Pritchett, Joshua C.

Although innovation in cancer treatment has improved cure rates and survival, the costs have escalated beyond societies' ability to pay. Cancer care costs in the United States are expected to rise to 245 billion by 2030. In this health policy session, we focused on three cost-containment strategies, and their potential impact on cancer care delivery. Site Neutrality: Curbing the Cost of Cancer Care, but at What Risk? , explores legislation that would introduce payment parity across differing sites of care: elimination of facility fees in hospital owned practices and shift of billing for oncology infusions away from hospital owned practices. Unintended consequences could reduce access to care for vulnerable populations, shift costs to patients, and reduce safety. Post-Pandemic Digital Health Reimbursement: Impact on Access to Care , explores how the emergency waivers, licensure flexibilities, and parity reimbursement necessitated by COVID-19 shepherded innovation that outpaced the regulatory framework needed for long-term sustainability. Today, telehealth services, hospital at home, remote patient monitoring, and decentralized clinical trial enrollment face reintroduction of regulatory and payment barriers. Will we live to see efficacy-based pricing for cancer drugs? Learning from international models , explores how lack of drug price negotiation has led to higher prices in the United States compared with Canada and Europe. Comparative clinical effectiveness pricing systems compare the value of each drug to standard treatments. Comparative cost-effectiveness programs look at the incremental cost per additional unit of health gained above the standard of care. The United States could learn from these approaches used in comparable countries.

e13828 Background: Disparities in cancer outcomes between rural and urban populations are often linked to limited healthcare resources in rural areas. However, the impact of socioeconomic factors, particularly income inequality, requires further investigation. Methods: We analyzed cancer mortality rates using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, focusing on rural-urban continuum codes and median county income, the proportions of patients with de novo metastatic disease at diagnosis, those aged 80 and older, and those experiencing a treatment delay of three months or more. Results: Our findings indicate that non-metropolitan counties (56.7%, 95% CI: 56.6%, 56.8%) and those with lower median incomes (54.9%, 95% CI: 54.8%, 55.1%) have significantly lower cancer survival rates than metropolitan counties (62.6%, 95% CI: 62.5%, 62.6%) and higher-income rural counties (62.6%, 95% CI: 62.6%, 62.7%), a trend consistent over the observation period. Higher proportions of de novo metastatic disease and increased treatment delays were observed in counties with lower income and greater rurality, with these counties also demonstrating higher annual percentage rates of change for both de novo metastatic disease (P < 0.05) and treatment delays (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Lower county-level median household income is associated with higher cancer mortality rates, increased de novo metastatic disease, and longer treatment delays. These results underscore the need to appreciate the role of income disparities in cancer outcomes and to improve access to oncology care in underserved rural populations.

e13893 Background: For individuals with CNS tumors who have experience difficulties with in-person (IP) evaluations due to disease-related neurologic disability or the costs associated with travel, telehealth (TH) offers a convenient and timely alternative for accessing specialized neuro-oncology care. We report our institution’s experience with telehealth utilization in neuro-oncology. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of patients who had at least one neuro-oncology telehealth visit between August 2021 and May 2024 at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Reasons for visits, outcomes of appointments, acute care utilization following visits was reviewed. Results: A total of 660 patients who had at least one TH visit between August 2021 and May 2024 were included in the analysis. Median age was 56 (range 20-98), 49% were female, and 92% were white. Most patients resided in the US Midwest (84%), followed by the South (8%), West (5%), Northeast (1%), and US Territories (< 1%). Less than two percent were international patients. The most common primary visit diagnosis was glioblastoma (GBM, 26%), followed by astrocytoma, IDH-mutant (17%), meningioma (17%), oligodendroglioma, IDH-mutant, 1p/19q codeleted (7%). Of 6657 visits reviewed, 2745 (41%) were conducted via TH. Telehealth visits served various purposes, including consultation for newly diagnosed tumors or abnormal MRIs (n = 26), second opinion for an established tumor diagnosis (n = 119), discussion about clinical trial participation (n = 108), tumor-related treatment discussions (n = 719), chemotherapy education (n = 161), new symptom assessment (n = 117), symptom management (n = 366), and tumor surveillance (n = 1694). Outcomes from telehealth visits included enrollment in clinical trials (n = 28), proceeding with tumor-directed surgery (n = 46), initiation of radiation therapy (n = 88), starting or changing systemic therapy (n = 377), continuing existing systemic therapy (n = 932), transition to supportive care (n = 45), tumor diagnostic workup (n = 28), continuation of tumor surveillance (n = 1254). Acute care utilization, defined as an emergency department visit or hospitalization within one month of an appointment, was the same following telehealth visits compared to in-person visits (6.9% for IP vs 5% for TH, p = 0.507). Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate that telehealth can effectively support all aspects of neuro-oncology care, ranging from initial diagnosis discussions to systemic therapy management and transitions to supportive care. Telehealth offers a convenient and accessible method of care delivery option for patients faced with neurologic illness. Additionally, THs do not lead to increased acute care utilization compared to IP evaluations.

e13890 Background: Many oncology practices have reported continued use of telemedicine since onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the future sustainability of telemedicine within oncology practices remains unclear, particularly because federal policies that enabled adoption in response to the public health emergency (PHE) have not been made permanent. Understanding similarities and differences in telemedicine utilization at high-volume oncology centers is crucial for shaping evidence-based policy that enables equitable access to oncology care across varying geographies. Methods: This is a cross-sectional, year-over-year, retrospective cohort analysis of trends in telemedicine utilization across all medical oncology clinical appointments conducted among adult patients (age >18) from January 2019 to December 2023 at Stanford Medicine Cancer Center (SM) – comprising multiple campuses in the California Bay Area – and the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center (MC) – a multiregional cancer practice with tertiary referral campuses in Minnesota, Florida, and Arizona, as well as community-based clinics throughout the Upper Midwest. Results: Both institutions exhibited a similar trend in telemedicine adoption over time. This was characterized by an initial surge in utilization following the PHE declaration in March 2020, followed by sustained utilization rates from 2021 to 2023. However, telemedicine use as a proportion of the overall practice differed significantly between institutions. At SM, the rate of telemedicine visits as a proportion of overall clinical practice was 60.3% (49,136/ 81,502) in 2021, 59.9% (52,247/ 87,215) in 2022, and 57.2% (55,007/ 96,163) in 2023. At MC, the proportion of telemedicine utilization was 12.8% in 2021 (23,873/186,086), 14.7% in 2022 (28,985/196,777), and 14.0% in 2023 (30,208/215,941). Deployment in the setting of new versus return visits also differed between institutions. In 2023, telemedicine accounted for 53.7% (6,440/11,998) of new and 57.7% (48,567/84,165) of return visits at SM, compared to 15.5% (3,359/21,728) and 13.8% (26,849/194,213) at MC. Additionally, while video visits were the predominant modality used to conduct telemedicine visits at both institutions from 2021 onward, in 2023 phone visits still made up 17.9% (5,394/30,208) of all telemedicine visits at MC, compared to just 5.4% (2,990/55,007) at SM. Conclusions: Stanford Medicine and Mayo Clinic exhibited a pattern of initial growth of telemedicine adoption in 2020, followed by sustained utilization from 2021-2023. We observed unique differences in the overall proportion, visit type deployment, and modality of telemedicine utilization between institutions. However, this study confirms telemedicine visits have remained a fixture of medical oncology care for many patients at these institutions since the COVID-19 pandemic.

e23345 Background: Telemedicine enables patients to attend visits remotely and is associated with shorter wait times (i.e. scheduling-to-appointment duration). However, its impact on patient–clinic distance and wait times for new patients in high-volume surgical oncology centers remains unclear. In these centers, where appointment availability and travel distance significantly influence care decisions, understanding telemedicine’s impact on access is essential as federal policies supporting telemedicine continue to be under legislative review. To address this, we examined the relationship between new patient visit modality, distance, and wait time across demographics, providing insights to guide policy makers, and clinical practice. Methods: We extracted visit data from a multispecialty surgical oncology center in Northern California from 2019 to 2023 and used linear models with fixed effects for clinician and patient characteristics to assess the association of NPV modality with distance and wait times. We calculated distance using geodesic measurements between residential ZIP codes and care sites and derived median household income and education levels from the American Community Survey. Results: There were 10596 NPVs in 2019, and 13982 in 2023, conducted by 78 and 100 clinicians respectively. The proportion of NPV visits conducted by telemedicine increased from 0% to 28% during this period. From 2021–2023, NPVs conducted by telemedicine were more likely to fall outside the center’s 2019 catchment area (80th percentile of distance) with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.89 (95% CI 1.62, 2.21). Wait times for telemedicine NPVs was 3.0 days shorter (95% CI [2.0, 3.9]) than in-person visits. Compared to the reduction in wait times for patients aged 45–65 (2.8 days, 95% CI [1.8, 3.8]), those 80 and older had a smaller reduction (1.9 days, 95% CI [0.9, 2.8]), while patients aged 65–79 had a greater reduction (3.4 days, 95% CI [2.4, 4.5]). This effect did not significantly vary by sex, race, ethnicity, education, income, or insurance status. Conclusions: At this multispecialty surgical oncology center, new patients seen via telemedicine were more likely to reside outside the center’s traditional catchment area and had shorter wait times, with these differences varying by demographic characteristics. Strategic telemedicine integration tailored to patient needs could enhance access by reducing wait times and expanding specialized surgical oncology care to patients across broader geographic distances.

Abstract BACKGROUND Central nervous system (CNS) tumors are frequently characterized by physical disabilities, and treatment is often associated with side effects, as well as financial toxicity and loss of income owing to disease-related neurological deficits. Treatment at centers with specialized neuro-oncology care is associated with an overall survival benefit. However, access to such centers can be limited for many patients. Telehealth services represent an option for improving access to specialized care. During the COVID-19 pandemic public health emergency (PHE), regulatory and reimbursement changes provided patients improved access to neuro-oncology by telehealth. METHODS We retrospectively analyzed our institutional utilization of telehealth visits in the neuro-oncology vs solid tumor oncology practice after the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS Between July 2020 and April 2021, telehealth represented 24.1% of all neuro-oncology visits compared to 13.3% for all solid tumor groups. Between May 2021 and April 2023, telehealth visits remained frequent in neuro-oncology compared to solid tumor groups (34.6% vs 15.2%). Utilization rates declined across the practice in the year following expiration of the COVID-19 PHE in May 2023, though remained high for neuro-oncology at 34.1% vs 15.2% for solid tumor groups. Overall, telehealth visit utilization for neuro-oncology has remained more than double that of the oncology practice as a whole. CONCLUSIONS The striking difference between telehealth visit utilization in neuro-oncology compared with general medical oncology indicates that patients with CNS tumors, and those that provide care for these patients, have come to depend on this mode of care delivery. Even after expiration of the COVID-19 PHE, telehealth use remains high in neuro-oncology at our institution. Prospective evaluation to determine the safety of and clinical outcomes associated with telehealth visits for individuals with CNS tumors are critically needed. Such data may promote regulatory and reimbursement reform enabling broader adoption, service sustainability, and improved access to specialized care.

e13806 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy-related (ICI) pneumonitis poses a significant challenge for patients with cancer. It is associated with increased clinical morbidity and mortality, often resulting in prolonged hospital stays and delays and/or discontinuation of cancer-directed treatment. Early detection and prompt treatment of ICI pneumonitis is critical to improve patient outcomes. Therefore, our institution implemented a remote patient monitoring (RPM) program leveraging in-home, electronic health record-integrated technology and virtual centralized nursing to monitor vital signs and patient symptoms in “high-risk” patients treated with immunotherapy. Methods: Patients receiving immunotherapy deemed to be “high-risk” for ICI pneumonitis seen at Mayo Clinic Rochester, Minnesota were offered enrollment in the RPM program beginning in June 2023. High-risk patients included those with pre-existing lung disease (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, interstitial lung disease); those with a history of resolved ICI pneumonitis being rechallenged with immunotherapy; and those with grade 1 ICI pneumonitis continuing immunotherapy. Eligible patients who agreed to participate in the program were provided a kit consisting of RPM technology and electronic symptom questionnaires. The kit included an armband for continuous vital sign monitoring, a blood pressure monitor, a scale to measure weight, and a pre-connected cellular-enabled tablet for questionnaire answering. RPM data utilized real-time electronic health system integration and predetermined parameters to alert RPM nurses. Pre-specified escalation care pathways were then used to respond and escalate care, as necessary. The primary outcome of this pilot study was to assess the feasibility of implementing an RPM program in this patient population with a secondary outcome to determine the ability to detect ICI pneumonitis before significant clinical symptoms. Results: Sixteen patients were enrolled of whom 5 declined participation (2 due to inconvenience and 3 for unclear reasons) resulting in 11 patients who underwent monitoring. Five patients graduated monitoring without detection of ICI pneumonitis within a 4-month timeframe. Six patients are currently undergoing RPM. 372 alerts occurred of which 8 (2%) were escalated to physician review. These alerts included elevated heart rate in 4, shortness of breath in 3, and elevated blood pressure in 1. One patient was triaged to an emergency department and diagnosed with grade 2 ICI pneumonitis. Conclusions: We show that RPM in patients who are at high-risk for developing ICI pneumonitis can be effectively integrated into a care model and monitor pneumonitis related symptoms. Further studies are needed to prove whether RPM is beneficial in this population including other ICI toxicities.

1597 Background: The impact of COVID19 pandemic on patient health beliefs and healthcare systems has adversely affected mammographic breast cancer screening (MBCS) during the initial stages of the pandemic. The aims of our study were to determine whether the initial decrease in MBCS rates persisted or if there was a rebound in later stages and to quantify the impact on urban and rural populations. Methods: This retrospective observational study analyzed data from March 2017 to March 2023 to assess whether eligible women received annual MBCS during this timeframe. We included women aged 40-75 years, drawn from the integrated Mayo Clinic system, encompassing nearly 60 primary care practices in Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, representing a broad cross-section of the United States (US) population. US census data was utilized to classify a county as urban or rural. We divided the study period into 4 categories:1) pre-COVID-19 pandemic (March 1, 2017-March 10, 2020), 2) early pandemic (March 11, 2020-March 10, 2021; pre-vaccination period), 3) mid- pandemic (March 11, 2021-March 10, 2022; delta and omicron variant dominant period), and 4) late pandemic (March 11, 2022-March 1, 2023; recovery period). Utilizing the Poisson regression model, we compared the incidence rate ratio (IRR) for rates of MBCS across the 4 predefined time periods. Multivariable modeling was performed to assess the significance of MBCS rates with urbanicity while controlling for the year (2017-2022) and age. Results: By race and ethnicity, the women in this cohort were White (92%), Black (3.1%), Asian (3%) and other (1.9%). The median age was 57 years and the cohort included 239, 804 women aged 40-75 years. MBCS rates was 49.2% in 2017, 47.1% in 2018, 46.4% in 2019, and decreased to 42.1% in 2020 and improved to 44.7% in 2021 and 43.8% in 2022. Compared with the pre-COVID-19 pandemic period, there was a significant decrease in MBCS rate in the early pandemic (IRR= 0.886, 95% CI 0.879, 0.892, p<0.001). Though the MBCS rate improved in the mid-pandemic period, it remained below the pre-pandemic level (IRR=0.941, 95% CI 0.934, 0.948, p<0.001). Similarly, during the late stage of the pandemic, the MBCS rate remained lower than the pre-pandemic level (IRR=0.922, 95% CI 0.915, 0.928, p<0.001). Rural counties had a lower MBCS rate compared with urban counties (IRR = 0.936, 95% CI 0.931, 0.941, p<0.001). Conclusions: This study confirms the negative impact of the early COVID-19 pandemic on MBCS, and it revealed its persistent effect, as the current MBCS rate remains below the pre-pandemic rate. These findings were more evident in rural counties. Factors contributing to the long-lasting impact are being analyzed with the intent to develop and implement targeted solutions to improve the MBCS rate.

AbstractBackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy has led to significant improvement in outcomes for patients with nononcogene‐driven advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The rate of crossover and receipt of postprotocol ICI in frontline trials for advanced NSCLC has not been systematically evaluated.MethodsClinicalTrials.gov was used to identify phase 3 studies evaluating the use of immunotherapy or combination chemoimmunotherapy against chemotherapy alone in the frontline management of advanced NSCLC. Data on outcomes, rate of crossover and/or subsequent post‐protocol receipt of immunotherapy, and the start dates of these clinical trials were then extracted.ResultsTwenty‐three frontline trials in nononcogene‐driven advanced NSCLC were identified. Six trials with ICI monotherapy/dual ICI therapy and 17 trials evaluating chemotherapy/ICI in first‐line advanced NSCLC were included in the analysis. The crossover rate ranged 0% to 54% in ICI monotherapy/dual ICI trials and 0% to 52% in chemotherapy/ICI trials. Nineteen of 23 trials provided information on subsequent postprotocol therapies. Among the trials not allowing crossover, postprotocol ICI was administered to 17% to 45.8% of patients. Information regarding the eventual receipt of ICI therapy was available for 22 of 23 trials. Of 6631 patients, 2507 (37.8%) randomized to the control arm eventually received ICI therapy.ConclusionThe rate of crossover and postprotocol ICI use was low in frontline trials for first‐line NSCLC incorporating ICI. Given the proven improved overall survival of ICI in a broad population, there is a need to ensure availability of this life‐prolonging therapy in future trials, either by crossover treatment or postprotocol administration.