Skip to main content

ASCO Updates Its Oncology Medical Home Payment Model

Web Exclusives - Ovarian Cancer

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has released a major update to its Patient-Centered Oncology Payment (PCOP) model, an alternative payment model “designed to support transformation in cancer care delivery and reimbursement while ensuring that patients with cancer have access to high-quality, high-value care.”

ASCO stated that it submitted the updated PCOP model for consideration by the Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC). PTAC is an advisory group to the Department of Health & Human Services, which sends recommendations to the Secretary of Health & Human Services on stakeholder proposals for a type of alternative payment model known as a physician-focused payment model.

PCOP is an oncology-specific physician-focused payment model that aims to offer a solution in the transition from fee-for-service to value-based cancer care delivery. “Specifically, ASCO’s data show significant potential for PCOP to yield cost-savings—up to 8% across the healthcare system—while helping to ensure that patients have access to high-quality, high-value care,” ASCO stated in a press release.

PCOP is intended to be implemented in multidisciplinary networks of oncology providers and practices; federal, state, and private payers; employers; and regional health networks (known as “communities”), all of which are aligned to support patient-centered cancer care.

ASCO is taking 3 major approaches to transform cancer care:

  • Improved care delivery and coordination through an oncology medical home framework
  • A performance-based reimbursement system that relies on patient-centered standards and transitions to bundled payments
  • Consistent delivery of high-quality care using clinical pathways that adhere to ASCO criteria.

The support of PTAC and participation by the Medicare and Medicaid programs “would advance this model in its intent to establish communities of providers and payers working together to improve cancer care delivery,” wrote Clifford A. Hudis, MD, ASCO Chief Executive Officer, and Stephen S. Grubbs, MD, Vice President, Clinical Affairs, in the submission letter to PTAC.

The PCOP methodology is designed to evolve as a program progresses, as more data become available, and a community matures in its collaborative approach. Some components of the payment model are:

  • Use of monthly care management payments to support treatment planning, care management, and active monitoring
  • Performance incentive payments that are based on quality measurement, cost of care, outcomes, and adherence to evidence-based clinical treatment pathways.

Under the proposal, providers could enter 1 of 2 tracks. Practices who opt for Track 1 continue to receive fee-for-service reimbursement in addition to the care management amounts. Practice communities that choose to disrupt current fee-for-service reimbursement (Track 2) will participate in Consolidated Payments for Oncology Care (CPOC). Under this option, practices may elect to bundle either 50% or 100% of the value of specified services, and 90% of bundled amounts will be guaranteed under CPOC, whereas 10% of bundled amounts will be subject to the same performance adjustment as monthly performance incentive payments, times a 1.4 multiplier.

Performance transparency is a key goal of the model, with open sharing of cost-of-care data including provider access to detailed claims data and utilization figures. These cost-of-care data are meant to “assist providers and other stakeholders to identify opportunities to deliver high-value care, abandon low-value practices, and invest in a more efficient delivery system.”

The full oncology medical home model report can be found at:

https://practice.asco.org/sites/default/files/drupalfiles/content-files/billing-coding-reporting/documents/2019%20PCOP%20-%20FINAL_WEB_LOCKED.pdf.

Related Items
Duration of PARP Inhibitor Maintenance Therapy in Patients With Ovarian Cancer With Germline or Somatic BRCA Mutations
JHOP - February 2024 Vol 14, No 1 published on February 22, 2024 in Original Research, PARP Inhibitors, Ovarian Cancer, Screening
Duration of Response to PARP Inhibitors for Maintenance Treatment of Ovarian Cancer in Patients With Germline or Somatic HRD
JHOP - August 2023 Vol 13, No 4 published on August 17, 2023 in Original Research, PARP Inhibitors, Ovarian Cancer, Screening
Successful Extended At-Home Olaparib Desensitization After a Hypersensitivity Reaction: A Case Report
JHOP - June 2023 Vol 13, No 3 published on June 21, 2023 in Case Reports, PARP Inhibitors, Adverse Events, Oral Therapy, Ovarian Cancer
How to Sequence Treatment in Relapsed Ovarian Cancer
2021 Year in Review - Ovarian Cancer published on January 18, 2022 in Ovarian Cancer
Maintenance Gemogenovatucel-T Immunotherapy in Newly Diagnosed Advanced Ovarian Cancer
2021 Year in Review - Ovarian Cancer published on January 18, 2022 in Ovarian Cancer
Patient Self-Reporting of Tolerability in Phase 2 Trial Comparing Gemcitabine plus Adavosertib or Placebo in Women with Platinum-Resistant Epithelial Ovarian Cancer
2021 Year in Review - Ovarian Cancer published on January 18, 2022 in Ovarian Cancer
Mirvetuximab Soravtansine plus Bevacizumab in Patients with Recurrent Ovarian Cancer
2021 Year in Review - Ovarian Cancer published on January 18, 2022 in Ovarian Cancer
NeoPembrOV Study of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy with or without Pembrolizumab Followed by Interval Debulking Surgery and Standard Systemic Therapy with or without Pembrolizumab for Advanced High-Grade Serous Carcinoma
2021 Year in Review - Ovarian Cancer published on January 18, 2022 in Ovarian Cancer
Optimal Treatment Duration of Bevacizumab plus Carboplatin/Paclitaxel in Advanced Ovarian Cancer
2021 Year in Review - Ovarian Cancer published on January 18, 2022 in Ovarian Cancer
Phase 1 Study of GAS6/AXL Inhibitor (AVB-500) in Recurrent, Platinum-Resistant Ovarian Carcinoma
2021 Year in Review - Ovarian Cancer published on January 18, 2022 in Ovarian Cancer