The pressure on members of oncology practices to understand the costs of delivering care and to operate as efficiently as possible is building as a result of an increasing population of patients with cancer, a flat growth rate in the number of oncologists, a shortage of oncology nurses, and a decline in oncology-related reimbursement. Novel drugs and delivery mechanisms that require fewer medical visits or shorter administration time have the potential to facilitate practice efficiency and enhance patient quality of life, satisfaction, and convenience. Erythropoiesis-stimulating proteins (ESPs) have been shown to increase erythrocyte counts and hemoglobin levels, reduce the need for red blood cell transfusions, and improve anemia-associated deficits in quality of life in patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA).[1,2] Treatment with ESPs, however, may require numerous clinic visits over several weeks, potentially adding to the burden of chemotherapy and other supportive therapy through incremental direct and indirect costs and time incurred by patients and their caregivers,[3-6] overall cost of chemotherapy for payers and employers,[7,8] and human resource and indirect practice costs for providers.
Even relatively simple medical visits such as those associated with ESP treatment involve members of the medical and support staff, which translates into substantial human resource time and cost. These expenses are multiplied by the number of visits required for a given treatment in the context of the "normal" visits that might be required for other medical procedures. The reimbursement for any given medical visits may be minimal and insufficient for the direct and indirect cost of delivering care. Maximizing efficiency may help ensure that practices can continue to consistently manage anemia by lowering operating expenditures, increasing capacity, and maximizing productivity. Greater efficiency will also likely translate into improvements in the negative effects of medical visits on patients and their caregivers.
This article reviews studies that highlight the effects of CIA-related medical visits on patients, caregivers, and the practice. Recently published data that are useful in analyzing practice efficiency are detailed, and examples of tangible options to increase practice efficiency in managing CIA are summarized.
Effects of CIA Visits on Patients and Caregivers
Some of the ways in which medical visits affect patients and their caregivers are shown in Table 1. Medical visits for CIA may result in significant burdens to patients and their care-givers that extend beyond the visit itself. The clinical procedures for administering an ESP are relatively brief, but the medical visit required for the procedure comes with disproportionate consequences for patients. Fortner and colleagues found that the average patient time affected by a single ESP treatment was approximately 2.2 hours (standard deviation, 3.1 hours). Almost all patients (99%) reported that medical visits, including ESP visits, interfered with life activities such as time spent with friends and family, housework, employment, and hobbies.
Patients also incur out-of-pocket expenses resulting from copayments, transportation, meals, and securing assistance with normal responsibilities.[5,10,11-16] Documented indirect and out-of-pocket expenses associated with medical visits include lost wages from paid employment, the costs of child and elder care, over-the-counter and prescription medicines, food, home care, transportation, and overnight accommodations.[17-22] Moore estimated the monthly out-of-pocket expenses (mileage, parking, overnight accommodations, and meals) for patients with breast cancer at $360. Meehan and colleagues estimated the out-of-pocket expenses for a single ESP visit, not including copayments, to be $26. Direct and indirect costs are a concern as they have been shown to interfere with patients' willingness to receive treatment, especially members of minorities and patients with significant copayments or without insurance.
Transportation to and from the ESP visit is another concern for patients. Moore found that patients with breast cancer who were treated with chemotherapy averaged 4.5 trips per month, ranging up to 20 visits per month. Treatment with ESPs may add significantly to this burden, depending on the schedule of the ESP and the extent to which ESP visits overlap with other normally occurring medical procedures such as chemotherapy administration, laboratory tests, and radiologic procedures. In a rural outpatient setting, Meehan and colleagues found that the average distance traveled to the clinic for ESP treatment was 80 miles, and in another study, they found that the travel time to the clinic averaged 40 minutes. Difficulties with transportation, such as limitations in availability or having to travel long distances, have been shown to be barriers to treatment adherence, especially when several visits are required.[18,19]
While not as well documented, it is clear that cancer affects the lives of people who have attachments to the patient. One study found that more than 50% of patients had been accompanied by a caregiver to their last medical visit, and this same trend has been observed in ESP treatment. Caregivers may be more vulnerable to the ill effects of medical visits since they are more likely to be engaged in normal responsibilities like paid employment. Meehan and colleagues showed that caregivers were twice as likely as patients to miss paid employment because of an ESP treatment. Fortner and colleagues reported that the vast majority of patients reported receiving caregiver support for medical visits, which included activities such as providing transportation or emotional support and assisting with daily responsibilities. After averaging in zero time for the nearly 50% of patients who were not accompanied to their last ESP visit, caregiver time affected by the patients' last ESP visit averaged 1.3 hours (standard deviation, 2.5 hours). More studies are needed to understand the toll that medical visits may have on caregivers.
Effects of Medical Visitson Oncology Practice
The author has no significant financial interest or other relationship with the manufacturers of any productsor providers of any service mentioned in this article.
1. Glaspy J, Bukowski R, Steinberg D, et al: Impact of therapy with epoetin alfa on clinical outcomes in patients with nonmyeloid malignancies during cancer chemotherapy in community oncology practice. Procrit Study Group. J Clin Oncol 15:1218-1234, 1997.
2. Demetri GD, Kris M, Wade J, et al: Quality-of-life benefit in chemotherapy patients treated with epoetin alfa is independent of disease response or tumor type: Results from a prospective community oncology study. Procrit Study Group. J Clin Oncol 16:3412-3425, 1998.
3. Haithcox S, Ramnes CR, Lee H, et al: The impact of frequent injections for hematopoietic growth factor support on patients receiving chemotherapy: An observational study. BMC Nurs 2:2, 2003.
4. Meehan K, Tchekmedyian S, Ciesla G, et al: The burden of weekly epoetin alfa injections to patients and their caregivers (abstract 2186). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 22:543, 2003.
5. Moore K, Fortner B, Okon T: The impact of medical visits on patients with cancer (abstract 73). Oncol Nurs Forum 30:128, 2003.
6. Payne S, Jarrett N, Jeffs D: The impact of travel on cancer patients' experiences of treatment: A literature review. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 9:197-203, 2000.
7. Lyman GH, Berndt ER, Kallich JD, et al: The economic burden of anemia in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Value Health 8:149-156, 2005.
8. Berndt E, Kallich J, McDermott A, et al: Reductions in anaemia and fatigue are associated with improvements in productivity in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Pharmacoeconomics 23:505-514, 2005.
9. Fortner BV, Okon TA, Zhu L, et al: Costs of human resources in delivering cancer chemotherapy and managing chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in community practice. Community Oncol 1:23-28, 2004.
10. Fortner BV, Tauer K, Ahu L, et al: The impact of medical visits for chemotherapy- induced anemia and neutropenia on the patient and caregiver. Community Oncol 1:211-217, 2004.
<11. Moore KA: Breast cancer patients' out-of-pocket expenses. Cancer Nurs 22:389-396, 1999.
12. Carelle N, Piotto E, Bellanger A, et al: Changing patient perceptions of the side effects of cancer chemotherapy. Cancer 95:155-163, 2002.
13. Cella D: The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Anemia (FACT-An) Scale: A new tool for the assessment of outcomes in cancer anemia and fatigue. Semin Hematol 34(3 suppl 2):13-19, 1997.
14. Kallich JD, Tchekmedyian NS, Damiano AM, et al: Psychological outcomes associated with anemia-related fatigue in cancer patients. Oncology 16(9 suppl 10):117-124, 2002.
15. Moore K: Impact of neutropenia on the patient. Point of Care Perspectives April 2002:1-4.
16. Moore K: Impact of medical visits on the patient and caregiver: Every day counts. Point of Care Perspectives July 2002:1-4.
17. Pearce S, Kelly D, Stevens W: 'More than just money'-widening the understanding of the costs involved in cancer care. J Adv Nurs 33:371-379, 2001.
18. Hinds C, Moyer A: Support as experienced by patients with cancer during radiotherapy treatments. J Adv Nurs 26:371-379, 1997.
19. Junor EJ, Macbeth FR, Barrett A: An audit of travel and waiting times for outpatient radiotherapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 4:174-176, 1992.
20. Goodwin JS, Hunt WC, Samet JM: Determinants of cancer therapy in elderly patients. Cancer 72:594-601, 1993.
21. Matthews BA, Baker F, Spillers RL: Oncology professionals and patient requests for cancer support services. Support Care Cancer 12:731-738, 2004.
22. Wagner L, Lacey MD: The hidden costs of cancer care: An overview with implications and referral resources for oncology nurses. Clin J Oncol Nurs 8:279-287, 2004.
23. Meehan KR, Tchekmedyian S, Smith Jr RE, et al: An activity-based costing estimate of anemia correction activities in an oncology practice (abstract 5595). Blood 100:502b, 2002.
24. Guidry UA, Sumita PD, Vega J, et al: Impact of a simple inexpensive quality assurance effort on physician's choice of thrombolytic agents and door-to-needle time: Implication for costs of management. J Thrombosis Thrombolysis 5:151-157,1998.
25. Fortner BV, Miles K, Zhu L, et al: The development of a community oncology human resource (HR) cost model for chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA). Presented at: MASCC/ISOO 16th International Symposium; June 24-27, 2004; Miami, Florida.
26. Department of Health and Human Services: Rules and regulations. Federal Register, 69:66405. Available at: http://www.cms.hhs. gov/QuarterlyProviderUpdate. Accessed May 1, 2006.
27. Vansteenkiste J, Pirker R, Massuti B, et al: Double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized phase III trial of darbepoetin alfa in lung cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. J Natl Cancer Inst 94:1211-1220, 2002.
28. Kotasek D, Steger G, Faught W, et al: Darbepoetin alfa administered every 3 weeks alleviates anaemia in patients with solid tumours receiving chemotherapy: Results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised study. Eur J Cancer 39:2026-2034, 2003.
29. Fortner BV, Zhu L, Okon T: The new language of cancer care: Contribution to working capital, human resource costs, practice efficiency, and opportunity costs. Community Oncol 2:357-362, 2005.