No abstract

Table A2. ASCO Value Framework: Adjuvant Setting NOTE. Future versions of the framework will allow for patients weighting their preferences such that the fractional contribution of each element (clinical benefit, toxicity) can be modified, thereby individualizing the net health benefit.

Oral chemotherapy is emerging as a new option for well-selected patients who can manage potentially complex oral regimens and self-monitor for potential complications. If a choice between oral and parenteral therapy is available, patients may opt for oral chemotherapy because it is more convenient to administer, allows them to avoid multiple office visits, and gives them a sense of control over their own cancer care. Whether these potential advantages are maintained in regimens that combine oral and parenteral drugs is less clear. The use of oral chemotherapeutic agents profoundly affects all aspects of oncology, including creating significant safety and adherence issues, shifting some traditional roles and responsibilities of oncologists, nurses, and pharmacists to patients and caregivers. The financing of chemotherapy is also affected. To address these issues, the NCCN convened a multidisciplinary task force consisting of oncologists, nurses, pharmacists, and payor representatives to discuss the impact of the increasing use of oral chemotherapy. (JNCCN 2008;6[Suppl 3]:S1–S14)

Purpose: With rising health care costs in the United States, clearly defined end-of-life (EOL) cancer costs are needed to help health administrators proactively manage this important care. Our objective was to examine EOL health care resource costs among oncology patients in a US commercial insurance population. Methods:A retrospective claims database affiliated with OptumInsight was analyzed. Included patients had: a medical claim with cancer diagnosis between July 1, 2002, and December 31, 2009; death on or before December 31, 2009; continuous enrollment with medical/pharmacy benefits from diagnosis until death; Ն 180 follow-up days; and active cancer in the last 6 months before death (MBD). Death was captured from facility discharge codes or Social Security Administration death files. Costs were determined by summing paid amounts on all services utilized within the last 6 MBD: cancer-related inpatient (IP) stays, cancer-related hospice care, and cancer-related outpatient (OP) services (ie, chemotherapy, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, granulocyte colony-stimulating factors, radiation, cancer-related office or emergency room visits, cancer-related hospital OP procedures, and other services with cancer diagnosis).Results: A total of 28,530 patients met inclusion criteria. Mean total cancer-related costs in the last 6 MBD were $74,212 (standard deviation, $112,740), comprising IP costs of $40,702 (55%), OP costs of $30,254 (41%), and hospice costs of $3,256 (4%). OP costs decreased from $6,021 in the sixth MBD to $2,238 in the last MBD, whereas IP care costs increased from $1,785 to $20,559. Hospice utilization increased from 0.7% in the sixth MBD to 35.6% in the last MBD. Conclusion:Oncology costs increase in the last 6 MBD largely because of increased IP costs, whereas OP costs decrease.