Literature DB >> 23277766

Oncology practice trends from the national practice benchmark.

Thomas R Barr1, Elaine L Towle.   

Abstract

In 2011, we made predictions on the basis of data from the National Practice Benchmark (NPB) reports from 2005 through 2010. With the new 2011 data in hand, we have revised last year's predictions and projected for the next 3 years. In addition, we make some new predictions that will be tracked in future benchmarking surveys. We also outline a conceptual framework for contemplating these data based on an ecological model of the oncology delivery system. The 2011 NPB data are consistent with last year's prediction of a decrease in the operating margins necessary to sustain a community oncology practice. With the new data in, we now predict these reductions to occur more slowly than previously forecast. We note an ease to the squeeze observed in last year's trend analysis, which will allow more time for practices to adapt their business models for survival and offer the best of these practices an opportunity to invest earnings into operations to prepare for the inevitable shift away from historic payment methodology for clinical service. This year, survey respondents reported changes in business structure, first measured in the 2010 data, indicating an increase in the percentage of respondents who believe that change is coming soon, but the majority still have confidence in the viability of their existing business structure. Although oncology practices are in for a bumpy ride, things are looking less dire this year for practices participating in our survey.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23277766      PMCID: PMC3439229          DOI: 10.1200/JOP.2012.000734

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Oncol Pract        ISSN: 1554-7477            Impact factor:   3.840


  8 in total

1.  Oncology Practice Trends From the National Practice Benchmark, 2005 through 2010.

Authors:  Thomas R Barr; Elaine L Towle
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 3.840

2.  2009 national practice benchmark: report on 2008 data.

Authors:  Elaine L Towle; Thomas R Barr
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 3.840

3.  Key practice indicators in office-based oncology practices: 2007 report on 2006 data.

Authors:  John Akscin; Thomas R Barr; Elaine L Towle
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 3.840

4.  The 2007 national practice benchmark: results of a national survey of oncology practices.

Authors:  Thomas R Barr; Elaine L Towle; William M Jordan
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 3.840

5.  National practice benchmark: 2010 report on 2009 data.

Authors:  Elaine L Towle; Thomas R Barr
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 3.840

6.  The second wave of evolutionary economics in biology.

Authors:  Peter Hammerstein; Edward H Hagen
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2005-08-11       Impact factor: 17.712

7.  National oncology practice benchmark: an annual assessment of financial and operational parameters-2010 report on 2009 data.

Authors:  Thomas R Barr; Elaine L Towle
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 3.840

8.  The strategy of ecosystem development.

Authors:  E P Odum
Journal:  Science       Date:  1969-04-18       Impact factor: 47.728

  8 in total
  5 in total

1.  National Oncology Practice Benchmark, 2012 report on 2011 data.

Authors:  Elaine L Towle; Thomas R Barr; James L Senese
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2012-10-02       Impact factor: 3.840

2.  Martyrs for better care.

Authors:  John V Cox; Elaine L Towle
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 3.840

3.  Problems with public reporting of cancer quality outcomes data.

Authors:  Paul Goldberg; Rena M Conti
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 3.840

4.  The 340B drug discount program: hospitals generate profits by expanding to reach more affluent communities.

Authors:  Rena M Conti; Peter B Bach
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 6.301

Review 5.  Benchmarking specialty hospitals, a scoping review on theory and practice.

Authors:  A Wind; W H van Harten
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2017-04-04       Impact factor: 2.655

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.