• info@onpointoncology.com
  • (844) 466-7646

onPoint Oncology

Making Connections. Improving Access. Fighting Cancer.

  • Home
  • About
  • Products
    • focalPoint
    • Buy and Bill Guide
    • intelliPoint
  • Links
  • Resources

Aug 23 2016

The Not So Shocking Link Between Insurance and Cancer Survival

It may come as no surprise that there is a link between having health insurance and health outcomes. But new research performed by the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute now strongly supports this correlation.

Quality Insurance = Better Patient Outcome

They studied men with testicular cancer, a form of cancer that is considered highly treatable. Through this study, they were able to demonstrate a connection between quality health insurance and patient outcome.

Those men who were either uninsured or had Medicaid, were more likely to have their cancers diagnosed in later stages. Also, sadly, they were more likely to die from the condition.

Those on Medicaid were less likely to receive the standard treatment of tumor-removal. And both the uninsured and Medicaid were less likely to have lymph nodes removed, which cures many patients. Given the highly curable nature of this disease, the results of this study are alarming.

According the Dr. Christopher Sweeney, the medical oncologist who authored the study, "What it means is probably the cancer had been percolating and brewing for longer by the time the patient was diagnosed… the only thing that stood out strongly as a predictor of those who did poorly was the insurance status.” The progression of the disease at the point it is discovered makes it harder to treat and those with insurance are more likely to receive an early diagnosis.

Early Diagnosis Means Better Treatment

The ability to diagnose early and treat various cancers has advanced dramatically over past decades.  The increased focus of Insurers on regular screenings has provided much needed support to the medical community.

Improvements in awareness of risk factors and early warning signs, thanks to education from the medical community and the insurance companies, have improved patient chances of recovery after treatment.

Social support systems and work protections are likely also factors that need to be considered. If taking time off for surgery means losing your job and you have nothing to fall back on, how does this impact your decision-making processes?

A Great Start But More Research Needed

These findings are an excellent start. But they bring about more questions than answers, prompting the American Cancer Society to request and offer to fund more studies.

They hope to bring about a clearer understanding of what public health and policy professionals and medical professionals can do to identify and improve outcomes across the patient spectrum.

They intend to evaluate “Availability, Affordability, Adequacy and Administrative Simplicity” variances that may be leading to poorer outcomes for those with Medicaid or no insurance.  They believe that such studies will lead to action that will help eliminate disparities in both treatment and outcome for similar curable conditions.

We can expect this research to broaden over time, looking at various cancers and other treatable diseases. This gives great insight into inequalities across the healthcare system that still need to be addressed. Studies like this one will help fuel demand for change.

Written by sara@sarachandlee.com · Categorized: Insurance

Jul 21 2016

Does Financial Toxicity Impact The Health-Related Quality of Life?

Representing one of the fastest growing segments of healthcare spending, the cost of cancer care in the United States continues to rise at an unprecedented rate.

To account for the rise in the cost of care, insurance companies are starting to shift more of the financial burden to patients in the form of higher co-pays, deductibles and premiums.

Unfortunately, many of these patients do not have the resources to cover the financial burdens placed upon them once medical bills begin arriving.

Does this financial hardship contribute to a patient's ability to recover from cancer? New studies have begun to measure the impact of financial hardship on cancer recovery.

Financial Hardship and A Difficult Recovery Go Hand-In-Hand

A new study by the Association of Oncology Social Work shows that over 50% of cancer patients surveyed reported that the costs related to cancer negatively impacted their ability to focus on their recovery.

Other key findings from the study include:
68% reported financial hardship due to medical bills
46% had to cut back on living expenses to pay for their treatment
40% said that they depleted their savings
30% reported having to deal with bill collectors
66% of patients who faced major financial challenges report suffering from depression/anxiety

Reducing the Impact of Financial Toxicity

The oncology community recognizes the impact financial toxicity has on patients and has formulated some strategies to address the problem:

  • Improve Cost Transparency. By discussing the cost of various treatments with patients before they are prescribed, doctors and patients can take a bigger-picture look at the overall care strategy.
  • Improve Access to Financial Assistance. When the cost of treatment is discussed in early stages of the process, there is more opportunity to apply for financial assistance.
  • Measure Financial Burden in Real Time. The financial burden is rarely accounted for in a clinical setting. However, by measuring this throughout the entire process doctors may be able to align patients with appropriate resources before the strain starts to have a negative impact on care.
  • Provide Access to Financial Planners. While discussing finances during clinical visits is a crucial part of treatment, doctors are not financial planners and will be unable to advise patients on some matters. It's important for oncology practices to have financial planners they can connect patients with.

Written by sara@sarachandlee.com · Categorized: Financial Toxicity

Jun 20 2016

Did the Financial Crisis Lead
to More Cancer Deaths?

A new study shows the financial crisis that has impacted people around the world has lead to more cancer deaths. The study, published in the Lancet Medical Journal, shows half a million cancer-related deaths have occurred between 2008 and 2010 due to unemployment or the lack of health insurance.

Observations made during this study showed a connection between the number of cancer deaths and the rate of unemployment. As unemployment rates rose, cancer deaths increased. The same correlation was seen between reductions in public health care dollars and cancer-related deaths.

More Unemployment = Higher Death Rate

In the U.S., during the period from 2008 to 2010, it is estimated that about 18,000 cancer patients died from a lack of treatment due to unemployment or insufficient healthcare coverage.

Globally, cancer caused over a million deaths in 2012. Since cancer is a primary cause of death throughout the world, it is important to understand how financial challenges related to patient survival rates. Although the connection between cancer and financial suffering has been noted, the availability of public health coverage can limit the impact.

The Lancet study that reviewed the correlation between cancer deaths and the global financial crisis analyzed statistical findings from over 70 countries. The reviewed data, which was collected by the World Bank and the World Health Organization, was particularly relevant, because it included information from a large time period, spanning 20 years (1990 - 2000).

Findings showed that as unemployment rates increased by one percent, an additional 0.37 cancer-related deaths occurred for every 100,000 patients. A similar trend occurred with declines in healthcare spending. There were 0.0053 additional deaths for every 100,000 patients as healthcare spending dropped by one percent.

Patients who are employed and have health insurance are more likely to be diagnosed early and receive adequate care. However, once a patient loses his or her job, he or she may not be diagnosed in time to receive the treatment needed.

The study's findings provide supportive evidence for universal healthcare coverage. However, currently, many cancer patients are still unable to afford treatment. Products, such as those offered by onPoint Oncology may help.

Written by sara@sarachandlee.com · Categorized: Debt and Pain

May 20 2016

Debt and Pain Go Hand-in-Hand for Cancer Patients

A new study finds that cancer patients who are skating on thin financial ice suffer worse symptoms, more pain, and reduced quality of life than those who have more money in the bank to fall back on.

In particular, colon and lung cancer patients with two or less months of funds had a substantially poorer quality of life than those who had more than a year of financial reserves.

The study findings, which was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology on February 29, 2016, involved more than 3,400 patients.

Less Savings = More Pain

At the time of their cancer diagnosis, patients who already weak in financial reserves tended to have higher physical impairment, more in-depth depression, and experience pain to a greater extent than those with stronger finances, the researchers note.

Lead author of the study Dr. Christopher Lathan, who is also medical director of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute at St. Elizabeth's Medical Center, in Boston, put the results in clear perspective when he commented that a patient’s suffering tended to rise as his finances dwindled.

The authors comment that the quality of life implications wasn't necessarily related to having a high or low income. Rather, it is the worry and stress related to the financial strain that makes the impact. In other words, people with a low income may have financial reserves because they saved for a rainy day, while those with a high income may have lived just within or even beyond their means. Financial strain, Lathan said, “stands alone”. "It actually had its own effect, separate from race and income," he explains.

While the researchers don’t know exactly why the two-month financial reserves mark seems to be the break-even point in terms of the quality of life effects for these cancer patients.

The researchers conclude that the identification of patients who need intensive support may be helped by assessment of financial reserves. In addition, Lathan advises that the medical community should take steps to help financially weak cancer patients.

Tips for Patients to Ease the Financial Pain

Cancer patients should let their oncologists know if they have financial worries right from the start. They should make use of social workers in cancer wards who can help them navigate their insurance, find applicable clinical trials, assist them with transportation needs, and help them obtain the best price for their prescriptions.

Written by sara@sarachandlee.com · Categorized: Debt and Pain

Apr 13 2016

10 Things to Know About Medicare's Payment Experiment

An Experiment in Payments

On March 8, 2016 the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid (CMS) released a proposed rule which aims to test a payment design to reimburse for drugs covered under Medicare Part B.

Medicare Part B covers prescription drugs administered in a physician's office or hospital outpatient department.

Covered Part B drugs fall into three categories:

  • Drugs furnished incident to a physician's service
  • Drugs administered via a covered item of durable medical equipment
  • Other drugs specified by statute, such as oral anti-emetics and certain oral cancer drugs

Currently, most Medicare Part B drugs are paid using the Average Sales Price (ASP) plus a statutorily mandated 6% add-on. According to CMS, this allegedly creates an incentive to prescribe more expensive drugs due to the higher payment amount.

Under the new model, starting in Phase I, Medicare Part B would pay the ASP plus an add-on of 2.5% and a flat fee of $16.80 per drug per day. Whether or not you are in a control group (ASP plus 6%) or in the ASP plus 2.5% (if that is where we end up) and a flat fee depends on your zip code and what Primary Care Service Area (PCSA") it falls into.

As proposed, the MECC will run for five years, with Phase II running the last three years. CMS proposes to introduce the new reimbursement program in select geographic areas in the fall of 2016. In Phase II, CMS will roll out drug programs with which they will test several other pricing methodologies.

Some of these tools are:

  • Reference pricing
  • Indication-based reference pricing
  • Discounting or eliminating cost-sharing
  • Decision support tools
  • Outcome-based risk-sharing with pharmaceutical companies

10 Things You Need to Know

Now that you know the basics, here's some of the things Bobbi Buell, a nationally recognized expert in Oncology Reimbursement and our very own Principal for Provider Services & Reimbursement Information, speculates may be important in order to respond to the Proposed Rule by May 9, 2016. Keep in mind no one knows what this will look like in the Final Rule:

This Is Just a Proposal

The Proposed Rule is just that -- a proposal. According to Bobbi, “after thirty years of dealing with Medicare regulations, it is my experience that they up their aspirations in proposals in terms of cuts and/or infliction of pain”.  

So, we might see ASP plus 3.0-3.5% in the Final Rule or, even more, interesting, CMS might fix the erroneous Prompt Pay discount as they mention it several times in this Proposal.

An Excuse to Cut Drug Pricing?

It seems like this demonstration is just an excuse to cut drug pricing. If you read all about Phase II, it sounds pretty vague and certainly not ready for 'prime time' by physicians and hospitals.  While Phase II appears to be coming soon in the Transmittal, the Proposed Rule states that Phase II cannot commence any earlier than January 1, 2017. But, Phase I can extend throughout the life of the demonstration in various permutations.  Hmmmm…

Don’t Expect This to Happen Before October

It’s unlikely we’ll see this before October. In the original transmittal, it seemed like CMS would be testing over the Summer and then implement Phase I in mid-Third Quarter. It appears that the soonest this would happen is October 1.  That might be rough on hospitals, as their DRG rates and ICD-10 procedure code changes happen right then. Plus, we all will have new ICD-10 diagnosis codes on that date.

What You See Is Not What You Get

Sequestration kicks in for both drug payments---the ASP plus 2.5% and the $16.80 flat fee. You know the old expression--"what you see is what you get"? Not true in this case--the real rates are really and truly ASP plus .86% and $16.53.  As you can see, the cut is most profound on the ASP rate; therefore, we do not want to give up that flat rate.

No Excuses (Unless You’re In The Big 11)

Almost nobody is excused.  According to the proposal, Hospital Outpatient Departments are not excused, despite the title refers to Part B--hospital outpatient fees are reimbursed under Part B, but they are adjudicated by the Part A MAC (are you with me here?). Practices are not excused, even if you are on the the Oncology Care Model, Pioneer ACOs, or in Shared Savings Programs.

These Alternative Care Models may be excluded at some point, though. The proposal also mentions that small practices may be excluded, if there is a good case made for their not surviving drugs cuts--oh wait--didn't we show that already? Oh yeah, the eleven cancer hospitals are (as usual) exempt.

A Few Drug Exclusions

Some drugs are excluded, though.  If the proposal is implemented, some drugs will not be involved in pricing changes.  These include:

  • Contractor-priced drugs, e.g. radio-pharmaceuticals and new drugs not on the NOC list
  • Vaccines--flu shots, pneumococcal pneumonia, and Hepatitis B
  • Drugs through Durable Medical Equipment
  • Excluded (from the bundled rate) ESRD drugs
  • Blood and Blood Products
  • Products in shortage as listed by the FDA
  • Maybe other products as listed by CMS quarterly

Say Hello To The Least Costly Alternative (a.k.a. Reference Pricing) Again

Some nasty old friends will be back in Phase II: Remember the Least Costly Alternative? Well, it is now called reference pricing. And, there may be differential pricing by drug by diagnosis, based upon 'effectiveness'.  That is just crazy, but if it comes to pass, you had better code those drugs correctly--yikes!

Get Ready For Laborious Billing

Billing will be laborious. Oh yes, you might not know it, but, in the proposal on page 44, it clearly states that that CMS 'anticipates' you will have to bill a G-code to collect the flat per patient per drug fee.  We do not know if there will be one G-code, a G-code for different types of drugs, or a new G-code for every drug.  But, what is nuts is, if you have 4 drugs on a claim, you will have four (same or different) G-codes. That's the way it looks right now anyway.

Take A Look At The CAP Program

If you don't like it, how about the CAP Program? Just when Peter Bach comes out with an article on the massive amount of waste with Oncology and other specialty drugs (which he naturally blames on Single Dose vials, profit margins, the drug companies, and the usual suspects), CMS asks if maybe the CAP Program should be re-introduced--where waste is a real cost issue. For those of you using specialty pharmacies instead of "buying and billing", you might want to consider this option, rather than doing something that is (in my view) in conflict with Medicare regulations.

Run The Numbers

But, most importantly, to really know how this impacts your facility, you should run the numbers.  ASCO has a model and COA has a model that you can find right here for a great price--free. Please contribute your numbers to your favorite organization for the common good, if you use one of these free models.  One of our kind readers ran the numbers on the ASCO platform and they were not so terrible.  Bear in mind that this is a five-physician group. Before sequestration, they made about $42,000 and, after the sequester, they lost about $24,000.  This is not terrible--but remember--every practice is different and this totally depends upon what drugs you use.

Written by sara@sarachandlee.com · Categorized: CMS

  • 1
  • 2
  • Next Page »

Contact Us

info@onpointoncology.com

(844) 466-7646

PO Box 221
Hudson, OH 44236

Links

  • Home
  • About
  • Products
    • focalPoint
    • Buy and Bill Guide
    • intelliPoint
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use

About Us

Specializing in innovative, customized solutions aimed at improving manufacturer brand performance, oncology stakeholder efficiencies and access to care for appropriate patients.

A division of RXVantage
RXVAntage logo
Learn More

© Copyright 2025 onPoint Oncology. All Rights Reserved. Website by Medical Sprout