Douglas W Blayney1,2, Tina Seto3, Nhat Hoang3, Craig Lindquist2, Allison W Kurian1,4. 1. Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA. 2. Clinical Excellence Research Center, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA. 3. Technology and Digital Solutions, Stanford HealthCare and School of Medicine, Stanford, CA. 4. Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To estimate the value of cancer care and to compare value among episodes of care, a transparent, reproducible, and standardized cost computation methodology is needed. Charges, claims, and reimbursements are related to cost but are nontransparent and proprietary. We developed a method to measure the cost of the following phases of care: (1) initial treatment with curative intent, (2) surveillance and survivorship care, and (3) relapse and end-of-life care. METHODS: We combined clinical data from our electronic health record, the state cancer registry, and the Social Security Death Index. We analyzed the care of patients with breast cancer and mapped Common Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes to the corresponding cost conversion factor and date in the CMS Medicare fee schedule. To account for varying duration of episodes of care, we computed a cost of care per day (CCPD) for each patient. RESULTS: Median CCPD for initial treatment was $29.45 in US dollars (USD), the CCPD for surveillance and survivorship care was $2.45 USD, and the CCPD for relapse care was $13.80 USD. Among the three breast cancer types (hormone receptor-positive or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 [HER2]-negative, HER2-positive, and triple-negative), there was no difference in CCPD. Relapsed patients in the most expensive surveillance CCPD group had significantly shorter survival. CONCLUSION: We developed a method to identify high-value oncology care-cost of care per patient per day (CCPD)-in episodes of initial, survivorship, and relapse care. The methodology can help identify positive deviants (who have developed best practices) delivering high-value care. Merging our data with claims data from third-party payers can increase the accuracy and validity of the CCPD.
PURPOSE: To estimate the value of cancer care and to compare value among episodes of care, a transparent, reproducible, and standardized cost computation methodology is needed. Charges, claims, and reimbursements are related to cost but are nontransparent and proprietary. We developed a method to measure the cost of the following phases of care: (1) initial treatment with curative intent, (2) surveillance and survivorship care, and (3) relapse and end-of-life care. METHODS: We combined clinical data from our electronic health record, the state cancer registry, and the Social Security Death Index. We analyzed the care of patients with breast cancer and mapped Common Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes to the corresponding cost conversion factor and date in the CMS Medicare fee schedule. To account for varying duration of episodes of care, we computed a cost of care per day (CCPD) for each patient. RESULTS: Median CCPD for initial treatment was $29.45 in US dollars (USD), the CCPD for surveillance and survivorship care was $2.45 USD, and the CCPD for relapse care was $13.80 USD. Among the three breast cancer types (hormone receptor-positive or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 [HER2]-negative, HER2-positive, and triple-negative), there was no difference in CCPD. Relapsed patients in the most expensive surveillance CCPD group had significantly shorter survival. CONCLUSION: We developed a method to identify high-value oncology care-cost of care per patient per day (CCPD)-in episodes of initial, survivorship, and relapse care. The methodology can help identify positive deviants (who have developed best practices) delivering high-value care. Merging our data with claims data from third-party payers can increase the accuracy and validity of the CCPD.
Authors: Lowell E Schnipper; Thomas J Smith; Derek Raghavan; Douglas W Blayney; Patricia A Ganz; Therese Marie Mulvey; Dana S Wollins Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-04-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Gabriel A Brooks; Ling Li; Dhruv B Sharma; Jane C Weeks; Michael J Hassett; K Robin Yabroff; Deborah Schrag Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2013-03-12 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Brian M Brady; Meera V Ragavan; Melora Simon; Glenn M Chertow; Arnold Milstein Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2019-11-14 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Douglas W Blayney; Melora K Simon; Beatrice Podtschaske; Scott Ramsey; Margaret Shyu; Craig Lindquist; Arnold Milstein Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 31.777