Cancer care in 2017: the promise of more cures with the challenges of an unstable health care system

Everyone seems to agree that the fee-for-service payment models do not align incentives for improving total health outcomes at the lowest costs, but at the moment, there seems to be no best way of aligning them. Robinson has reported on the oncology payment initiatives at four major health insurance plans – Medicare (public) and Anthem, Aetna, and UnitedHealthcare (all private), noting that:⁵

• Medicare is testing its Oncology Care Model at more than 200 sites in the United States, and early data are expected to be released in 2018.
• Anthem continues with its Cancer Care Quality Program that includes adherence to 2 key requirements: that participants are compliant with Anthem-approved drug pathways, and that they register their patients at the insurer’s oncology website and enter their clinical data. Anthem is also considering expanding the management fee for certain high priority clinical trials.
• Aetna’s Oncology Solutions takes a different approach by providing increased payments for generic chemotherapies.
• United has eliminated the mark-up for new drugs and continues to mark up the prices of the older and generic therapies. Its episode-based pricing gives practices upfront payments based on expected drug margins so that practices can fund more comprehensive evidence-based care. In a presentation at a Washington State Medical Oncology Society meeting recently, United’s Lee Newcomer, reported that the insurer continues to see improved clinical and financial outcomes as well as encouraging early data showing that patients might do better in the real-world setting on some therapies that have not been fully compared in head-to-head randomized clinical trials.^6,7

ASCO is pulling these ideas together at the national level with its Patient-Centered Oncology Payment (PCOP) model, which is similar to Medicare’s alternative payment model. The PCOP model focuses on high-value, quality care. Higher upfront payments would cover the additional diagnostic services, care planning, and management to improve compliance and adherence as well as clinical trial evaluations. The model was developed and vetted by the ASCO Clinical Practice Committee and practicing oncologists, and is supported by staff and consultants. It is currently in its second year of operation with a commercial payer and will be submitted for review to the Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee of the Health and Human Services. The results of the review are expected in 2018. If the model is approved, it could provide a uniform approach for payers that would align incentives for high-quality cancer care and allow for better predictive modeling for practices, irrespective of size, to invest in infrastructure and staffing to meet the growing demand for high-quality, value-based cancer care.

,

Better science: the promise of more cures

The FDA approved a record number drugs and biologics in 2017 for various cancers,⁸ including the landmark approval of the first CART therapy for cancer, tisagenlecleucel, which targets CD19 on B cells in the treatment of acute leukemia. That approval was rapidly followed by a second anti-CD19 CART therapy, axicabtagene ciloluecel, for refractory, aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma.^9,10 Although these therapies can achieve remarkable response and even complete response rates in otherwise refractory patients, only some achieve a long-term remission, and the costs are an order of magnitude above most other cancer therapies. That raises the question of what duration of benefit we should expect for treatments that cost in the range of $500,000 for the therapy alone, along with the additional costs for care, hospitalization, monitoring, expensive biologics (eg, tocilizumab, for the severe and potentially life-threatening cytokine-release syndrome associated with CART therapies), and significant neurologic and other therapy-related toxicities.

Novel arrangements between pharmaceutical companies and payers are currently being discussed so that only patients who meet specific response criteria would be charged for the therapy. In addition, we await findings from ongoing research to see if new approaches can find specific targetable sites on solid tumors that could spare the healthy organ tissues while eliminating highly resistant or heterogeneous populations of mutations in patients with advanced solid tumors. Such development of highly specific targets for CART therapies would improve their efficacy and safety, and with defined protocols in place to address toxicities and efforts to reduce the costs of the therapies, we can hopefully ensure broader access for patients to this potentially transformative therapeutic tool.

In addition to the excitement around the CART therapies, many of the years other new approvals will bring incremental but meaningful improvement in outcomes for patients with common cancers. The approval of neratinib, the first agent approved as extended adjuvant therapy for women with early-stage HER2/neu-positive breast cancer, is welcome, given the current 30% recurrence risk that extends past 10 years for women in that disease population who have completed standard adjuvant HER2-directed therapies. The 34% reduction in recurrence risk with a year of extended oral adjuvant therapy, as reported by Martin and colleagues,¹¹ with benefits sustained out to 5 years and with controllable diarrhea as the major toxicity, are encouraging. This oral therapy may be especially beneficial for hormone-receptor–positive women in whom blocking the HER2/neu pathway may enhance cell signaling through the hormone pathways, which can be blocked with oral agents at the same time to provide significant reduction of recurrence risk.