Benchmarking: If You Can’t Measure It, You Can’t Manage It. Teri U. Guidi, MBA, FAAMA President...

Benchmarking:If You Can’t Measure It, You Can’t Manage It.

Teri U. Guidi, MBA, FAAMAPresident and Chief Executive OfficerOncology Management Consulting Group

Elaine L. Towle, CMPEDirector, Consulting ServicesOncology Metrics®, a division of Flatiron Health, Inc.

Agenda

• 2014 National Hospital Oncology Benchmark Study• National Practice Benchmark, 2014 Report on 2013

Data

National Hospital Oncology Benchmark Study

• In 2013, and in response to the recurring requests on list serves, from colleagues and from clients, OMC Group solicited volunteers to contribute data for a pilot analysis of productivity in hospital-based infusion and radiation centers.

• It was a big hit!• In 2014, we expanded the number of centers

and the number of data points.

4

2014 Infusion Data Points

• Calendar year 2013 data• Patients per FTE• Encounters per FTE and patient• Chairs per FTE• Active treatment hours per FTE and patient• Drug doses mixed per pharmacy staff• Registry cases per registrar• FTE categories include: nutritionist, financial

counselor, social worker, NPP, LPN/NA, MA, RN, patient navigator, pharmacist, pharmacy tech, heme-onc.

2014 Infusion Data Slices

• Size of infusion center• Academic or Community• Major disease sites

– Breast– Colorectal– Lung– Prostate– Benign Hematology– Non-oncology

2014 Data

• 45 infusion centers• 27 radiation departments• All billed services for any patient that had activity in the

infusion department• Unique patient id• Date of service and diagnosis• CPT/HCPCS code and billed units• Tumor registry report• Program data

– Hours of operation– Budgeted FTE’s– Equipment (chairs, linacs, etc.)– Physicians

7

Caveats

• All centers are coding and billing services correctly

• All centers code chief complaint in one of the first 3 ICD-9 positions

• All centers interpreted survey questions consistently

• Some patients may be counted more than once in disease-specific data (different diagnosis at different encounters)

8

Infusion Center Profiles

SMALL CENTERS MEDIUM CENTERS LARGE CENTERS

HIDACADEMIC/

COMMUNITYINFUSION

ENCOUNTERSUNIQUE

PTS HIDACADEMIC/

COMMUNITYINFUSION

ENCOUNTERSUNIQUE

PTS HIDACADEMIC/

COMMUNITYINFUSION

ENCOUNTERSUNIQUE

PTSH66 C 2 7 H67 C 1963 322 H27 C 4607 892H45 C 13 10 H52 C 2107 407 H06 C 4767 714H47 C 244 72 H50 C 2156 993 H38 A 4940 1197H65 C 310 102 H59 C 2440 637 H07 A 4965 1064H55 C 393 116 H23 C 2549 776 H46 C 5010 1360H48 C 400 88 H58 C 2954 816 H72 C 5592 1148H56 C 441 141 H61 A 3258 265 H62 A 6124 1143H54 C 453 143 H12 C 3453 731 H25 A 6250 1162H53 C 519 232 H49 C 3518 883 H24 C 6665 1034H41 A 627 216 H63 C 3797 1161 H22 C 6767 1733H42 A 841 191 H21 C 3823 1125 H69 C 6976 1265H08 C 1049 327 H40 A 3968 873 H70 C 7286 1080H68 C 1469 189 H10 C 4203 991 H26 C 7566 1700H36 C 1575 332 H39 A 4341 833 H44 C 8825 2179H57 C 1832 480 H60 C 4558 1093 H43 C 9306 1075

The Most Frequently Asked Question

• How many chairs per RN?• We prefer more specific numbers:

– Number of patients per RN– Number of infusion encounters per RN

Number of Chairs per RN

Number of Patients per RN

Number of Encounters per RN

Patients for Other Staff

HID PATIENT COUNT HID PATIENT COUNT HID PATIENT COUNTH66 14 H66 28 H45 25H65 204 H65 408 H65 102H36 398 H24 1171 H55 355H26 599 H06 1611 H56 431H06 833 H22 1802 H54 437H24 1145 H21 2250 H48 440H49 1766 H08 3270 H12 809Adj Mean 3889 H70 3343 H52 814ALL CENTERS 4195 H26 3782 Adj Mean 866H44 4358 Adj Mean 4411 H07 1064H69 27408 H67 6977 H59 1274H70 46800 ALL CENTERS 7827 H22 1802

H72 23878 H60 2838H58 3264ALL CENTERS 4702

NON-PHYSICIAN PRACTITIONER ONCOLOGY-ONLY NAVIGATOR ONCOLOGY-ONLY

NUTRITIONIST

Patients for Other Staff

HID CASES/FTE CTRH10 180H49 217H71 218H36 266H06 323H51 364H67 367H63 370H08 413H07 429Adj Mean 452H38-39-40-41-42 478H64-65-66 489H50 503H45-46-47-48 509H26 534H24 564H12 621ALL CENTERS 661H43 672H70 698H25 832H27 1622H21-22-23 2104

TUMOR REGISTRY

HID PATIENT COUNTH61 127H62 272H22 601H70 650H43 690H23 807H08 812H68 964H10 1088H21 1170Adj Mean 1310H12 1320H06 1567ALL CENTERS 1608H67 1642H42 1705H69 1754H26 1861H72 2312H39 2707H40 2837H38 3890H44 4358

ONCOLOGY-ONLY FINANCIAL COUNSELOR

Number of Infusion/Injections Mixed

Throughput: # of Encounters per Patient

Number of Encounters per Breast Patient

Number of Encounters per Benign Heme Patient

Number of Active Treatment Hours per Encounter

Number of Active Treatment Hours per Encounter – Benign Heme

Number of Active Treatment Hours per Encounter - Colorectal

Chair Occupancy Rate

• Active treatment hours / available chair hours

Pharmacy Utilization

• Segregated out all J9 codes as those contain most of the oncology-related drugs

• Top 10 J9 drugs administered (count of frequency of each code in billing data)

• Percent of patients who received each drug• Average number of times each drug was

administered to a patient

Pharmacy Utilization – Breast Patients

AVE. # TIMES GIVEN/PT

ALL CENTERS Mean ALL CENTERS Mean # OF TXJ9355 25.1% 25.8% 11.8% 15.6% 9.9J9171 17.9% 11.6% 11.8% 11.9% 7.1J9265 12.7% 10.8% 8.6% 10.4% 6.9J9070 12.0% 11.8% 15.3% 18.5% 3.7J9000 8.7% 7.3% 9.6% 9.7% 4.2J9395 5.5% 14.0% 4.3% 6.2% 6.0J9045 3.8% 3.9% 4.5% 5.7% 3.9J9201 2.8% 3.6% 2.1% 3.6% 6.1J9179 2.7% 2.0% 1.5% 1.3% 8.7J9390 2.3% 2.0% 1.2% 1.6% 9.3

BREAST CANCER PATIENTS

% OF ALL BREAST PTS RECEIVING THIS DRUG

TOP 10 J9's AS % OF ALL J9'sHCPCS CODE

Pharmacy Utilization – Colorectal Patients

ALL CENTERS Mean ALL CENTERS Mean # OF TXJ9190 38.4% 44.4% 12.5% 12.7% 7.7J9263 24.6% 25.4% 0.1% 0.0% 6.2J9206 13.8% 10.6% 3.2% 2.2% 7.6J9035 13.3% 13.0% 30.0% 36.1% 6.4J9055 4.9% 2.8% 0.1% 0.1% 9.3J9303 2.8% 2.2% 10.9% 9.5% 8.3J9280 0.6% 0.7% 23.8% 27.4% 1.8J9400 0.3% 0.2% 2.1% 2.7% 28.0J9041 0.2% 0.2% 2.0% 2.1% 21.0J9201 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 6.5

TOP 10 J9's AS % OF ALL J9's

% OF ALL BREAST PTS RECEIVING THIS DRUG

AVE. # TIMES GIVEN/PT

HCPCS CODE

COLORECTAL CANCER PATIENTS

Heme-Oncs

• Some centers have only “dedicated” heme-oncs• Some centers have only “private” heme-oncs• Some centers have a mix

– These are excluded as it is impossible to match specific patients to specific physicians

• Only oncology and benign hematology encounters are reported here

Number of Encounters per Dedicated Heme-Onc

Number of Encounters per Private Heme-Onc

What’s New for 2015 NHOBS?

• Lab data will be added• Diagnostic imaging data will be added• “Revenue” will be added• Goal is to at least double the number of centers• Let us know if you would like more information on

how to participate and/or how to obtain more of the analysis: [email protected]

All rights reserved © July 2014Do not reproduce without permission

2014 Report on 2013 Data

Introduction• The National Practice Benchmark™ was developed by Oncology Metrics, a division

of Flatiron Health, Inc., a team of professionals with many years of experience in oncology practice, surveys, and benchmarking. Benchmarking is widely recognized as the best, most efficient way to find opportunities to improve your practice and then monitor progress after corrective action is taken. The National Practice Benchmark (NPB) provides important and meaningful data for oncology practices to use for managing in today’s challenging practice environment.

• This year we instituted eligibility criteria for participation in the NPB. Practices were eligible to participate if the could provide data for calendar year 2013 or their most recently completed 12-month fiscal year for the following:

– # of full-time equivalent (FTE) physicians– Total work relative value units (wRVU)– # of new patients– # of patient visits– Cost of goods paid for (COGPF), also known as cost of drugs– Total drug revenue

• Hospital-based and academic practices without access to cost of goods or drug revenue were given a “pass” and invited to complete the rest of the survey.

32

• Approximately 1,500 medical oncologists, practice administrators, and other key staff members from over 900 practices and institutions across the country were invited to participate in the 2014 National Practice Benchmark. Participants were invited via email and the survey was completed entirely online. Practices were instructed to submit only one survey per practice; multiple results from a practice were deleted. A total of 87 survey responses were submitted from practices in 34 states. The number of practices responding to individual questions varies.

• The National Practice Benchmark survey instrument collects data for a 12-month period. Practices were required to complete the core elements mentioned previously but not required to answer all questions; data from incomplete surveys is included in the final survey results. Data was submitted by hematology-oncology single specialty practices as well as by multi- specialty practices, hospital-based practices and other institutions.

• We report the number of responding practices as well as the number of full time equivalent (FTE) physicians for most data points in the survey. Some data are reported on the basis of FTE physician (HemOnc, RadOnc or physician); some are reported on the basis of Standard HemOnc (STD HemOnc) or Standard RadOnc (STD RadOnc). A STD HemOnc is one who generates 7,000 wRVU per year. A STD RadOnc is based on 26 average daily treatments.

33

• Successful NPB survey participants receive a full survey report as well as a practice-specific benchmarking analysis. New this year - we are recognizing successful participants. “Oncology Metrics Certification” will be awarded to individuals who successfully complete the survey and “Oncology Metrics Recognition” will be awarded to their practices and will be recognized nationally in the publication in the fall of 2014.

• We believe that NPB participants who are able to provide complete and accurate data are among the best managed practices in the country. The ability of these practices to count what counts to keep their practices running efficiently distinguishes them as elite. If you are one of the successful NPB participants, congratulations and keep up the good work! And as you use this data in your practice, remember that “average” in this group is very good indeed.

The National Practice Benchmark, 2014 Report on 2013 Data is expected to be published in the November, 2014 issue of the Journal of Oncology Practice.

34

Table of ContentsIntroduction 3

Respondent Demographics 9

Pharmacy Operations 18

Financial Benchmarks

HemOnc productivity 23

Practice expense 32

Revenue & asset management 41

Staffing & productivity 59

Clinical Data Density 75

Radiation Oncology 82

About Oncology Metrics, a division of Flatiron Health, Inc. 98

About Altos Solutions, Inc., a division of Flatiron Health, Inc. 99

About Flatiron Health, Inc. 100

35

• New patients• Work Relative Value Units (wRVU)• Visit counts• HemOnc Capacity Ratio

HemOnc Productivity

36

New patients, totalNew patient volume is an important measure of productivity and an essential tool for strategic planning.

Survey respondents reported the number of hematology/oncology new patients that entered the practice in the 12-month period by place of service (office or inpatient hospital). A new patient is defined as “one who has not received any professional services from the physician/qualified health care professional or another physician/qualified health care profession of the exact same specialty and subspecialty who belongs to the same group practice, within the past three years.” (CPT 2014)

37

25th 50th Adj Avg Avg 75th0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

New Patients Total/FTE HemOnc (59 practices, 552 FTE HemOncs)New Patients Total/STD HemOnc (wRVU) (56 practices, 581.7 Std HemOnc wRVU)

New patients, office New patients, hospital

38


50

100

150

200

250

300

350

New Patients Office/FTE HemOnc (59 practices, 552 FTE HemOncs)New Patients Office/STD HemOnc (wRVU) (56 practices, 581.7 Std HemOnc wRVU)


20

40

60

80

100

120

New Patients Hospital/FTE HemOnc (54 practices, 504.8 FTE HemOncs)New Patients Hospital/STD HemOnc (wRVU) (52 practices, 540 Std HemOnc wRVU)

Office established patient visits include CPT codes 99212 – 99215.

Hospital established patient visits include CPT codes 99217-99220, 99231-99233, 99234-99236, 99328-99239.

Visit counts

39

25th 50th Adj Avg Avg 75th -

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

Office Est. Pt Visit/FTE HemOnc (57 practices, 521.7 FTE HemOncs)Office Est. Pt Visit/STD HemOnc (wRVU) (54 practices, 551.3 Std HemOnc wRVU)


200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Hospital Est. Pt. Visit/FTE HemOnc (57 practices, 521.7 FTE HemOncs)Hospital Est. Pt. Visit/STD HemOnc (wRVU) (54 prac-tices, 551.3 Std HemOnc wRVU)

wRVUThe resource-based relative value system (RBRVS) assigns a relative value to each procedure code based on physician work, practice expense and professional liability expense. Relative value units (RVUs) are used by many payers to determine reimbursement for services and are available on the CMS website.

wRVU refers to the physician work component assigned to each code and is an important element of physician productivity measurement. This data represents total wRVU attributed to the physician for all services.

40


1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

wRVU/ FTE HemOnc (56 practices, 537.1 FTE HemOncs)

wRVU, net incident to


1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

wRVU less incident to/FTE HemOnc (32 practices, 344.2 FTE HemOncs)wRVU less incident to/STD HemOnc (wRVU) (32 practices, 373.8 Std HemOnc wRVU)

41

wRVU is reported here as net “incident to”; that is, any wRVU for services rendered incident to the physician service (not performed directly by the physician) is subtracted from total wRVU.

wRVU, E/M & infusion services, office wRVU, E/M services only, office and hospital

42


1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

wRVU HemOnc E&M Only/FTE HemOnc (56 practices, 537.1 FTE HemOncs)wRVU HemOnc E&M Only/STD HemOnc (wRVU) (56 practices, 581.7 Std HemOnc wRVU)


1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

Office wRVU HO (E/M & infusion)/FTE HemOnc (55 practices, 508.8 FTE HemOncs)Office wRVU HO (E/M & infusion)/STD HemOnc (wRVU) (54 practices, 551.3 Std HemOnc wRVU)

wRVU, E/M services only, hospital

43


500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Hosp wRVU HO (E/M)/FTE HemOnc (55 practices, 508.8 FTE HemOncs)Hosp wRVU HO (E/M)/STD HemOnc (wRVU) (54 practices, 551.3 Std HemOnc wRVU)

HemOnc Capacity RatioThe HemOnc Capacity Ratio shows the productivity capacity of the hematology/oncology physicians to see more patients in addition to their current workload, based on the industry standard of 350 new patients per year or 7,000 wRVU per year.

Significantly less 1 indicates existing capacity for the hematology/oncology physicians to see more patients. Near 1 means the HemOnc physicians are working near or at full capacity and growth in patient volume will require the addition of more physicians or non-physician practitioners.

44


0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

HemOnc Capacity Ratio (350 NP) (59 practices, 552 FTE HemOncs)HemOnc Capacity Ratio (7,000 wRVU) (56 practices, 537.1 FTE HemOncs)

• Drug revenue• Net drug revenue• Revenue mix

Revenue

45

Drug revenue, infusion pharmacy

Drug revenue is defined as total collected revenue for all drugs purchased and administered by the practice (J & Q codes).

46

25th 50th Adj Avg Avg 75th $-

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

$4,000,000

$4,500,000

$5,000,000

Drug Revenue (Infusion)/FTE HemOnc (54 practices, 529.6 FTE HemOncs)Drug Revenue (Infusion)/Std HemOnc (wRVU) (51 practices, 559.3 Std HemOnc wRVU)

Net drug revenue, infusion pharmacy

Net drug revenue is total drug revenue less COGPF (cost of goods paid for). This is a much more realistic way to look at drug revenue for the practice.

47


$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

$800,000

$900,000

$1,000,000

Net Drug Revenue (Infusion)/FTE HemOnc (53 practices, 569.1 FTE HemOncs)Net Drug Revenue (Infusion)/Std HemOnc (wRVU) (50 practices, 559.3 Std HemOnc wRVU)

Revenue MixHematology/oncology

Revenue mix is reported as the adjusted average per STD HemOnc and includes all practices reporting in each category; the number of respondents varies from one category to the next.

48

Net Drug Rev (In-fusion)

32%

Net Drug Rev (Point of care pharm)

3%

E/M Rev16%

Infusion Rev15%

Imaging Rev10%

Laboratory Rev3%

Clinical Trial Rev1%

Other Medical Rev18%

Rev, non-medical2%

• All staff positions are reported as full-time equivalents (FTE). An FTE staff is someone working 40 hours per week or 2,080 hours per year. An FTE is calculated by dividing the number of hours worked per week by 40.

• Some staff positions may be counted in more than one category but no staff position should be counted as more than 1 FTE.

• Staff may be reported for all departments/specialties (per FTE physician) or for the hematology/oncology line of business (per FTE HemOnc).

Staffing & Productivity

49

FTE Staff All includes staff working in all departments/specialties in the practice. Includes all staff; does not include physicians.

FTE Staff HemOnc includes all staff working in the hematology/oncology line of business. Includes all staff; does not include physicians.

50


2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

FTE Staff HemOnc/FTE HemOnc (52 practices, 465.2 FTE HemOncs)FTE Staff HemOnc/Std HemOnc (wRVU) (49 practices, 494.8 Std HemOnc wRVU)


2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

FTE Staff All/FTE Physician (52 practices, 579.1 FTE Physicians)

Pay Staff All


$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

Pay Staff All/FTE Physician (51 practices, 579.1 FTE Physicians)

Pay Staff HemOnc


$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

Pay Staff HemOnc/FTE HemOnc (50 practices, 462.4 FTE HemOncs)Pay Staff HemOnc/Std HemOnc (wRVU) (47 practices, 492 Std HemOnc wRVU)

Staff pay/physician

51

FTE NPP Pay/FTE NPP HemOnc

Non-physician practitioners (NPP)

52


$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

Pay/FTE NPP HO (42 practices, 279.6 FTE NPPs)


0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

FTE NPP HO/FTE HemOnc (44 practices, 429 FTE HemOncs)FTE NPP HO/STD HemOnc (wRVU) (43 practices, 468.3 Std HemOnc wRVU)

NPP wRVU/HemOnc NPP wRVU/NPP

NPP Productivity

53


200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

NPP wRVU/FTE HemOnc (40 practices, 450.2 FTE HemOncs)NPP wRVU/Std HemOnc (wRVU) (40 practices, 491 Std HemOnc wRVU)


500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

NPP HO wRVU/FTE NPP HO (35 practices, 231.1 FTE NPPs)

Laboratory

25th 50th Adj Avg Avg 75th0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

FTE Lab/FTE Physician (41 practices, 451.4 FTE Physicians)

54


$25,000

$50,000

$75,000

$100,000

$125,000

$150,000

$175,000

$200,000

$225,000

Lab Revenue/FTE Lab (37 practices, 313.9 FTEs Lab)

Research

55


$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

$90,000

$100,000

Clin Trial Revenue/FTE Research (27 practices, 236.9 FTEs Research)


0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

FTE Research/FTE Physician (31 practices, 428 FTE Physicians)

Imaging

56

25th 50th Adj Avg Avg 75th$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

$800,000

$900,000

$1,000,000

Imaging Revenue/FTE Imaging (21 practices, 207.8 FTEs Imag-ing)


0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

FTE Imaging/FTE Physician (21 practices, 377.6 FTE Physicians)

FTE chemo admin staff includes all staff responsible for drug purchasing, drug mixing and preparation, delivery to patients, documentation of services provided, and management of these processes. Staff is included in proportion to the amount of time spent on chemotherapy management activities.

57

25th 50th Adj Avg Avg 75th$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

Pay/FTE Chemo Admin (50 practices, 789.7 FTEs Chemo. Admin.)


0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

FTE Chemo Admin/FTE HemOnc (52 practices, 480.2 FTE HemOncs)FTE Chemo Admin/Std HemOnc (wRVU) (49 practices, 495.3 Std HemOnc wRVU)

Chemo admin staff productivity

Initial infusions is a count of the initial drug administration codes billed by the practice during the period and includes CPT codes 96360, 96365, 96369, 96374, 96409, and 96413. This is a surrogate for the number of patients receiving infusion services and may be used as a measure of productivity in the infusion suite.

58


100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Initial Infusion/FTE Chemo Admin (52 practices, 792.5 FTEs Chemo. Admin.)

• To measure clinical practice and support outcome measurement, it is necessary to capture key clinical data at various points during therapy. Six key clinical indicators (what we call the “Big6”) are essential to any organized data analysis. The Big6 include staging, intent of therapy, toxicity, disease status, performance status and line of therapy.

• The 2014 NPB survey, for the first time, queried respondents about their ability to report on the Big6. Respondents were asked two questions:– What percentage of patients seen in the 12-month period had the specified

element recorded in a defined field in the EMR; and– Whether their response was based on an estimate or an actual measurement.

• We believe that the ability to measure the degree to which these data are present in defined fields in the EMR is highly correlated with clinical consistency and responsible management of therapy for treated patient populations.

Clinical Data Density

59

Estimated62%

Measured38%

Staging

60

90-100% 50-89% <50%0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Percentage of patients

# of

res

pond

ents

What percentage of patients seen by a physician with a primary cancer diagnosis for which stagingis common have staging information recorded in a defined field in the EMR?

Intent of therapy

61

What percentage of patients seen by a physician who had therapy initiated or had a change of therapy have the intent of therapy recorded in a defined field in the EMR at least one time?

90-100% 50-89% <50%0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


# of

res

pond

ents

Estimated63%

Measured38%

Toxicity assessment

62

What percentage of patients seen by a physician who were on active chemotherapy have a toxicityassessment recorded in a defined field in the EMR at least one time?

90-100% 50-89% <50%0

5

10

15

20

25

30


# of

res

pond

ents

Estimated71%

Measured29%

Disease status

63

What percentage of patients seen by a physician who had therapy initiated or had a change of therapy have disease status recorded in a defined field in the EMR at least one time?

90-100% 50-89% <50%0

5

10

15

20

25

30


# of

res

pond

ents

Estimated76%

Measured24%

Patient performance status(ECOG or Karnofsky)

64

What percentage of patients seen by a physician who were on active chemotherapy had thepatient performance status recorded in a defined field in the EMR at least one time?

90-100% 50-89% <50%0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


# of

res

pond

ents

Estimated69%

Measured31%

Line of therapy

65

What percentage of patients seen by a physician who had therapy initiated or had a change oftherapy had the line of therapy recorded in a defined field in the EMR at least one time?

90-100% 50-89% <50%0

5

10

15

20

25

30


# of

res

pond

ents

Estimated71%

Measured29%

Thank You!

Teri U. Guidi, MBA, FAAMAOncology Management Consulting Group

[email protected]@oncologymgmt.com

Elaine L. Towle, CMPEOncology Metrics, a division of Flatiron Health, Inc.

[email protected]

Benchmarking: If You Can’t Measure It, You Can’t Manage It. Teri U. Guidi, MBA, FAAMA President...

Documents

Transcript of Benchmarking: If You Can’t Measure It, You Can’t Manage It. Teri U. Guidi, MBA, FAAMA President...