Skip to main content

Lessons learned from the Oncology Care Model

After a six-year run, the Oncology Care Model is due to sunset in June. Designed to provide better quality, highly coordinated oncology care, OCM offered oncologists the opportunity to improve person-centered care. It also gave participating practices access to new data across the care continuum to support practice transformation.

Practices that participated in OCM were required to commit to providing enhanced services to their Medicare patients. These enhanced services, which were well received by cancer patients, became part of the practices’ transformation plans.

Practices focused on:

  • better symptom management to reduce emergency department utilization;
  • depression and pain screenings to support psychosocial needs;
  • navigation for high-risk patients;
  • advanced care planning; and
  • end-of-life care.

The challenges of implementing the Oncology Care Model

Despite the care delivery improvements made under OCM, participating practices faced several challenges that were beyond their control.

Better risk adjustment will be essential in any future model with oncology episodes of care. Claims do not capture enough relevant clinical information to meaningfully understand expenditure patterns in oncology episodes. When integrated with administrative claims data, information about cancer staging, current clinical status and treatment regimen can improve the predictability of oncology episode expenditures. This would help with setting target prices.

CMS tried to improve the performance-based payment methodology throughout the model, such as identifying high-risk versus low-risk drug adjustments for some cancer types, and metastatic at initial diagnosis adjustments for three cancer types. However, CMS needs to make more methodology improvements in any future model that includes as many different cancer types as OCM.

Better accounting for drug expenditures within an oncology episode is another area where significant changes are needed, as the rising cost of drugs was not well controlled in OCM. Unfortunately, this created scenarios of “always lose” cancer types in the program, especially as new drugs and treatment regimens became the standard of care. This was disheartening for participants who closely monitored and evaluated their high-cost episodes, only to determine that the expenditures were unavoidable as the steps taken and drugs prescribed were clinically appropriate.

As the next wave of Advanced Payment Models are developed, momentum exists for future oncology-focused programs

Despite the challenges presented by OCM, most oncologists were involved for the right reasons, demonstrating an altruistic attitude for the better good of the patient and the ability to transform the care delivery model. Even when financial results did not meet expectations, many providers recognized that practice transformation was the right thing to do for their patients and was made possible by the resources gained by participating in OCM.

Given the strong willingness to improve care delivery for cancer patients, OCM participants are ready to consider future value-based care opportunities. CMS should consider this as it develops new Advanced Alternative Payment Models. CMS should seize upon the momentum created by participants in OCM to build a more robust initiative moving forward.

Providers considering participating in similar APMs should understand the importance of using data to evaluate and monitor performance. A strong healthcare data analytics infrastructure will ensure the best performance, locking in better patient and financial outcomes and ensuring program success.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why it's critical for Primary Care First participants to control and understand leakage

Patients' primary care visits outside of their attributed primary care office, also called “leaked” patient visits, can have unintended consequences for Primary Care First participants. Beginning July 2022, PCF Cohort 1 will face a reduction in population-based payments based on their leakage rate. The payment adjustment will be based on their 2021 claims data and will roll forward quarterly. To calculate your leakage rate, divide the number of qualifying visits and services your attributed beneficiaries have made to care centers outside of your practice (for example, visits to urgent care centers) by the total number of qualifying visits and services your attributed beneficiaries have made. Calculating primary care leakage with claims data alone comes with some unintended challenges. Unfortunately, some circumstances can unfairly and negatively impact a practice’s leakage rate: Nuances classifying care delivered by provider team members: It’s difficult to distinguish

Start the year off right: DataGen answers your Primary Care First questions

The Primary Care First Model , an alternative payment model offering an innovative payment structure for the delivery of advanced primary care, welcomed the involvement of Cohort 2 participants on Jan. 1 . This cohort, which was open to all primary care practices that met the eligibility criteria, will participate from 2022 to 2026. Participants in PCF Cohorts 1 and 2 can expect the following benefits: an opportunity to increase revenue with performance-based payments that reward participants for reducing acute hospital utilization; the ability to assess and improve performance through actionable, timely data; less administrative burden so providers can spend more time focusing on patient needs; and potential to become a Qualifying APM Participant , which includes eligibility for a 5% incentive payment and eliminates Merit-based Incentive Payment System reporting requirements. To ensure that new and prior participants succeed in this model, DataGen has compiled and answered some of t

What to expect from CMS’ second decade of APM programs

CMS has introduced more than 50 innovative care delivery models designed to drive health system transformation over the last decade. Only six of those produced significant savings; of those, only four met the requirements to be expanded. As the second 10-year period of the program gets underway, which includes $10 billion in new funding, CMS’ Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation is considering numerous changes to improve the overall success of these programs and, in turn, drive overall gains in care outcomes and health equity. When evaluating what has worked in the past and what changes are needed moving forward, it is important to review what success looks like for Alternative Payment Model programs.  CMMI relies on three benchmarks to measure levels of success: The gold standard: improving quality of care while simultaneously reducing expenditures. Improving quality of care without impacting expenditures. Reducing expenditures without impacting quality of car