Redefining Quality Measurement in Cancer Care

Nardi, Elizabeth A.; McCanney, James; Winckworth-Prejsnar, Katy; Schatz, Alyssa A.; Adelson, Kerin B.; Neubauer, Marcus A.; Smith, Mary Lou; Walters, Ronald S.; Carlson, R. W.

doi:10.6004/jnccn.2018.7028

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other challenges associated with quality measures and reporting are data infrastructure requirements and provider burden. As noted in an NCCN meeting summary about quality measurement, reporting may require information from multiple data sources, with elements that do not reside in structured fields . Lack of interoperability, especially across EHR systems with various reporting mechanisms and capabilities, is a hindrance to quality assessment.…”

Section: Delivery Of Cancer Control Services In the United Statesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimizing the burden of cancer in the United States: Goals for a high‐performing health care system

Yabroff

Gansler

Wender

et al. 2019

CA A Cancer J Clinicians

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Between 1991 and 2015, the cancer mortality rate declined dramatically in the United States, reflecting improvements in cancer prevention, screening, treatment, and survivorship care. However, cancer outcomes in the United States vary substantially between populations defined by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, health insurance coverage, and geographic area of residence. Many potentially preventable cancer deaths occur in individuals who did not receive effective cancer prevention, screening, treatment, or survivorship care. At the same time, cancer care spending is large and growing, straining national, state, health insurance plans, and family budgets. Indeed, one of the most pressing issues in American medicine is how to ensure that all populations, in every community, derive the benefit from scientific research that has already been completed. Addressing these questions from the perspective of health care delivery is necessary to accelerate the decline in cancer mortality that began in the early 1990s. This article, part of the Cancer Control Blueprint series, describes challenges with the provision of care across the cancer control continuum in the United States. It also identifies goals for a high‐performing health system that could reduce disparities and the burden of cancer by promoting the adoption of healthy lifestyles; access to a regular source of primary care; timely access to evidence‐based care; patient‐centeredness, including effective patient‐provider communication; enhanced coordination and communication between providers, including primary care and specialty care providers; and affordability for patients, payers, and society.

show abstract

Section: Delivery Of Cancer Control Services In the United Statesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimizing the burden of cancer in the United States: Goals for a high‐performing health care system

Yabroff

Gansler

Wender

et al. 2019

CA A Cancer J Clinicians

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 The OCM and other value-based payment models typically measure spending and care quality at the practice level. However, in addition to challenges in identifying high-quality oncology care, 2,3 relatively little is understood about identifying highquality care at the practice level. The OCM currently incorporates 6 measures of quality for calculating performance-based payments, including claims-based measures of emergency department (ED) visits and hospice use.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Reliability and Correlations of Quality Measures in Cancer Care

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE Measurement of the quality of care is important for alternative payment models in oncology, yet the ability to distinguish high-quality from low-quality care across oncology practices remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE To assess the reliability of cancer care quality measures across oncology practices using registry and claims-based measures of process, utilization, end-of-life (EOL) care, and survival, and to assess the correlations of practice-level performance across measure and cancer types. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cross-sectional study used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program registry linked to Medicare administrative data to identify individuals with lung cancer, breast cancer, or colorectal cancer (CRC) that was newly

show abstract

“…Policymakers are seeking to overcome cancer care quality measurement challenges and fill gaps in long-term clinical outcomes and patient-centered measures. 7 The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Quality Measure Development Plan identified oncology as a priority for measure development and noted significant gaps in oncology clinical outcomes, patient-reported outcomes, medication safety, team-based care, effective use of new technology, shared decision-making, and overuse. 8 Cancer immunotherapies have created a new treatment paradigm unique from traditional cytotoxic and targeted treatments, characterized by more durable response rates, distinct side effects, and unique response kinetics, shifting the conversation to a broader consideration of value in cancer treatment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining current gaps in quality measures for cancer immunotherapy: consensus report from the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) 2019 Quality Summit

Pai

Blaisdell

Brodie

et al. 2020

J Immunother Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundQuality measures are important because they can help improve and standardize the delivery of cancer care among healthcare providers and across tumor types. In an environment characterized by a rapidly shifting immunotherapeutic landscape and lack of associated long-term outcome data, defining quality measures for cancer immunotherapy is a high priority yet fraught with many challenges.MethodsThus, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer convened a multistakeholder expert panel to,first, identify the current gaps in measures of quality cancer care delivery as it relates to immunotherapy and to,second, advance priority concepts surrounding quality measures that could be developed and broadly adopted by the field.ResultsAfter reviewing the existing quality measure landscape employed for immunotherapeutic-based cancer care, the expert panel identified four relevant National Quality Strategy domains (patient safety, person and family-centered care, care coordination and communication, appropriate treatment selection) with significant gaps in immunotherapy-based quality cancer care delivery. Furthermore, these domains offer opportunities for the development of quality measures as they relate to cancer immunotherapy. These four quality measure concepts are presented in this consensus statement.ConclusionsThis work represents a first step toward defining and standardizing quality delivery of cancer immunotherapy in order to realize its optimal application and benefit for patients.

show abstract

Redefining Quality Measurement in Cancer Care

Cited by 9 publications

References 2 publications

Minimizing the burden of cancer in the United States: Goals for a high‐performing health care system

Minimizing the burden of cancer in the United States: Goals for a high‐performing health care system

Evaluation of Reliability and Correlations of Quality Measures in Cancer Care

Defining current gaps in quality measures for cancer immunotherapy: consensus report from the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) 2019 Quality Summit

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About