Ronald M Kline1, Gabrielle B Rocque2, Elizabeth A Rohan3, Kris A Blackley4, Cynthia A Cantril5, Mandi L Pratt-Chapman6, Howard A Burris7, Lawrence N Shulman8. 1. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Baltimore, MD. 2. University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL. 3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA. 4. Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC. 5. Sutter Pacific Medical Foundation, Santa Rosa, CA. 6. George Washington University Cancer Center, Washington, DC. 7. Sarah Cannon Cancer Institute, Nashville, TN. 8. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Patient navigation (PN) is an increasingly recognized element of high-quality, patient-centered cancer care, yet PN in many cancer programs is absent or limited, often because of concerns of extra cost without tangible financial benefits. METHODS: Five real-world examples of PN programs are used to demonstrate that in the pure fee-for-service and the alternative payment model worlds of reimbursement, strong cases can be made to support the benefits of PN. RESULTS: In three large programs, PN resulted in increased patient retention and increased physician loyalty within the cancer programs, leading to increased revenue. In addition, in two programs, PN was associated with a reduction in unnecessary resource utilization, such as emergency department visits and hospitalizations. PN also reduces burdens on oncology providers, potentially reducing burnout, errors, and costly staff turnover. CONCLUSION: PN has resulted in improved patient outcomes and patient satisfaction and has important financial benefits for cancer programs in the fee-for-service and the alternative payment model worlds, lending support for more robust staffing of PN programs.
PURPOSE: Patient navigation (PN) is an increasingly recognized element of high-quality, patient-centered cancer care, yet PN in many cancer programs is absent or limited, often because of concerns of extra cost without tangible financial benefits. METHODS: Five real-world examples of PN programs are used to demonstrate that in the pure fee-for-service and the alternative payment model worlds of reimbursement, strong cases can be made to support the benefits of PN. RESULTS: In three large programs, PN resulted in increased patient retention and increased physician loyalty within the cancer programs, leading to increased revenue. In addition, in two programs, PN was associated with a reduction in unnecessary resource utilization, such as emergency department visits and hospitalizations. PN also reduces burdens on oncology providers, potentially reducing burnout, errors, and costly staff turnover. CONCLUSION: PN has resulted in improved patient outcomes and patient satisfaction and has important financial benefits for cancer programs in the fee-for-service and the alternative payment model worlds, lending support for more robust staffing of PN programs.
Authors: T R Konrad; E S Williams; M Linzer; J McMurray; D E Pathman; M Gerrity; M D Schwartz; W E Scheckler; J Van Kirk; E Rhodes; J Douglas Journal: Med Care Date: 1999-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Sanja Percac-Lima; Patrick R Cronin; David P Ryan; Bruce A Chabner; Emily A Daly; Alexandra B Kimball Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-01-13 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jennifer C Spencer; Cleo A Samuel; Donald L Rosenstein; Katherine E Reeder-Hayes; Michelle L Manning; Jean B Sellers; Stephanie B Wheeler Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-11-09 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Lina Jandorf; Caitlyn Braschi; Elizabeth Ernstoff; Carrie R Wong; Linda Thelemaque; Gary Winkel; Hayley S Thompson; William H Redd; Steven H Itzkowitz Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2013-06-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Tri Le; Stacie Miller; Emily Berry; Sarah Zamarripa; Aurelio Rodriguez; Benjamin Barkley; Asha Kandathil; Cecelia Brewington; Keith E Argenbright; David E Gerber Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2022-02-07 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Nayan Lamba; Paul J Catalano; Colleen Whitehouse; Kate L Martin; Mallika L Mendu; Daphne A Haas-Kogan; Patrick Y Wen; Ayal A Aizer Journal: Neurooncol Pract Date: 2021-05-21
Authors: Samuel U Takvorian; Erin Balogh; Sharyl Nass; Virginia L Valentin; Lori Hoffman-Hogg; Randall A Oyer; Robert W Carlson; Neal J Meropol; Lisa Kennedy Sheldon; Lawrence N Shulman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Sarah M Temkin; Matthew P Smeltzer; Monique D Dawkins; Leigh M Boehmer; Leigha Senter; Destin R Black; Stephanie V Blank; Anna Yemelyanova; Anthony M Magliocco; Mollie A Finkel; Tracy E Moore; Premal H Thaker Journal: Cancer Date: 2021-11-17 Impact factor: 6.921
Authors: Ramy Sedhom; Richard Nudotor; Karen M Freund; Thomas J Smith; Lisa A Cooper; Jill T Owczarzak; Fabian M Johnston Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2021-01-21
Authors: Cindy V Mendieta; Maria Elizabeth Gómez-Neva; Laura Victoria Rivera-Amézquita; Esther de Vries; Martha Lucía Arévalo-Reyez; Santiago Rodriguez-Ariza; Carlos J Castro E; Sara Faithfull Journal: Healthcare (Basel) Date: 2021-11-29