Determining the Value-on-Investment of Provider-to-Provider Virtual Consultation for Cancer Care
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30953/thmt.v8.411Keywords:
cancer care delivery research, health disparities, rural healthcare, telehealth, telemedicineAbstract
BACKGROUND: Access to high-quality cancer care in the United States remains a challenge in part due to a geographic mismatch between patients with cancers and the oncologic specialists best able to serve them. There is therefore an urgent need to develop communications strategies that allow oncologists to determine which patients might benefit from referral for subspecialty cancer care, and to allow subspecialists to guide care remotely when patients are unable or unwilling to travel. Unfortunately, virtual consultation between clinicians has been understudied, and likely underutilized, in cancer care. Health systems may be hesitant to implement a virtual consultation program without data on such a program’s value.
RESEARCH DESIGN: In this article we outline a framework for calculating the value on investment (VOI) for a provider-to-provider virtual consultation framework to improve geographic access to cancer care. For each element of VOI, we suggest specific outcomes that health systems might utilize to determine the value of implementing virtual provider-to-provider consultation.
RESULTS: Elements of VOI include: direct and indirect revenue, institutional halo effect, hospital-based care, infrastructure considerations, subspecialty resource utilization, continuity of care, patient-reported outcomes, clinical trial enrollment, and program monitoring and quality improvement.
CONCLUSION: Implementation of virtual consultation between general and subspecialty oncologists offers health systems the potential for substantial value on investment, largely through improving clinical outcomes by optimizing the resources involved in patients’ cancer care.
Downloads
References
Wright AA, Bohlke K, Armstrong DK, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer: Society of Gynecologic Oncology and American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;143(1):3-15. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.05.022
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice Bulletins—Gynecology. Practice Bulletin No. 174. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(5):e210-e226. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000001768
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Uterine Neoplasms Version 2.2020.; 2020. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/uterine.pdf.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Cervical Cancer Version 1.2021.; 2019. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/cervical.pdf.
Stewart SL, Cooney D, Hirsch S, et al. Effect of gynecologic oncologist availability on ovarian cancer mortality. World J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;3(2):71. doi:10.5317/wjog.v3.i2.71
Shalowitz DI, Vinograd AM, Giuntoli RL. Geographic access to gynecologic cancer care in the United States. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;138(1):115-120. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.04.025
Reade C, Elit L. Trends in gynecologic cancer care in North America. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2012;39(2):107-129. doi:10.1016/j.ogc.2012.02.003
Khan-Gates JA, Ersek JL, Eberth JM, Adams SA, Pruitt SL. Geographic Access to Mammography and Its Relationship to Breast Cancer Screening and Stage at Diagnosis: A Systematic Review. Womens Health Issues. 2015;25(5):482-493. doi:10.1016/J.WHI.2015.05.010
Lin CC, Bruinooge SS, Kirkwood MK, et al. Association between geographic access to cancer care, insurance, and receipt of chemotherapy: Geographic distribution of oncologists and travel distance. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(28):3177-3185. doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.61.1558
Lin CC, Bruinooge SS, Kirkwood MK, et al. Association Between Geographic Access to Cancer Care and Receipt of Radiation Therapy for Rectal Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016;94(4):719-728. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2015.12.012
Yee EK, Coburn NG, Zuk V, et al. Geographic impact on access to care and survival for non-curative esophagogastric cancer: a population-based study. Gastric Cancer. 2021;24(4):790-799. doi:10.1007/S10120-021-01157-W
Kale MS, Wisnivesky J, Taioli E, Liu B. The Landscape of US Lung Cancer Screening Services. Chest. 2019;155(5):900-907. doi:10.1016/J.CHEST.2018.10.039
Papermaster A, Champion JD. The common practice of “curbside consultation”: A systematic review. J Am Assoc Nurse Pract. 2017;29(10):618-628. doi:10.1002/2327-6924.12500
Project Echo - The University of New Mexico. Project Echo: Policy and Sustainability. https://hsc.unm.edu/echo/data-marketplace/publications-reach/reach-in-us.html.
Association of American Medical Colleges. Project CORE: Coordinating Optimal Referral Experiences. https://www.aamc.org/initiatives/core2/. Published 2019.
Liddy C, Moroz I, Mihan A, Nawar N, Keely E. A Systematic Review of Asynchronous, Provider-to-Provider, Electronic Consultation Services to Improve Access to Specialty Care Available Worldwide. Telemed e-Health. 2019;25(3):184-198. doi:10.1089/TMJ.2018.0005/ASSET/IMAGES/LARGE/FIGURE2.JPEG
Arkwright B, Leslie M, Light M. Telehealth Finance Variables and Successful Business Models. Telehealth Med Today. 2019;4.
Nisbett RE, Wilson TD. The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1977;35(4):250-256. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.35.4.250
Brown SA, Patel S, Rayan D, et al. A virtual-hybrid approach to launching a cardio-oncology clinic during a pandemic. Cardio-oncology. 2021;7(1). doi:10.1186/S40959-020-00088-2
Jauch EC, Schwamm LH, Panagos PD, et al. Recommendations for Regional Stroke Destination Plans in Rural, Suburban, and Urban Communities From the Prehospital Stroke System of Care Consensus Conference: A Consensus Statement From the American Academy of Neurology, American Heart Association/American Stroke Association, American Society of Neuroradiology, National Association of EMS Physicians, National Association of State EMS Officials, Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery, and Society of Vascular and Interventional Neurology: Endors. Stroke. 2021;52(5):E133-E152. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.033228
Raphael MJ, Fundytus A, Hopman WM, et al. Medical oncology job satisfaction: Results of a global survey. Semin Oncol. 2019;46(1):73-82. doi:10.1053/J.SEMINONCOL.2018.12.006
Haggerty JL, Reid RJ, Freeman GK, Starfield BH, Adair CE, McKendry R. Continuity of care: a multidisciplinary review. BMJ (Clinical Res ed). 2003;327(7425):1219-1221. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7425.1219
Plate S, Emilsson L, Söderberg M, Brandberg Y, Wärnberg F. High experienced continuity in breast cancer care is associated with high health related quality of life. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):1-8. doi:10.1186/S12913-018-2925-0/TABLES/4
Mujumdar V, Butler TR, Shalowitz DI. A qualitative study on the impact of long-distance travel for gynecologic cancer care. Gynecol Oncol Reports. 2021;38:100868. doi:10.1016/j.gore.2021.100868
Shalowitz DI, Nivasch E, Burger RA, Schapira MM. Are patients willing to travel for better ovarian cancer care? Gynecol Oncol. 2017. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.10.018
Finlayson SR, Birkmeyer JD, Tosteson AN, Nease RF. Patient preferences for location of care: implications for regionalization. Med Care. 1999;37(2):204-209. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10024124. Accessed November 7, 2014.
Seidman J, Masi D, Gomez-Rexrode AE. Personalizing Value in Cancer Care: The Case for Incorporating Patient Preferences Into Routine Clinical Decision Making. J Particip Med 2019;11(3)e13800 https//jopm.jmir.org/2019/3/e13800. 2019;11(3):e13800. doi:10.2196/13800
Shingler SL, Bennett BM, Cramer JA, Towse A, Twelves C, Lloyd AJ. Treatment preference, adherence and outcomes in patients with cancer: Literature review and development of a theoretical model. Curr Med Res Opin. 2014;30(11):2329-2341. doi:10.1185/03007995.2014.952715/SUPPL_FILE/ICMO_A_952715_SM0001.PDF
Carrera PM, Kantarjian HM, Blinder VS. The financial burden and distress of patients with cancer: Understanding and stepping-up action on the financial toxicity of cancer treatment. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(2):153-165. doi:10.3322/CAAC.21443
Parikh DA, Ragavan M, Dutta R, et al. Financial Toxicity of Cancer Care: An Analysis of Financial Burden in Three Distinct Health Care Systems. JCO Oncol Pract. 2021;17(10):e1450-e1459. doi:10.1200/op.20.00890
Hall MA, Adler L, Ginsburg PB, Trish E. Reducing unfair out-of-network billing - Integrated approaches to protecting patients. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(7):610-612. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1815031
Shalowitz DI, Huh WK. Access to gynecologic oncology care and the network adequacy standard. Cancer. May 2018. doi:10.1002/cncr.31392
Berlin A, Lovas M, Truong T, et al. Implementation and Outcomes of Virtual Care Across a Tertiary Cancer Center During COVID-19. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7(4):597-602. doi:10.1001/JAMAONCOL.2020.6982
Unger JM, Moseley A, Symington B, Chavez-Macgregor M, Ramsey SD, Hershman DL. Geographic Distribution and Survival Outcomes for Rural Patients With Cancer Treated in Clinical Trials. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1(4). https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2696871. Accessed June 7, 2019.
National Cancer Institute; National Institutes of Health. National Community Oncology Research Program. https://ncorp.cancer.gov/. Accessed November 27, 2017.
Frankel A, Haraden C, Federico F, Lenoci-Edwards J. A Framework for Safe, Reliable, and Effective Care. White Paper. Cambridge, MA; 2017.
Perry A, Federico F, Huebner J. Telemedicine: Ensuring Safe, Equitable, Person-Centered Virtual Care. Cambridge, MA; 2021.
American Society of Hematology. CY 2022 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Proposed Rule Major Provisions.; 2021. https://www.hematology.org/-/media/hematology/files/advocacy/testimony-and-correspondence/2021/ash-summary-of-2022-proposed-mpfs.pdf.
American Academy of Pediatrics. 2 New Codes Developed for Interprofessional Consultation.; 2019. https://publications.aap.org/aapnews/news/6286.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 David I. Shalowitz, MD, MSHP, Bryan Arkwright, MHA, Emily E. Bunce, MD
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to Telehealth and Medicine Today (THMT).
THMT is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
