Benchmarking was the primary reason for the use of performance measures; only 27% used these to inform value-based agreements. Real-world data tracked by respondents' institutions primarily focused on managed care and pharmacy utilization (39%-85%), with patient-reported and clinical outcomes tracked by only 17%-34%. Almost one-third (31%) did not use clinical oncology pathways, and among those who did, fewer than half (48%) reported that their organization tracks whether treatment decisions agree with the oncology care pathways, and only 26% reported feedback to oncology providers on how often their treatment decisions agree with the pathways. When considering alternative payment models, patient-related components received lower rankings in importance than clinical relevance, actionability, and costs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Variation among payors regarding current trends in oncology care management, including on the importance of patient-centric outcomes and the use of oncology clinical pathways, suggests the need to focus on value-based health care and greater uptake of oncology clinical pathways.</p>","PeriodicalId":16170,"journal":{"name":"Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy","volume":"30 8","pages":"825-833"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11293761/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evolving oncology care management trends in the United States: A survey among health care decision makers.\",\"authors\":\"Gary Oderda, Diana Brixner, Joseph Biskupiak, James Harnett, Chieh-I Chen, Ruben G W Quek\",\"doi\":\"10.18553/jmcp.2024.30.8.825\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is limited knowledge of how US managed care professionals view and prioritize quality metrics/performance measures, care models, alternative payment models, and clinical pathways in oncology settings.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To characterize payor perspectives on, and the use of, oncology clinical pathways and performance measures in their reimbursement/access decision-making process.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A survey was implemented via SurveyMonkey software and distributed electronically to a national sample of the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) Market Insights Panel members from July 11 through August 5, 2022. The survey was created by a steering committee based on literature reviews of the current and future oncology care landscapes. The survey consisted of 47 questions, including those to establish respondents' position, responsibilities, and demographics. The results are presented as descriptive statistics for 7 key questions that covered the perceptions and use of quality metrics/performance measures, alternative payment models, and oncology care pathways as prioritized by the steering committee.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 695 AMCP panel members who were sent the survey, 73 responded (response rate 10.5%), 54 were eligible to continue, and 31 completed the entire questionnaire; the low response rate may limit generalizability of the survey results. Specific oncology clinical and economic measures of performance were currently used (70%-88%) but generally received less endorsement for future use (39%-49%) except for chemotherapy during end of life, which was considered for future use by 80% of respondents but was only currently used by 31%. Benchmarking was the primary reason for the use of performance measures; only 27% used these to inform value-based agreements. Real-world data tracked by respondents' institutions primarily focused on managed care and pharmacy utilization (39%-85%), with patient-reported and clinical outcomes tracked by only 17%-34%. Almost one-third (31%) did not use clinical oncology pathways, and among those who did, fewer than half (48%) reported that their organization tracks whether treatment decisions agree with the oncology care pathways, and only 26% reported feedback to oncology providers on how often their treatment decisions agree with the pathways. When considering alternative payment models, patient-related components received lower rankings in importance than clinical relevance, actionability, and costs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Variation among payors regarding current trends in oncology care management, including on the importance of patient-centric outcomes and the use of oncology clinical pathways, suggests the need to focus on value-based health care and greater uptake of oncology clinical pathways.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16170,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy\",\"volume\":\"30 8\",\"pages\":\"825-833\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11293761/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2024.30.8.825\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2024.30.8.825","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:人们对美国管理式医疗专业人员如何看待肿瘤治疗中的质量指标/绩效衡量标准、护理模式、替代支付模式和临床路径的优先次序了解有限:关于美国管理式医疗专业人员如何看待和优先考虑肿瘤学领域的质量指标/绩效衡量标准、护理模式、替代支付模式和临床路径,我们的了解还很有限:目的:描述支付方在其报销/准入决策过程中对肿瘤临床路径和绩效指标的看法和使用情况:通过 SurveyMonkey 软件实施了一项调查,并于 2022 年 7 月 11 日至 8 月 5 日以电子方式向管理型医疗药剂学学会 (AMCP) 市场洞察小组的全国样本成员发放。该调查由指导委员会根据对当前和未来肿瘤护理前景的文献综述制作而成。调查由 47 个问题组成,其中包括确定受访者职位、职责和人口统计学特征的问题。调查结果以 7 个关键问题的描述性统计数字的形式呈现,这些问题涉及指导委员会优先考虑的质量指标/绩效衡量标准、替代支付模式和肿瘤治疗路径的看法和使用情况:在收到调查问卷的 695 位 AMCP 专家组成员中,73 位做出了回复(回复率为 10.5%),54 位符合继续调查的条件,31 位完成了整个问卷;较低的回复率可能会限制调查结果的普遍性。具体的肿瘤临床和经济绩效衡量标准目前正在使用(70%-88%),但对未来使用的认可度普遍较低(39%-49%),但生命末期的化疗除外,80%的受访者认为未来会使用化疗,但目前仅有 31% 的受访者使用化疗。使用绩效衡量标准的主要原因是制定基准;只有 27% 的受访者使用绩效衡量标准为基于价值的协议提供信息。受访机构跟踪的真实世界数据主要集中在管理性医疗和药房使用方面(39%-85%),只有 17%-34% 的机构跟踪患者报告和临床结果。近三分之一(31%)的受访者没有使用临床肿瘤治疗路径,在使用临床肿瘤治疗路径的受访者中,不到一半(48%)的受访者表示他们的机构会跟踪治疗决策是否与肿瘤治疗路径一致,只有 26% 的受访者表示会向肿瘤治疗提供者反馈治疗决策与临床肿瘤治疗路径一致的频率。在考虑替代支付模式时,与患者相关的内容的重要性低于临床相关性、可操作性和成本:结论:不同的支付方对当前肿瘤护理管理趋势的看法存在差异,包括对以患者为中心的结果和肿瘤临床路径的使用的重要性的看法,这表明有必要关注以价值为基础的医疗保健和更多地采用肿瘤临床路径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evolving oncology care management trends in the United States: A survey among health care decision makers.

Background: There is limited knowledge of how US managed care professionals view and prioritize quality metrics/performance measures, care models, alternative payment models, and clinical pathways in oncology settings.

Objective: To characterize payor perspectives on, and the use of, oncology clinical pathways and performance measures in their reimbursement/access decision-making process.

Methods: A survey was implemented via SurveyMonkey software and distributed electronically to a national sample of the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) Market Insights Panel members from July 11 through August 5, 2022. The survey was created by a steering committee based on literature reviews of the current and future oncology care landscapes. The survey consisted of 47 questions, including those to establish respondents' position, responsibilities, and demographics. The results are presented as descriptive statistics for 7 key questions that covered the perceptions and use of quality metrics/performance measures, alternative payment models, and oncology care pathways as prioritized by the steering committee.

Results: Among the 695 AMCP panel members who were sent the survey, 73 responded (response rate 10.5%), 54 were eligible to continue, and 31 completed the entire questionnaire; the low response rate may limit generalizability of the survey results. Specific oncology clinical and economic measures of performance were currently used (70%-88%) but generally received less endorsement for future use (39%-49%) except for chemotherapy during end of life, which was considered for future use by 80% of respondents but was only currently used by 31%. Benchmarking was the primary reason for the use of performance measures; only 27% used these to inform value-based agreements. Real-world data tracked by respondents' institutions primarily focused on managed care and pharmacy utilization (39%-85%), with patient-reported and clinical outcomes tracked by only 17%-34%. Almost one-third (31%) did not use clinical oncology pathways, and among those who did, fewer than half (48%) reported that their organization tracks whether treatment decisions agree with the oncology care pathways, and only 26% reported feedback to oncology providers on how often their treatment decisions agree with the pathways. When considering alternative payment models, patient-related components received lower rankings in importance than clinical relevance, actionability, and costs.

Conclusions: Variation among payors regarding current trends in oncology care management, including on the importance of patient-centric outcomes and the use of oncology clinical pathways, suggests the need to focus on value-based health care and greater uptake of oncology clinical pathways.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy
Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy Health Professions-Pharmacy
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.80%
发文量
131
期刊介绍: JMCP welcomes research studies conducted outside of the United States that are relevant to our readership. Our audience is primarily concerned with designing policies of formulary coverage, health benefit design, and pharmaceutical programs that are based on evidence from large populations of people. Studies of pharmacist interventions conducted outside the United States that have already been extensively studied within the United States and studies of small sample sizes in non-managed care environments outside of the United States (e.g., hospitals or community pharmacies) are generally of low interest to our readership. However, studies of health outcomes and costs assessed in large populations that provide evidence for formulary coverage, health benefit design, and pharmaceutical programs are of high interest to JMCP’s readership.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信