TopPodcast.com
Menu
  • Home
  • Top Charts
  • Top Networks
  • Top Apps
  • Top Independents
  • Top Podfluencers
  • Top Picks
    • Top Business Podcasts
    • Top True Crime Podcasts
    • Top Finance Podcasts
    • Top Comedy Podcasts
    • Top Music Podcasts
    • Top Womens Podcasts
    • Top Kids Podcasts
    • Top Sports Podcasts
    • Top News Podcasts
    • Top Tech Podcasts
    • Top Crypto Podcasts
    • Top Entrepreneurial Podcasts
    • Top Fantasy Sports Podcasts
    • Top Political Podcasts
    • Top Science Podcasts
    • Top Self Help Podcasts
    • Top Sports Betting Podcasts
    • Top Stocks Podcasts
  • Podcast News
  • About Us
  • Podcast Advertising
  • Contact
Not in our directory?
Add Show Here
Podcast Equipment
Center

toppodcastlogoOur TOPPODCAST Picks

  • Comedy
  • Crypto
  • Sports
  • News
  • Politics
  • True Crime
  • Business
  • Finance

Follow Us

toppodcastlogoStay Connected

    View Top 200 Chart
    Back to Rankings Page
    Science & Medicine

    ASCO in Action Podcast

    The ASCO in Action Podcast provides analysis and commentary on cancer policy and practice issues. The podcast is hosted by Dr. Clifford Hudis, CEO of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. ASCO in Action, the society’s internal wire-service, provides the latest news and analysis related to cancer policy. These updates provide snapshots of ASCO’s ongoing advocacy efforts, as well as opportunities for ASCO members and guests to take action on critical issues affecting the cancer community. Music provided by gmz, via ccmixter.org.

    Advertise
    • Apple Podcasts
    • Google Play
    • Spotify

    Latest Episodes:
    How Will Your Practice be Affected by the 2020 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule? Dec 10, 2019
    Show notes

    In the latest ASCO in Action Podcast, ASCO CEO Dr. Clifford A. Hudis, discusses updates that will affect oncologists in the 2020 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule final rule, which outlines changes to Part B reimbursement policies and the Quality Payment Program.

    ASCO's goal will always be "to ensure that oncologists can provide the right treatment, at the right time," says Dr. Hudis, "and we aim to help CMS implement policies that advance that goal."

    Take the ASCO Podcast Survey and help ASCO improve its podcast program: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ascopodcasts

    Transcript

    Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

    Dr. Clifford Hudis: Welcome to the ASCO in Action Podcast, brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of 9 programs covering a range of educational and scientific content and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all of the shows, including this one, at podcast.asco.org.

    The ASCO in Action Podcast is ASCO's podcast series that explores the policy and practice issues that impact oncologists, the entire cancer care delivery team, and the individuals we care for—people with cancer.

    I'm Dr. Clifford Hudis, CEO of ASCO and the host of the ASCO in Action podcast series. For this podcast, I wanted to provide a quick update on an important announcement from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which of course we refer to as CMS on this podcast.

    In early November, the agency released its final rule for the 2020 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule—commonly referred as the "physician fee schedule"—and other changes to Medicare Part B reimbursement policies, including proposed updates to the Quality Payment Program.

    Just to review, the physician fee schedule is a complete listing of fees that Medicare uses to pay doctors or other providers and suppliers. It is also a comprehensive listing of maximum fees that is updated each year and used to reimburse providers on a fee-for-service basis.

    At ASCO, we always review this rule closely and assess its likely impact our members and, most importantly, our patients.

    The top takeaway from the rule is that CMS estimates a zero percent overall impact for the hematology/oncology and radiation oncology specialties in 2020.

    Though it's important to note that the actual impact on individual physician practices will depend on the mix of services the practice provides, and practices in certain states may see a change due to the elimination of the 1.0 threshold previously applied to the geographic practice cost indices.

    CMS also finalized provisions to align Evaluation & Management (or E&M) coding with changes laid out by the CPT Editorial Panel for office/outpatient E&M visits.

    This is a welcomed update that comes after ASCO and other stakeholders expressed concerns that earlier CMS proposals to consolidate E&M codes would have diminished the resources available to care for Medicare beneficiaries with cancer.

    We appreciate the fact that CMS listened to our perspective and revised its plans to better serve people with cancer.

    The physician fee schedule rule also finalizes updates to the Quality Payment Program for 2020 and beyond.

    A key update to the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (or MIPS)—one of the Quality Payment Program's two tracks—is that all four MIPS performance categories will remain at their 2019 weights in 2020, but the performance threshold, which is the minimum total MIPS score needed to avoid a negative payment adjustment will increase to 45 points in 2020 (up from 30 points in 2019).

    CMS also finalized its plan to establish "MIPS Value Pathways" (or MVPs) beginning in 2021.

    CMS has described MVPs as a way to reduce the burden of participating in MIPS and for CMS to collect more meaningful performance data.

    The MVP framework would connect activities and measures from the four MIPS performance categories that are relevant to a patient population, a medical specialty, or a specific medical condition such as cancer.

    For years, ASCO has encouraged the use of high-quality oncology clinical pathways to help ensure patient access to high-quality, high-value cancer care. We are hopeful that this provision in the CMS final rule is a move in the right direction.

    We have also appreciated CMS' recent efforts to reduce administrative burden for providers. MVPs, if implemented appropriately, may help improve the quality and accessibility of cancer care. We will continue to work closely with CMS as it implements this new provision.

    I hope this summary of the updates to the physician fee schedule for 2020 was helpful to our listeners.

    Our ultimate goal is always to ensure that oncologists can provide the right treatment, at the right time, and we aim to help CMS implement policies that advance that goal.

    To that end we will submit detailed comments on the final rule during the open comment period, to ensure CMS understands the needs of the oncology community, and the full impact this rule is likely to have.

    If you'd like more information on Medicare physician reimbursement in 2020, please visit the ASCO in Action website at asco.org/ascoaction.

    Until next time, thank you for listening to this ASCO in Action podcast and if you enjoyed what you heard today, don't forget to give us a rating or review on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen and while you are there, be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.

    The ASCO in Action Podcast is just one of ASCO's many podcasts; you can find all of the shows at podcast.asco.org.

    Survey Promotion: If you like what you hear from the ASCO podcast, please let us know. Take our listener survey and help shape the future of the ASCO Podcast Network. Visit podcast.asco.org click on the Survey link. Once again, that's podcast.asco.org. The survey will just take a few minutes to complete and will help us get to know you better. Thank you so much for listening.


    mCODE Could Vastly Improve Cancer Care by Standardizing Patient Records in Electronic Health Records Nov 26, 2019
    Show notes

    CancerLinQ Medical Director Dr. Robert Miller discusses how ASCO's new initative, mCODE (Minimal Common Oncology Data Elements), will help take the oncology community one step further to achieving interoperability in electronic health record systems. In the latest AiA podcast with host ASCO CEO Dr. Clifford Hudis, Dr. Miller says that doctors are expected by their patients to have all their relevant medical information to ensure they receive the highest quality cancer care. mCODE is working to encourage vendors to adopt a consistent set of data elements in their EHR platforms to achieve that goal. Transcript Survey Promotion: If you like what you hear from the ASCO podcast, please let us know. Take our listener survey and help shape the future of the ASCO Podcast Network. Visit podcast.asco.org and click on the survey link. Once again, that's podcast.asco.org. The survey will just take a few minutes to complete and will help us get to know you better. Thank you so much for listening. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Dr. Clifford Hudis: Welcome to this ASCO in Action Podcast, brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network. This is a collection of nine programs covering a wide range of educational and scientific content and offering enriching insights into the world of cancer care. You can find all of ASCO podcasts, including this one, at podcast.asco.org. The ASCO in Action Podcast is ASCO's podcast series that explores policy and practice issues that impact oncologists, the entire cancer care delivery team, and the individuals we care for-- people with cancer. My name is Clifford Hudis, and I am the CEO of ASCO, as well as the host of the ASCO in Action Podcast series. For today's podcast, I am delighted to have as my guest Dr. Robert Miller. Dr. Miller is the medical director of ASCO's CancerLinQ initiative. And as many of our listeners know, CancerLinQ is a big data technology initiative that collects and analyzes real world cancer care data from multiple health care IT systems seeking to deliver insights to physicians, improve quality of patient care, and support new research. What our listeners may be less familiar with is that, earlier this year, ASCO and CancerLinQ announced a very exciting collaboration that has the potential of bringing the oncology community one step closer to our goal of achieving interoperability amongst electronic health record systems. The project is called mCODE. That's a lowercase m and then capital C-O-D-E. It stands for Minimal Common Oncology Data Elements, or mCODE. Dr. Miller is going to tell us a whole lot more about this important initiative. And I welcome you. Thanks for joining us, Dr. Miller. Dr. Robert Miller: Thanks for having me. Dr. Clifford Hudis: So, we've all heard about the inability of electronic health record systems to share information with each other. And I always, at the beginning of this, used to talk about my favorite proverbial story. A patient is discharged from a big-city emergency room after a month in the hospital. That hospital uses a single electronic record system, all the details are there. The person is on their way home and developed chest pain, ends up in a neighboring emergency room a mile away. And in most cases, how much of their record from the hospital where they spent a month, to the hospital where they're finding themselves in the emergency room, is transmittable at that moment? Dr. Robert Miller: Yeah, I think that's an important question. And that's an example that I think we all have had experience with ourselves personally in health care, or their families. And it's easy to say, well, that's because the systems don't talk to each other. To answer your question specifically, it's probably a small percentage, a minority. There are certain laboratory values and other things that may make it across, but a lot of the important information is missing. And it's just not easy to get. Dr. Clifford Hudis: Well, if they're in different health care systems, and even sometimes if they have the same health record system installed, sometimes there's essentially no real transmission possible. And I mention that only because I think outside of medicine, people who are less familiar with this expect this to work like banking or airline reservations. They expect transmittal of the entire package of relevant information at that moment's notice. And unfortunately, sadly, in modern medicine, and indeed in oncology, we don't yet have this. And I'll just close this little editorial soliloquy by pointing out that Congress thought they were supporting the development of this when they passed HARP legislation more than a decade ago. But in fact, the reality isn't that. And that is the setup for what we're really going to talk about now, isn't it? Which is how mCODE can help fix this problem. Dr. Robert Miller: Exactly. Dr. Clifford Hudis: So, tell us a little more now that we've set up the problem. How is mCODE able to begin to address this issue? Dr. Robert Miller: So, I think it's important to realize that while all medical care is complex, there's a certain level of complexity in oncology given the explosive growth in knowledge and a lot of the new therapies even in the last five to 10 years. But I think what is really underlying the source of the problem is the fact that so many of the important parts of the cancer patient journey are just not entered into electronic records in a way that they can be easily retrieved. So what I mean by that is things like measuring the cancer stage, or the basic biomarkers, or in the pathology report, or in the blood, and certainly more abstract concepts like, is the cancer growing or not, is the patient getting worse, or are they getting better, and so forth. The outcomes, the adverse events, are put in the electronic record in a variety of incompatible ways. And that's not really through, necessarily, anyone's fault or the way things were designed. It's because the electronic record today looks very much like the paper record of yore. And largely, this type of information is captured in what we call an unstructured note, or a document, so that the clinician either dictates, or types, or just puts in text that tells a story. And that's important to tell the story, but it's not easy for a computer to retrieve that information. Dr. Clifford Hudis: And the real point is, at scale, you can't take 1,000 patients and consolidate some of the basics into a single file that you could then interpret, right? Dr. Robert Miller: That's right. The problem is that you can try. You can take human beings--we call this abstraction, or curation--and you can pull out the data elements from the notes and from the stories, but that doesn't scale. It's incredibly expensive, and it's also very inaccurate. Obviously, there's a very big problem here. Tell us a little bit about how this actually came to be. The mCODE project started last year in 2018, and there was the alignment of a number of individual work streams. So, let me just say that, as background, ASCO had already been active in the area of data standards going back a number of years. They worked with the standards organization called HL7. If you look at the QOPI program, that's a quality registry that has to capture data, at least in certain fields. And one of the volunteer work groups at ASCO, the Informatics Task Force, was looking at the idea of a minimal data element. And of course, CancerLinQ--which you mentioned earlier--is a big data initiative that has to bring in cancer data in a certain way. I think this really didn't align until the middle of 2018, and that was--I will give credit to the leadership of Dr. Monica Bertagnolli, who was ASCO President at the time. She also continues to hold the position of Chair of the Alliance for Clinical Trials. And her theme at the ASCO annual meeting, as we all remember, was caring for every patient, learning from every patient. So that really, in a way, is a data problem. It basically says that if you really want to learn from every patient, from their information, from the data that's in the electronic record, you have to be able to retrieve it. ASCO, under Dr. Bertagnolli's leadership, together with the organization MITRE-- MITRE is a not-for-profit. It's what's called an FFRDC, or a Federally Funded Research and Development Center. They were already working on something they called the Standard Health Record, or SHR, and they were trying to use modern data standards to improve the quality and the capture of electronic data. They weren't necessarily focusing on cancer, but there was this alignment in 2018. This was all built on a standard called FHIR, which is an acronym for F-H-I-R, which stands for Fast Health Interoperability Resources, or FHIR. ASCO convened a group of experts in the summer of 2018 to try to create a minimal data standard to provide structured oncology data for electronic health records. So, this was ASCO volunteers and all the clinical oncology specialties, it was other scientists. It involved experts in standards, and quality, and policy, and so forth. The group met over a series of face-to-face meetings, and phone calls, and WebExes. We brought in experts from industry, as well, from electronic health records for their advice. And the group created a data standard, or a data specification, saying these were the important data elements. They were open to public comments in January of 2019, and ultimately were approved by the mCODE executive committee, and announced publicly on June 1, 2019. Dr. Clifford Hudis: So, when you describe mCODE right now, it's clearly centering on some core set of data, not all data elements. Can you talk a little bit about which elements are actually being captured with mCODE? And maybe for listeners, describe in a very practical way how a clinician experiences mCODE. How does it get into their workflow, for example? Dr. Robert Miller: Sure. So, the mCODE data specification is designed around six different domains that describe the cancer patient journey. The first is the patient, which is the demographic and other clinical characteristics--the disease, which are our specific details around the cancer. The third is genomics, because we knew that molecular characteristics of the cancer are so important for determining certain types of therapy. And largely, this is an area of real need. The fourth was the labs and the vital signs, the fifth was the treatment. And that could be surgery, radiation, and other drug treatments--chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and so forth. And finally, the outcomes. Again, this would be the cancer status of the patient--is the cancer better, worse, in remission or not--and ultimately, what the patient's survival is. The way the user experiences mCODE, if you will, is it's really within their normal workflow of capturing the patient record in the EHR. So, we're not totally there yet, but the anticipation is that the electronic systems of today, the EHRs that are being used, will embed these data elements within their core systems that are exposed to oncologists. And basically, the oncologists will--they may have to enter some information manually at the time of the visit, but our hope is, really, that that's minimal, because I think that there are plenty of things that are already in other electronic systems like pathology and laboratory that simply don't need to be repeated by a human being. Dr. Clifford Hudis: How specifically will mCODE get that patient's age, or that patient's stage, or the biomarkers, or the disease status, into the more structured format that you describe? Dr. Robert Miller: So, I think there's going to be a few ways that we're going to see this. And I'll be honest and say some of this is still being worked out. Some of these details, we're working with the HR vendors to understand exactly where the needs are. I will say that, of the various companies that we've talked to, most of them already have somewhere in their systems all of the data that we need--those six data elements and those domains that I described. That already exists, it's just not organized very well. So, I think it's going to be a combination of these elements that are going to be carried forth from somewhere else in the system that may be entered, like an age, that you don't need to enter a birth date more than once. In fact, a human being probably doesn't need to enter a birth date. That's already captured some way. And then that populates the clinician note, but then the clinician is probably going to have to enter certain key things. For example, the current disease status--is the patient alive with disease, do they have no evidence of disease, and so forth. There's going to be some, if you will, burden of entry on the doctor, but that's the part we're trying to minimize so that it, at the end of the day, doesn't add to the workload at the time of the visit. Dr. Clifford Hudis: I remember Dr. Bertagnolli demonstrating at some point what looked to me, as an outsider, like macros. They were essentially dropdowns, where if you put a certain phrase in, you would get the right terminology inserted, maybe with hashtags so that then it could be picked out and structured. Is that a key part of this or is that unrelated? Dr. Robert Miller: No, that actually-- that's correct. That is part of what we anticipate some of the implementations will be for mCODE, depending on the EHR type. One of the things that our colleagues at MITRE-- one of things they're testing is that type of capability. And it is actually a hashtag symbol that you just have to, if you will, know the code. And you enter that into your note, and then the computer finds that. And at the back end, there is going to be a dictionary, or what we might call a lookup table, that pulls that into the mCODE data structure. The other thing that I want to emphasize is that while it's certainly not revolutionary to think that you need to capture a patient age or a basic biomarker status of their cancer, one thing that mCODE is bringing to the table is the fact that we are strictly defining and requiring specific vocabularies and terminologies. So the computer can only understand things if it's coded in a certain way. So, within mCODE, and really within the entire electronic record, if we constrain the use of certain lists of variables in defined terminologies, that's going to make the computers able to talk to each other. And that really goes back to your initial scenario of the one-month hospitalization and only being able to find a certain amount. If you used a terminology that one computer could understand from another, then you're not going to have that problem. Dr. Clifford Hudis: I got it. So we've come, in a way, full circle from talking about the big problem qualitatively--talking about what we need, which is structured data--and then describing a specific pathway to make it easy for clinicians to record data in a way that a computer can then read, in a sense, and restructure. Dr. Robert Miller: Yes. Dr. Clifford Hudis: And then that delivers both interoperability on the one hand, but that has critical downstream consequences for our community. It means, ultimately, that qualit…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Listen to Coverage of ASCO's 2019 Advocacy Summit on Capitol Hill Sep 30, 2019
    Show notes

    On September 25-26, ASCO held its 2019 Advocacy Summit, during which oncology care providers from across the United States came to Capitol Hill to urge Members of Congress to support policies that will improve access to high-quality, high-value care for people living with cancer. Listen to coverage in this new ASCO in Action podcast.

    Transcript

    Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

    Dr. Clifford Hudis: Welcome to this ASCO in Action podcast, brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content, and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all of ASCO's podcasts, including this one, at podcast.asco.org.

    My name is Clifford Hudis, and I'm the CEO of ASCO, as well as the host of the ASCO in Action podcast series, which explores policy and practice issues that impact oncologists, the entire cancer care delivery team, and the individuals we care for: people with cancer.

    Recently, ASCO held its 2019 Advocacy Summit. More than 130 oncology care providers from across the United States came here to Washington DC to meet with members of Congress and to urge support for policies that improve access to high-quality, high-value care for people living with cancer.

    This is one of the highest impact events that ASCO holds every year. There's nothing like seeing ASCO advocates hit the halls of Congress with such passion and dedication, with the collective goal of ensuring that lawmakers focus on policy changes that will improve the lives of people with cancer and the care they receive.

    ASCO president Dr. Howard, or "Skip", Burris kicked off the activities at the Advocacy Summit and spoke about why it's so important for us to be on Capitol Hill.

    Dr. Howard "Skip" Burris: ASCO's on Capitol Hill today so that our members actually get to meet with their representatives and congressmen and their staff so they understand how important cancer care is to this country, and to make sure that they understand the issues that are facing our patients that we care for who are experiencing cancer.

    The decisions that Congress makes, with regard to health care and cancer care in particular, is so important and powerful to cancer patients. Access to therapy, timely access to getting treatments initiated, making sure that there's appropriate coverage of new therapies, all those things are critical for us to implement the great scientific and clinical advances that we've made into the care and outcomes for our patients.

    Dr. Clifford Hudis: ASCO advocates asked lawmakers for their support for legislation that will make a big difference in the lives of individuals with cancer. One of those pieces of legislation is HR 913, the CLINICAL TREATMENT Act, which would guarantee coverage of the routine care costs associated with clinical trial participation for Medicaid enrollees with life-threatening conditions, including cancer. Medicaid is the only major payer, including Medicare, that is not required to cover these care costs today, and we hope to address this.

    Dr. Karen Winkfield, chair of ASCO's Diversity Inclusion Task Force, says that changing this policy is critical to improving the validity of clinical research data and to improving patient outcomes. Dr. Karen Winkfield joined other ASCO advocates in urging members of Congress to support this bill.

    Dr. Karen Winkfield: So the Clinical Treatment Act is really vitally important because it will allow all patients equal opportunity to access clinical trials that would be beneficial to not only them, but also other individuals who may come from the same backgrounds, including racial and ethnically diverse populations, but also those of lower socioeconomic status. We want our clinical trial to be representative of every single individual in this country.

    Dr. Clifford Hudis: The Advocacy Summit was packed with meetings with congressional lawmakers and their staff. Dr. Jason Westin, a member of ASCO's Government Relations Committee, participated in the summit and he spoke about why these direct meetings are so important.

    Dr. Jason Westin: I think advocacy is very important for cancer doctors and cancer professionals to be an advocate for our patients. I think that there are so many opportunities for us to help our patients in the clinic, in the research arena. But if we're not involved in advocacy, then others are advocating in other directions that may not benefit our patients in the way that we would like.

    Many doctors view that as somebody else's job, or they view that as something that's not important for them to be involved in. I think if we don't step up, if we're not sitting at the table, then we may be on the menu.

    Dr. Clifford Hudis: Many ASCO members are concerned with payer-imposed strategies that are designed to contain costs, but often unnecessarily, and sometimes dangerously, delay care for patients with cancer. Dr. Melissa Dillmon, chair of ASCO's Government Relations Committee, explained why these utilization management practices can be particularly harmful in cancer care, and also spoke about legislation that will help address these concerns.

    Dr. Melissa Dillmon: So, utilization management strategies, like step therapy and prior authorization, hurt our patients because they cause delays in care and cause patients to take drugs that are less effective. So, we are asking for support on two critical bills.

    One is Improving Seniors' Timely Access to Care Act, which really looks at prior authorization and simplifying the process, making sure that it's a timely approval of medications that are critical to getting them on treatment and getting them healthy again.

    The other act that we're asking for support on is the Safe Step Act, which really looks at step therapy and making sure that if step therapy is in place in an insurance program, that it does not prevent patients, especially oncology patients, from getting the best drug at the right time.

    So, as oncologists we're really fortunate in that drugs are being developed in a rapid manner, and we have many new drugs to help us fight their cancers. And so, we don't have the ability to use the cheapest drug always, because the best drug is sometimes the newest drug. And it may not be the one that's first approved on that step therapy utilization management strategy.

    Dr. Clifford Hudis: One of the highlights of the Advocacy Summit is presenting ASCO's Congressional Champion of the Year award to lawmakers whose leadership on behalf of patients with cancer deserves special recognition. This year, we recognize Congressman Ben Luján from New Mexico and Congressman Gus Bilirakis from Florida for their work. Congressman Luján addressed the attendees at the reception.

    Rep. Ben Luján: Your work and the difference you make every day saves people's lives. And it's certainly why I'm hopeful that more of my colleagues that have not had the chance to learn from you take a moment to meet with you, to spend time with you, to understand the magnitude of a difference that you're delivering for the constituencies that we all represent.

    Dr. Clifford Hudis: We also recognized ASCO volunteers whose advocacy efforts made a significant impact in 2018. Dr. Alexandra Thomas, a participant in ASCO's Leadership Development Program, was named ASCO's Advocate of the Year.

    Dr. Alexandra Thomas: Receiving this honor only makes me embrace the exciting work ahead even more. And I hope that will include extending our network so even more voices can join in this chorus, so Dr. Burris's picture of the ASCO Advocacy Summit will get bigger each year.

    But perhaps even more importantly, the virtual picture will get bigger as more and more of us join in and advocate and tell our patients' stories and realize robust and continuous government support to improve the lives of our patients with cancer.

    Dr. Clifford Hudis: The ASCO Advocacy Summit is a unique opportunity to educate members of Congress and their staff about the current realities of the cancer care delivery system and how their decisions impact real people who have cancer. The support of lawmakers is critical to ensuring that our patients have access to high-quality, affordable cancer care.

    This is why we feel it is so important that our collective voice be heard on Capitol Hill. A big thank you to all of ASCO members who participated in the summit, as well as those who participated virtually, by sending messages to their members of Congress through social media or ASCO's ACT Network.

    I encourage all of our listeners to participate in ASCO's advocacy efforts. Visit asco.org/actnetwork to learn more about how you can get involved. To stay up to date on all of ASCO's advocacy work, visit asco.org/ascoaction.

    Until next time, thank you for listening to this ASCO in Action podcast. If you enjoyed what you heard today, don't forget to give us a rating or review on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen. And while you're there, be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.

    Until next time, thank you for listening to this ASCO in Action podcast.


    Get to Know Dr. Howard A. "Skip" Burris and What He Hopes to Accomplish as ASCO President Sep 17, 2019
    Show notes

    Subscribe through iTunes and Google Play. In this interview, ASCO President Dr. Howard A. "Skip" Burris discusses why he became an oncologist, the importance of mentors in his career, the most significant changes he's witnessed in cancer care during the past three decades, and his vision for the coming year as he serves in this top volunteer position. Dr. Burris stresses that we can't "divide and conquer, to conquer cancer," a message underscored by his ASCO presidential theme, "Unite and Conquer: Accelerating Progress Together." Find all of ASCO's podcasts at podcast.asco.org Shannon McKernin: Hi. My name is Shannon McKernin, and I'm the host of the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. When a new ASCO guideline publishes, we release a podcast episode featuring an interview with one or more expert panel members. Each episode highlights the key recommendations and the implications for patients and providers. You can find the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series on Apple Podcasts or wherever you're listening to this show, and you can find all nine of ASCO's podcasts, which cover a wide range of educational and scientific content and offer enriching insight into the world of cancer care at podcast.asco.org. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Clifford Hudis: Welcome to this ASCO in Action podcast brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content offering enriching insights into the world of cancer care. You can find all of ASCO's podcasts including this one at podcast.asco.org. This ASCO in Action podcast is part of our series exploring policy and practice issues that impact oncologists, the entire cancer care delivery team, and the individuals who care for people with cancer. My name is Clifford Hudis, and I am the CEO of ASCO as well as a host of the ASCO in Action podcast series. For today's podcast, I am delighted to be joined by Dr. Howard, or "Skip", Burris. He's ASCO's president for the 2020 term, and if we're lucky today, we'll find out why he's called Skip. In the meantime, Dr. Burris is joining me to share his vision for his presidential year. That is what he hopes to accomplish by this top ASCO volunteer leadership position is an opportunity to leave a lasting mark on our organization and indeed the larger oncology community. Skip, welcome and thank you for joining me today. Howard "Skip" Burris: Thank you for having me. Looking forward to the conversation. Clifford Hudis: So, Skip, every one of us comes to oncology for individual reasons and personal motivations, and I know that's true for you as well. So before we get into the details of your current role at ASCO, I think our listeners will be interested in learning why you became a medical oncologist when there are so many places to go in medicine, so many exciting specialties, what was it that drove you to choose taking care of patients with cancer for your career? Howard "Skip" Burris: Interesting question and story. I was driven to medicine really thinking that I wanted to do something that was meaningful, something that helped others. And I was influenced by actually a number of friends whose fathers were physicians when I was in high school. And as I initially went into the medical field, I thought surgery was so exciting, and I actually spent many of my electives doing surgical sub-specialties and in particular thoracic surgery. And it was an exciting time in the '80s with heart transplantation and bypass surgeries. And yet I also was dissatisfied with the fact that it seemed transactional. While important, and certainly lifesaving for those patients, these were surgeries and then, quote unquote, were done taking care of that patient. And then I had a seminal moment after rounds one day when we were in the intensive care unit. And I was talking to a patient, and the team moved on. And my attending yelled at me, "hey, Burris, what are you doing?" I looked at him and he said, "Come on. He's fixed. Let's go." And I half smiled and I thought, well, this guy's got such an interesting story and he was terribly appreciative of the care he'd receive, but he looked at that attending as somebody had truly had saved his life. And so fast forward to fumbling through internship and trying to figure out really what type of specialty I might want to go into. And two groups of folks that I ran into contact with shaped my career. One were the oncology patients. Rounding on the oncology patients, doing that elective early in my internship, they were grateful. They were so appreciative. It was a great program in San Antonio. It was folks participating in clinical trials. And these were patients who not only wanted to help themselves but understood that what they were doing might help others. But really every person was so unique and had such a powerful story. And then secondly, the attendings that were taking care of those patients, the oncologists truly seemed to love what they were doing. And it was really those two groups, I thought these are the kind of patients I'd like to take care of, and these are the types of physicians that I'd like to practice with. And I began shifting as many rotations as I could as a resident into oncology, and I've enjoyed being an oncologist now for almost 30 years. Clifford Hudis: And so it was the patients, and it was the physicians really that in the end drove you into this specialty it sounds like, right? Howard "Skip" Burris: Yes. I had been taught early on, and I tell some of our younger folks today, working with people that you like and working with people that you respect is such an important part of the job. And then the service that you're providing knowing that folks are appreciative and there's a teamwork in that both the doctors and the patients in the field of oncology are so special. Clifford Hudis: So you just touched on a big part of what I think motivates or at least supports so many of our members throughout their careers and that is collaboration, working with others. And I can't help but imagine that your experience in terms of your education at West Point and your service with distinction in the Army has a relationship to that camaraderie, that connection, and that collaboration. How do you see that experience as preparing you for medicine, or maybe you think it didn't? Howard "Skip" Burris: Actually it did, and I appreciate the question, the opportunity to comment on that. Going to the US Military Academy, going to West Point for undergrad was a decision made because I wanted to go to a great school. It was a great scholarship package, the way they handled it. And I knew I'd get a great education and was attracted, one of these kids in high school who gravitated toward leadership positions, and going to an institution that would teach leadership was attractive. And then you realize as soon as you get to West Point, you're part of this big team. Everything you do during your years there is all about your group of individuals, your team, your squad, your company, surviving together, thriving together, and being successful. And, in fact, the motto that they teach is strength is one. And it was clear that you were at school with a talented group of folks who all wanted to be leaders, and everybody had to learn how to fit in, pick their place to lead, pick their place to be humble, pick their place to take charge. And those sorts of teachings and the mentors and the colonels and generals that were my teachers on that led the program, they were simple things but they were things that stuck with me forever, and I think they've served me well as a physician. One was around the simple concept of you know if no one's following, you might not actually be leading. And you got to stop and take a look behind you and see if while you're heading in whatever direction you might be going, if no one's following, you got to check yourself. I think a second thing that has stuck with me is better to be decisive than to be sure you're right. Very rarely are you sure you're right, and I think that teams even in medicine and maybe particularly in medicine really like a decisive leader. And I think that's something that is a great characteristic for physicians, gathering the appropriate data and making the decision and moving forward. But looking around and trying to emulate some of those folks who became leaders of the country was inspirational and then also gave you the opportunity to take away some of those teachings and try to embed them in terms how you carry yourself. One thing about the army it's very hierarchical, but the generals, you know, know that those privates are what's going to make them successful. So the chain of command and that respect for each other, respect for the position, and respect for their role on the team is very similar to the role of doctor to nurse to the support staff and the like. So it actually ended up being a great foundation for my career. Clifford Hudis: So it's interesting throughout medicine and especially in the last few decades, we have increased our emphasis on the role of mentoring. And I have I guess two questions which would be, one: how did you find mentors in your post military career given the strength of the leadership that you saw displayed there? And the other question is how did you translate that into your own service as a mentor? Howard "Skip" Burris: Yeah, so I think important-- I think picking the right mentor-- maybe picking the mentor where you resonate with that person and think that somebody who you'd like to model and picking that mentor who can teach you something and really has your best interests at heart I think are key. Picking the wrong mentor is something that could really set somebody off on the wrong track if they're not careful. I was very lucky. As I went into internship and residency, my chief of medicine was a fabulous mentor. He was one of those individuals who kept the patient first, was kind but firm, and just the thing I learned from him was what now we talked to as emotional intelligence, this fact that he was optimistic. He was very self-aware, and he was in control of his emotions. And no matter what we'd done or not done and however the result went, he was the steady hand, and I always looked up and thought, I want to be that person. I want to be the person who's calm in the storm, and I want to be the person that people look to and say he's not panicking, and he's got the situation where we're going to get through this together. So that was a great mentor in my chief of medicine. And then my other mentor during my oncology fellowship was a famous oncologist, still in the field today, in Arizona, Dr. Dan Von Hoff. I mentioned Dr. Von Hoff's name, he's been a Karnofsky Award lecturer. And Dr. Von Hoff was the one who got me interested in drug development and phase 1 clinical trials. And I would say that Dr. Von was a great mentor for a few specific reasons. One is he always pushed us in front of him. He didn't need to take the credit. He pushed us to be presenters, pushed us to be first authors, pushed us to be the person that was in front of the clinical trial. And that was something that really was important for somebody early in their career. And then secondly he really taught that perspective that it was a great responsibility both for the patient on the clinical trial and for overseeing that clinical trial and that while your title might be principal investigator, you might be the leader of the program that you really were beholden to those researchers that brought the drug forward and to those patients who were volunteering to participate in the study. And Dr. Von Hoff has always been a great person in that regard, and his Karnofsky Lecture was actually a highlight to and a tribute to all those patients who had participated in phase one trials through the years. So those were two mentors that really stood out and have impacted me throughout my career. Clifford Hudis: Do you see yourself I guess echoing those styles of mentorship or expanding on them? Do you see anything in your own role as a mentor that hearkens back to what you saw in West Point and in those mentors in medicine for you personally? Howard "Skip" Burris: I do think I've had embodied in me the patient centric, patient first approach. I am one of those physicians who has always wanted to get to know his patients, have always taken the social history as an important part. It's funny, a number of my longtime patients are comfortable calling me Skip on occasion. I actually know their stories and know who their family is, and I know what they're wanting to fight for in terms of grandchildren and trips and the like. So that I'd be really being grateful on having a relationship with the patient I think is something that has carried forward. I will say to my chief of medicine mentor I still aspire to that. I wish I was always as calm as he was. I wish I was always as optimistic as he was and had that sort of strength, but it is still something that's front of mind for me and something that I at least strive to be as much as I can. Clifford Hudis: So, reflecting on your career just for a little bit, I have a couple of questions. One is a general one and one more specific. But thinking generally first, you've been in medicine a long time. I guess you're around 30 years if I'm not mistaken. From your point of view, what do you see as the most significant change in the field that -- can be good or bad or whatever -- but that we have to think about and maybe help our trainees and younger members adapt to? Howard "Skip" Burris: Well, the flow of information, the speed at which we're making discoveries and just the educational challenges there are immense. And so, I think that is something where the speed of drug development and approvals just to throw one statistic out, eight new drugs approved in 1998, 48 new drugs are indications approved in 2018, so what a change over the past 20 years. I think the most significant change, though, is we knew early on in our careers-- you and I always knew that no two patients were alike. They might be in ERP or positive breast cancer that they really were not the same patient. They might be a adenocarcinoma, but they were really different. And now with the advances in pathology -- advances in molecular profiling, understanding biomarkers, we do know that no patients are alike. And we know that everybody has to be approached individually. The tendency has always been to want to lump patients into groups to make broad treatment recommendations. And that is part of the challenge with the education and information flowing forward. It is as simple as continuing to look at some of the prognostic indices that we have for some tumors, the next generation sequencing for others, whatever that test might be to really determine what's the best therapy for that patient. So those advances have really helped us in terms of looking at tumor biology and knowing whether we're thinking about an immunological approach to a patient or chemotherapy approach to a patient or whether it might be one of the new oral…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Removing Barriers to Clinical Trial Access for Patients with Medicaid Sep 03, 2019
    Show notes

    Subscribe through iTunes and Google Play.

    Dr. Melissa Dillmon, the Chair of ASCO's Government Relations Committee, joins ASCO CEO Clifford A. Hudis to discuss improving access to clinical trials for patients with Medicaid. Medicaid covers 20% of Americans, however unlike Medicare or private insurers, Medicaid is not federally required to cover the routine care costs associated with clinical trials.

    Find all of ASCO's podcasts at podcast.asco.org

    Transcription Shannon McKernin: Hi. My name is Shannon McKernin, and I am the host of the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. When a new ASCO guideline publishes, we release a podcast episode featuring an interview with one or more expert panel members. Each episode highlights the key recommendations and the implications for patients and providers.

    You can find the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series on Apple Podcasts or wherever you're listening to this show, and you can find all nine of ASCO's podcasts, which cover a wide range of educational and scientific content and offer enriching insight into the world of cancer care, at podcast.asco.org.

    Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

    Clifford Hudis: Welcome to this ASCO in Action podcast. This is ASCO's monthly podcast series where we explore policy and practice issues that impact oncologists, the entire cancer care delivery team, and most importantly, the individuals who care for-- people with cancer. My name is Clifford Hudis, and I'm the CEO of ASCO, as well as the host of this ASCO in Action podcast series.

    For today's podcast, I am really delighted to be joined by Dr. Melissa Dillmon-- Missy-- the chair of ASCO's Government Relations Committee, and a longtime dedicated ASCO volunteer.

    Now, regular ASCO in Action podcast listeners may remember that just a few months ago, I spoke with one of our colleagues, Dr. Beverly Moy, the issue of financial barriers to clinical trial participation, and we focused on ASCO's work to address those barriers to try to make it easier for patients to enroll in clinical research studies.

    Today, we're going to follow up on that. Dr. Dillmon is going to join me as we drill down deeper into one of the barriers that we've touched on previously-- in this case, the lack of coverage of routine care costs that are associated with clinical trials, but very specifically, the challenges that are faced by patients who have Medicaid.

    Dr. Dillmon, welcome, and thank you for joining us today.

    Melissa Dillmon: Thank you, Cliff, for having me and discussing what I think is a very timely and important issue.

    Clifford Hudis: Since it's something I know you care deeply about, maybe you could start off at a high level and give us a little bit of background. What is it exactly that we're talking about here, when we talk about clinical research and coverage for patients with Medicaid?

    Melissa Dillmon: So Cliff, you know that in many cases, clinical trials provide the best or sometimes the only treatment option for our patients with cancer. And we live in a time when there is an incredibly rapid pace of development, with new investigational treatments that are dramatically altering the course of cancer for the better. Patients with Medicaid have a unique barrier to accessing clinical trials because Medicaid is the only payer that is not federally required to cover the routine cost of clinical trial participation.

    So Medicare and major commercial payers are required to have coverage for routine costs of clinical trial participation. Medicare provided this coverage beginning in the year 2000 after the Medicare National Coverage Determination Act protected their beneficiaries. The Affordable Care Act also requires insurers to cover routine patient care costs for trials participation. But Medicaid was not specifically called out or included in this requirement.

    So today, commercial payers and Medicare are paying for the routine cost of clinical trial participation, but Medicaid is not required in any of the states by the federal government to cover these costs. And we know that these patients have financial barriers to accessing basic medical care and preventative services anyway. So this lack of mandated coverage makes it even harder for some Medicaid patients to participate in potentially life-saving treatment trials.

    Clifford Hudis: I remember from, obviously in my days of doing clinical studies, there was often a lot of discussion about what was a routine cost of clinical care and what was a research cost. Can you expand a little bit on which parts of this are covered, or are they all covered, by these requirements?

    Melissa Dillmon: So routine care costs are the regular doctor's appointment or E&M charge, radiology exams, drugs to manage side effects, supportive care medications, laboratory tests. It is not the cost of the drug or anything specifically related to that, it's just the routine care costs that go along with cancer treatment care, whether that patient was on a trial or on a regular, on-label drug.

    Clifford Hudis: And in an ideal world, when this is working efficiently, this dovetails neatly with the fact that the non-routine care costs-- those things that are being required only because the participants involved in a very specific research study-- those costs are generally borne by a sponsor, right?

    Melissa Dillmon: Correct. So perhaps if there is a genomic sequencing that was required, or a special laboratory test to assess a response in a marker that was not a routine care cost, that's usually covered by the sponsor of the clinical trial.

    Clifford Hudis: And so just to make sure every listener is following, the irony here is without this requirement, in a sense, a person with good commercial insurance historically could find themselves not covered for the exact same costs that normally would have been covered solely because they're getting some treatment that is part of a clinical trial. And that seems like a perverse incentive in the wrong direction for all of us across all of society, right?

    Melissa Dillmon: Exactly, especially at a time when it's challenging to get enough people on clinical trial, and we're trying to get more people on clinical trials. We're trying to remove those barriers.

    Clifford Hudis: Right, and I would go even a step further and say it's a little bit of a paradox because it doesn't actually cost the insurer any more money for a person to be on a clinical trial and be covered for routine care. It's not as if they're getting an increased charge back because the patient's on a clinical trial. The research study is typically covering the non-standard research components of care anyway, right?

    Melissa Dillmon: Correct. And then oftentimes, if there's an investigational drug, they're taking the cost of the drug out of the picture. So in some ways, you're actually saving the insurer that money.

    Clifford Hudis: So it's funny, as well, a little paradox that Medicaid is the only major payer not federally required to cover their costs. Yet at the state level, I think-- and I just heard about another one today, I'll tell you-- some states have taken half steps or full steps to require Medicaid to cover the costs of clinical trial participation for patients, right?

    Melissa Dillmon: That's correct. About a dozen states have taken action, through written statutes, or regulations, or policies, to require their Medicaid plan to cover these costs. But that's only a dozen states. That leaves about 42 million Medicaid patients who do not have guaranteed ability to participate in clinical trials.

    Clifford Hudis: You know, I think some listeners may be surprised that you get that big number-- 42 million. And of course, that raises some basic questions about the reach, and scale, and extent of Medicaid. I think we should talk about that for a moment. So who has Medicaid as their primary insurance? That is, who is covered by Medicaid-- what kinds of patient populations and so forth?

    Melissa Dillmon: So Medicaid covers about 20% of Americans. Patients on Medicaid are often lower income. It's usually children, older adults, patients with disabilities, and some patients in rural areas are more likely to have Medicaid. So depending on where those dozen states are that have those statutes, those may be states that don't have as large rural populations or lower income patients.

    So racial and ethnic minorities are also overrepresented in Medicaid. For example, African-Americans represent about 12% to 13% of Americans, but 21% of patients receiving Medicaid are African-American. Hispanics represent 18% of the American census population, but 25% of patients on Medicaid are Hispanic.

    Clifford Hudis: So this is the same old issue, where certain racial features, as it were, are surrogates for lower socioeconomic status, and that's what you're describing, unfortunately. Right?

    Melissa Dillmon: Correct.

    Clifford Hudis: OK. And so we take this group of patients that are, in general, a little bit disadvantaged-- lower socioeconomic status as an average, perhaps more rural, which itself represents a barrier to care-- and then you add on the limitation in terms of clinical trial participation coverage. So how does this translate into an increased burden for this special population, as opposed to everybody else?

    Melissa Dillmon: Well, we already know that cost is a major barrier to participation in clinical trials. Patients who have larger income are more likely to participate in clinical trials, or be offered a clinical trial, or live in an area where there is a clinical trial available for them. Patients who have a lower income-- less than $20,000 per year-- have a much lower participation rate in clinical trials, and we are therefore missing a lot of patients who could be benefiting from those clinical trials and who could be contributing to the science.

    And these patients don't have the financial resources to pay for their routine cost of care. They cannot afford to pay the E&M visit, or for a chest x-ray, or a CAT scan on their own. So that would pose a huge barrier for them to even consider participating in a clinical trial.

    And one of the things that frequently is stated is, of course, this means that if you can't participate in a clinical trial, that they might be missing out on life-extending or life-saving therapy. And we have to admit that that, of course, is uncommon, but not impossible. But there are also more subtle ways that clinical trial participation can benefit the individual.

    Clifford Hudis: They may enjoy a higher quality of life with some experimental therapies sometimes. And the other thing, of course, is that we all, as a society, benefit it clinical research studies are concluded more quickly. We get an answer faster and we can move on to the next big thing or build upon what we've learned. So it isn't as if the cost of this is limited solely to people with Medicaid. It's something, I guess, we all pay, right?

    Melissa Dillmon: As a society, I think we suffer when patients are not able to participate in these studies.


    ACS CAN President Lisa Lacasse Discusses Advocacy Priorities, Partnership with ASCO Aug 06, 2019
    Show notes

    Subscribe through iTunes and Google Play. Lisa Lacasse, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Advocacy Network, speaks passionately about the critical importance of advocacy and ACS CAN's partnership with ASCO in reducing the cancer burden, in latest AiA podcast with host ASCO CEO Dr. Clifford Hudis. Find all of ASCO's podcasts at podcast.asco.org TRANSCRIPT Ad: Hi. My name is Shannon McKernin. And I am the host of the ASCO Guidelines Podcast Series. When a new ASCO guideline publishes, we release a podcast episode featuring an interview with one or more expert panel members. Each episode highlights the key recommendations and the implications for patients and providers. You can find the ASCO Guidelines Podcast Series on Apple Podcasts or wherever you're listening to this show. And you can find all nine of ASCO's podcasts, which cover a wide range of educational and scientific content, and offer enriching insight into the world of cancer care at podcast.asco.org. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Clifford Hudis: Welcome to this ASCO in Action Podcast, brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content and offering enriching insights into the world of cancer care. You can find all of the shows, including this one, at podcast.asco.org. This ASCO in Action Podcast is ASCO's podcast series where we explore policy and practice issues that impact oncologists, the entire cancer care delivery team, and the individuals we care for-- people with cancer. My name is Clifford Hudis. And I'm the CEO of ASCO, as well as the host of the ASCO in Action Podcast series. For today's podcast, I am really pleased to have Lisa Lacasse, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, or ACS CAN, as my guest. Welcome, Lisa. Lisa Lacasse: Thanks so much, Cliff. It's really great to be with you today. I appreciate the invitation. CH: Well, I'm really delighted that you could join me today for this discussion. And I think there are probably hundreds of topics that you and I could discuss. But I want to start with the big picture first. The American Cancer Society, of course, is a very well-known, nationwide organization with a mission of saving lives and leading the fight for a world without cancer. Can you tell our guests about the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, ACS CAN? What's the relationship with ACS itself? And what exactly does ACS CAN do? LL: So thanks. That's a great question, Cliff. So many are very familiar with the American Cancer Society, which is a large, old organization that attacks cancer from every angle. The Society works to advance breakthroughs in research, treatment for patients, providing direction and information to help people manage their cancer care, and also mobilizes volunteers at the community level to really support patients in their fight against cancer. But we know that the fight to end cancer doesn't just happen in a doctor's office or a scientific lab. It really requires the government and all elected officials to join us to impact the disease. And so that effort to engage government requires advocacy. And that's where the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, ACS CAN, steps in. And we are the advocacy affiliate of the American Cancer Society. So ACS CAN simply urges lawmakers and rallies all of our community partners to lead in the fight against cancer. And together-- the American Cancer Society and the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network-- although we're two independent organizations, we're working towards the same mission. However, ACS CAN uses different but complementary set of tools. So we obviously resemble ACS in a lot of important ways. We're both nonprofits. We are both absolutely, obviously evidence-based. And we're both supported by a vast army of volunteers. And we all focus on the ultimate goal of eliminating cancer as a major health problem. But ACS CAN advances this mission using tools that aren't fully available to ACS. One, an electoral program called Cancer Votes, which is really an effort to educate voters on important issues to cancer. And we also do a significant amount of lobbying. And that's not just in Washington DC, but in all 50 state capitals and many, many localities. And because of the breadth of that direct lobbying, that's often beyond what's allowable for a charity. So back in 2001, which is-- we're coming up on our 20th anniversary, which is very exciting-- the American Cancer Society Board really recognized that if we were going to achieve our goal to reduce the cancer mission, we had to do that by improving public policy. And so they decided to create ACS CAN. And my job as president is really to empower this huge network of grassroots advocates across the country. And with their staff partners-- we have about 200 people that work for ACS CAN-- every single day, they're imploring their elected officials, working with administrative officials to impact the cancer burden. CH: Well, I mean, that's a remarkable portfolio. And I would say, obviously that ACS CAN has been a key ally and a natural partner for us here at ASCO in our own mission to conquer cancer through research, education, and the promotion of the highest quality patient care. I know that ASCO shares many advocacy priorities with your organization, including our strong support for robust federal funding for cancer research, improving patient access to clinical trials, and addressing, among other things, the alarming rise in youth tobacco use-- something listeners will recall, we discussed in detail with Scott Gottlieb last year. So it's really a privilege to be able to talk to you about all of this. One of the efforts I think that many of our listeners would want to hear more about would be the Medicare Part D, six protected classes issue. I think earlier this year, ACS CAN mounted a very public outcry and a very visible advertising campaign against a proposal that would have potentially impeded or limited access to lifesaving drugs within the Medicare Part D program, specifically in the six protected classes. And we were proud to join your campaign. We at ASCO couldn't have been more pleased than we were with the impact. Can you explain why this effort was so necessary and talk to our listeners a little bit about how it turned out? LL: Absolutely. And I do want to say thank you to ASCO's partnership on this issue. It was really important. So this is a regulatory issue. As you mentioned, it's colloquially referenced as the "six protected classes." But that's policy that was established more than a decade ago to make sure that Medicare beneficiaries had access to innovative therapies. So really, the concept's fairly simple. If you're a health insurer and you provide a Medicare Part D plan to a Medicare beneficiary-- so you sell a Part D plan, which is a prescription drug plan-- you are, by definition, required to cover virtually all drug therapies that treat cancer, epilepsy, HIV/AIDS, mental illness, and organ transplant. And unfortunately, late last year, the Department of Health and Human Services proposed to alter that rule. And if the rule that they had put forth had been finalized, we believe it would have dramatically impacted access and affordability to critical medications for cancer patients who are part of the Medicare Part D program. So the proposal, although it was put forth as an effort to save Medicare money-- programmatically to save Medicare money-- we were really concerned that that approach would potentially have the exact opposite effect. We were worried that it would result in raising costs in other parts of the Medicare program and absolutely shifting costs to patients. So that certainly would have happened, because the proposed changes included, for example, excluding drugs from formularies or increasing the use of utilization management tools, such as step therapy. And we know that for a disease like cancer, specific drugs are very important for specific cancers. So if beneficiaries were unable to access their prescription drug that was most medically appropriate for them, they certainly would incur higher costs because it wouldn't be a covered medication. But we also were worried that they wouldn't get physician services, or they would need additional physician services because they weren't getting the right medication, and/or they would end up in the emergency room, which is all things that we know happen if you're not on the right drug regime for your cancer diagnosis. So had these proposed changes gone into effect, it really could have been devastating for cancer patients and survivors. And because of that, once we analyzed the proposed rule, we launched a multi-pronged campaign. It's one of the things that we take a lot of pride in, and we're able to address these issues in many different ways. But one of the most powerful is working in coalition. So ACS CAN and ASCO were joined by nearly 60 other patient and provider organizations. And we ran an advertising campaign-- a very visible advertising campaign. We did a Twitter Day of Action, where all of our volunteer advocates from all of our organizations directed their concern to HHS Secretary Alex Azar. We know that he heard from us. We got confirmation of that. And additionally, ACS CAN and ASCO were among more than 23 patient provider organizations actually went to the Hill for a day, did a lobby day on the hill-- again, making sure that our legislators, congressional members really understood the patient perspective of this proposed policy change. And then finally, ACS CAN did something that we actually don't do that often, which is we shot and ran some television spots. We really wanted to make sure that we were coming at this issue from many different directions because we felt it was so critical to our cancer patients and their need to have access to innovative drugs. So once we went through all of that, we were really proud and, more importantly, thrilled for our cancer patients. The final rule did not include all the proposed changes to the six protected classes that were put forth. These plans are not allowed to impose additional utilization management techniques such as prior authorization and step therapy if a cancer patient already has an established Medicaid regimen. And we really think-- we know, actually-- that HHS and the White House, hearing from doctors and patients and survivors in such an incredible coalition made the agency realize that this could be a very problematic rule. And so I want to, again, Cliff, say thank you to ASCO providing such a critical perspective from your physicians, your oncologists. They know firsthand what these barriers and delays can mean. And the partnership really, really worked. And we're proud of the outcome of that campaign. CH: Well, again, we want to applaud ACS CAN for your bold leadership on the issue and the wonderful success. It does show the tremendous impact that we can have with a unified, collective voice on behalf of people with cancer. So another issue that I guess, in a way, relates at least tangentially to this-- and I know is near and dear to your heart-- is federal funding, in this case for cancer research and for clinical trials. But before you started ACS CAN, which I think is more than a decade ago, as I understand correctly, you were the CFO of the NIH's Cancer Research Center. So how did that experience shape your understanding of the federal research infrastructure and the need for increased funding for cancer research at the federal level? LL: So it's a great question. And it is true. I was at NIH for nearly a decade, a decade ago. I have been at ACS CAN for just a little over 10 years now. And NIH is really a fascinating place to work. And I learned so much when I was on the NIH campus just up the road in Bethesda. And I would say most importantly and what has been most impactful is really through that time understanding that the pathways to discovery, particularly in cancer, are very long, and they're very complex, and they are extremely resource-intensive. And all parts of that journey-- every single step has to work well together from the very early scientific discoveries at the bench to ultimately bringing those discoveries to the bedside of patients. And the government has a critical role to play in that journey. Because a lot of that initial science, as you know, is risky, you really have to take a long view. And the very, very early clinical trials, which is what the clinical center focused on-- really phase 0 and phase 1, a few phase 2 trials, natural history trials-- those can only be done in certain types of facilities that have a lot of resources like the NIH Clinical Research Center. And then the other thing that I think about often as I'm doing my work is the many, many patients that I met while I was there at the Clinical Center. We had a 200-bed hospital, a huge outpatient center. And they really are the true heroes. I really think a lot about the many patients who knew that they were enrolling on trials that may or may not benefit them, but would potentially move us forward in the fight against cancer. And so I'm very passionate about the resources that are needed for NIH and NCI. And a lot of that is driven because of this, what I consider, a really transformative experience for me while I was at NIH. CH: Well, many listeners will remember that I occasionally talk about when I was president of ASCO back in 2013 and '14. And that was the end of an era-- about a decade-long era-- where we had flat funding in dollars. And that, of course, with inflation meant a relative loss of purchasing power and missed opportunities. And this really rallied our broad community. And this is a bit of a little detour, but one of the things that ultimately helped, I think, increase the enthusiasm of many of our members for political engagement and reduce some of our cynicism is that the last few years, we've seen, instead, a steady rise and consistent support for federal funding. And it's crossed party lines. It's clearly been bipartisan. I wonder-- I mean, we like to take some credit for it-- but, of course, I was one of thousands of people knocking on doors and one of many thousands of people repeating the message. But why do you think that we currently are enjoying a period of such steady and reliable bipartisan support? And as you answer that, I would ask you to think about the future. Do you think that support can continue? LL: Yeah. Look, I think it's a really important question. And I do think that one of the important things that we collectively lend to this discussion is a bipartisan lens. I mean, cancer does not discriminate. It is not political. We ran a big campaign, as you might remember, a few years ago that we dubbed the "One Degree Campaign," because if you are not your own cancer story, you are certainly not more than one degree away from a cancer story. I think there are a couple reasons why we've been able to rally support from a bipartisan standpoint. One is, I do think that people can clearly understand the important role government has in the fight against cancer. But also, just that our patients are very compelling storytellers. They are there, talki…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Policy Program Helps Oncologists Advocate for Their Patients, Fellows Say Jul 09, 2019
    Show notes

    Subscribe through iTunes and Google Play. Dr. Joanna Yang and Dr. Robert Daly join ASCO CEO Dr. Clifford A. Hudis to discuss the Health Policy Leadership Development Program (HP-LDP). As former fellows, Drs. Yang and Daly provide insight as to how the program has made them better advocates for their patients. TRANSCRIPT Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Clifford Hudis: Welcome to this ASCO in Action podcast. This is ASCO's monthly podcast series, where we explore policy and practice issues that impact oncologists, the entire cancer care delivery team, and the individuals we care for, people with cancer. My name is Clifford Hudis. And I'm the CEO of ASCO as well as the host of the ASCO in Action podcast series. For today's podcast, I am delighted to be joined by not one, but two of ASCO's rising leaders, Dr. Robert Daly and Dr. Joanna Yang. Both Dr. Daly and Dr. Yang are recent participants in ASCO's Health Policy Leadership Development Program, formerly known as the Health Policy Fellowship Program. This is a professional development program designed to build health policy and advocacy leadership expertise among our members. It's a one-year program where fellows get practical experience working with our policy and advocacy staff and council to craft policy positions and statements, along with other educational sessions on communication, leadership, and advocacy. Starting this year, participants will be able to participate as well in ASCO's Leadership Development Program, which offers mid-career oncologists the opportunity to improve their leadership skills and gain valuable training to set them up to be future leaders in oncology. Dr. Daly and Dr. Yang, welcome, and thank you for joining me today. Joanna Yang: Thank you so much for the opportunity. Robert Daly: Yes, thank you so much for having us. CH: So Dr. Yang, I'm going to start with you. You were an ASCO Health Policy Fellow in 2017-2018. And I want to kick off our discussion by talking about what brought you to the program. Why were you interested in developing special expertise in policy work? JY: Sure. So I've always been interested in health policy. And I had the opportunity to study health policy and health economics during undergrad. But of course, studying health policy is very different than creating or influencing health policy. When I started residency, I saw many ways in which health policy on a national level or even state level affected the patients I was caring for. And I felt compelled to do more. But the issue is that there is never any clear way for me to get involved or even to learn how I could learn how to shape health policy. And that's why the ASCO program is so great. I feel like it came at exactly the right time. I was looking for a way to learn more to develop the skills I needed to influence health policy. And ASCO came out with this structured and immersive experience where I could take the things that I had studied in school, and also the things that I'd seen in practice, and use them to actually have an impact on the patients I take care of. CH: So Dr. Daly, you as well were one of our inaugural Fellows. What prompted your interest in applying for the program, especially given I think you were the first year? RD: Yes. CH: Right, so you took a leap off of the ledge there and said, I'll go first. RD: Yeah, I'm similar to Dr. Yang. I had a real interest in cancer care delivery research during my fellowship at the University of Chicago. And I was lucky enough to be mentored by Funmi Olopade and Dr. Blase Polite. And Dr. Polite was really fundamental and helped developing the ASCO Health Policy Fellowship. And so I really saw this as an opportunity to augment that training but really gain skills in leadership, advocacy, and health policy, areas that I hadn't had exposure to in the past. So this seemed like the perfect program for me at that point in my career. CH: I have to say parenthetically that I'm jealous of both of you, because while I was personally drawn, especially in later years in my career to the policy and advocacy aspects of work with ASCO-- and it truly is the reason that I moved from my traditional academic career to this role as CEO at ASCO-- I never, of course, had the opportunity to be trained and to learn how to do this professionally as you two have. So I am in awe of your accomplishments, as well as the opportunities that are going to continue to unfold in front of you because of this. So given that, and given that this is really the beginning, we hope, of a career with impact, we should talk a little bit about what you actually did. The program, as I mentioned earlier, lasts for a year. And during that time, Fellows worked very closely with our policy staff on a mentor project. So I'll start again with Dr. Yang. Can you talk about the project you worked, what it entailed, what you learned, and where this is going? JY: Sure. So I worked on a two-part project with Alex Chen, who was my co-fellow during the past year. And as you hinted at, the work is actually still ongoing. So the first part was we looked at whether a bundled payment model could work in oncology. And this really culminated in a white paper for us. But the second part of the project, which built on the first part, was really the most fascinating. In the second part, it was really asking, if not bundled payments, then what? And we actually built on some of the work that Dr. Daly did that he'll probably describe in a little bit. But we actually worked on designing a pathway-based alternative payment model. And of course, going into this, I had no experience designing alternative payment models at all. But the beauty of the program is that from the very beginning, Deb Kamin, said, we will not be having you do any work that is not necessary. So all the work that you do is important to ASCO, is important to our patients. And that was really true for our project. So we were able to work with the ASCO staff, and our mentors, Ray Page, and Linda Bosserman, and a whole team of experts to create an alternative payment model that we thought would allow oncologists to prescribe the right drug at the right time, without being penalized by the high drug costs. CH: So I guess, based on that, we really should have started with you, Dr. Daly. But your mentor project was centered around clinical pathways. And I understand that ends up being the foundation for the alternative payment model that Dr. Yang just described. So can you talk a little bit about that process, what you did as an inaugural fellow in this and what you learned as you went through the work? RD: Absolutely. So I was lucky enough to be able to serve on the ASCO Task Force on Pathways. So that was an incredible experience for me because I really got to interact with leaders on this issue, including Robin Zon and Ray Page, who are very active in cancer care policy, both at the state level in Indiana and Texas, but also on a national level. So to be able to gain their mentorship that early on in the fellowship was really a great asset for me. And we were looking at, how do we write the criteria for what constitutes a high-quality pathway? So I really got to see, from soup to nuts, how do you write a policy statement? How do you solicit input from those important stakeholders? So the stakeholders in this case were fundamentally the patients, but also providers, ASCO's Government Relations Committee and State Affiliate Counsel, ASCO's board, the vendors-- get all of their input together to create a policy statement that can really influence change. And then lastly, I played the part of representing ASCO and in discussions with the pathway vendors about these criteria for high-quality pathways. So I learned about the important role ASCO can have on influencing the development of products and services that impact patient care, but also the impact ASCO can have on legislation. So in California, Connecticut, and other states, they started to look at policy around pathways, policies around implementing the criteria that ASCO had developed, so that those pathways that were being used in their state were high quality. So it really showed me the reach of ASCO and the impact of ASCO on patients and providers. CH: That is amazing because it really is a reminder-- and I'm going to come back to this idea-- about how much impact one person and one project can ultimately have. And I think that in these sometimes cynical times, people forget that. I alluded to this before about my own engagement with ASCO was accelerated by my experience as an advocate on Capitol Hill-- again, an amateur to your professionalism. So I wonder if you would reflect on your experience during the fellowship program. I understand you were both frequently called on to join in advocacy meetings on Capitol Hill. And this is with federal agencies, as well as, I assume, with representatives, senators, and their staff. Did either of you have any experience doing this before ASCO took it to Capitol Hill? RD: I had never had any experience doing advocacy meetings. So it was really-- the fellowship really helped me learn how to do that and how to do that effectively. CH: What was the first meeting like? RD: My first meeting was here in Manhattan. It was at the office of Senator Gillibrand. And I was accompanied by Heather Hilton, who is an ASCO advocate and someone who's served on the Government Relations Committee. And I was really nervous. I didn't know what to expect. But we met with one of her health policy staffers and really had an engaging discussion about an ASCO advocacy issue where we really felt heard. We were able to share patients' stories and also deliver data that ASCO had collected to help support our view. So it was really an exciting experience for me. And then I got to replicate that experience on Capitol Hill, meeting with congressional representatives from New York in their offices, but then also, as you said, going to government agencies, which was a different experience as well. So I really got to see a broad perspective of how you can advocate for policy issues for ASCO. CH: Dr. Yang, how would you describe your initial advocacy meetings for someone who hasn't participated before? What does it feel like to walk into that first meeting and begin that first discussion? JY: Sure. I've done that for my friends before. I've described these meetings. And they always say, it's really not at all what they expected. And I think that Dr. Daly's description is exactly right. So you go with your group-- usually it's by state-- to the member's office. And then depending on how much room there is and how many meetings are being held that day, your meeting is either going to be in a conference room in the member's office or even, more frequently, in the hall or any room that's available. And the member is not always there, but one of their staffers is, or sometimes multiple staffers, who are always really young but super, super, super knowledgeable about the issue. Basically, you go around, and you introduce yourselves and then describe the issues that you're here to discuss. And it's interesting because ASCO always does a great job of making you exceedingly well-prepared with the facts. But the truth is that most members and most staffers are most interested in hearing the patients' stories, which is why it's so important that oncologists come to the Hill to have these meetings. I think that no matter how well you try to prepare, ultimately, it really just comes down to engaging with the staffer and finding some area of common ground. And cancer is so common that most of the time in these meetings, I find that staffers or members will say, I have a family member or friend or some other loved one who has cancer. And it's really great that you guys are here. CH: My own experience-- I mean, I'm here to talk to you. And the listeners want to hear from you. But I just can't help but share. When I got involved in this before you all were, the key issue that we were confronting was the decade-long flat-- in dollars-- flat funding of the NIH and the NCI. And my first trips to Capitol Hill consisted of virtually beating on doors and explaining why this was a mistake for the country and for our people, and getting what felt like the cold shoulder. Over and over again, the same arguments seemed to fall on deaf ears. But-- and this is an important "but"-- what I have learned is that repeatedly making rational, evidence-based, and appealing anecdotal arguments, just as you describe, can ultimately move the needle. And it does. And so my personal cynicism with regard to politics and making a difference has gone down, not up, with aging. And I think listeners should think about this. You will never go to a congressional office and change a mind in one quick phone call. But when dozens and hundreds of people do it repeatedly over months and years, we actually do have the chance to positively influence policy and legislative actions and regulations in the United States. And you should forgive me for waxing so poetic. You should be proud that you've committed to doing this early. And I hope you start to see the rewards. So I'm sorry to carry on about my own experience here. But it really is part of what has helped motivate all the staff to get behind this program and launch it and support it. Looking back, I'll turn back to you Dr. Daly. You're a couple of years removed now from the program. Can you identify one or several key learnings from your time as an ASCO Policy Fellow that have stuck with you, that you find yourself coming back to in your daily life? RD: Yeah, I mean, I think what you've just said, Dr. Hudis, about how you can really have an impact is something that I learned during this fellowship. It wasn't something that I had been aware of in the past, because I had never done advocacy work before in the past. So I think what this fellowship really trained me to do is to be an effective advocate. And that is something that I can use in a multitude of different areas as an oncologist. So combining the patient stories that we talked about that are so visceral and so needed when you're trying to get through to those legislators or policymakers that you're trying to reach-- but also backing that up with data, and I think ASCO really equipped us well as advocates to have the data, as well as the personal stories, to influence change. So using tools like CancerLinQ to be able to look at broader data sets and say, we know this is impacting our patients. We can see that. And now we need to think of a solution for change. And I think being involved in helping to create some of those solutions was also really valuable for me. So with the pathways, creating the policy paper, but also serving on committees during that fellowship year on MACRA and other issues, like opioid legislation, that were really affecting our patients, and seeing how ASCO is effecting change in those areas, was something that will stay with me throughout my career. CH: And how about you, Dr. Yang? Do you see any practical day-to-day impact, for example, in your work with patients from your time in the fellowship? JY: Yeah, absolutely. I think because I spent most of the past year thinking about high drug costs, both for chemotherapies, immunotherapies, and…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Director of the FDA's Oncology Center of Excellence Discusses Expanded Access, Accelerated Drug Approvals Jun 25, 2019
    Show notes

    Subscribe to the podcast through iTunes and Google Play. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care, and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Dr. Clifford A. Hudis (CH): Welcome to this ASCO in Action podcast. This is ASCO's monthly podcast, series where we explore policy and practice issues that can impact oncologists, the entire cancer care delivery team, and the individuals we care for, people with cancer. My name is Clifford Hudis, and I'm the CEO of ASCO, as well as the host of the ASCO in Action podcast series. For today's podcast, I am delighted to have as my guest, Dr. Richard Pazdur, the Director of the Food and Drug Administration's Oncology Center of Excellence. The OCE was established to expedite the review of novel cancer therapies and products by bringing together expertise from across the FDA. And we'll touch on this a little bit during our conversation. Dr. Pazdur, welcome and thank you for joining me today. Dr. Richard Pazdur (RP): It's a pleasure Dr. Hudis. CH: Thanks. So I want to kick off our discussion by diving right into a hot button issue, expanded access. Can you provide our listeners with some background on this, and explain what the FDA's expanded access program is, and why an oncologist might want to pursue expanded access for an individual patient? RP: Of course. The FDA's expanded access program provides a way that patients with serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions such as cancer can try investigational medical products for treatment when no satisfactory therapies are available, and when there is no opportunity for the patient to enroll in a clinical trial. The process-- to make a request, the patient's physicians will approach the pharmaceutical company to ask for its agreement that the company will provide the medical product. The company has the right to approve or disapprove the physician's request. Then the physician needs to send the request to the FDA. This process can be complex to navigate, particularly for oncologists or physicians who don't have experience working with the clinical trials or these types of requests. FDA allows the vast majority of these requests to proceed. And the FDA has been working to improve the expanded access programs for a number of years, including the development of a more streamlined application process, a more streamlined form. But for many key health care professionals, especially those not familiar with the expanded access program, this process may appear confusing or somewhat burdensome. CH: And so is this a segue to Project Facilitate, which you announced at our annual meeting a few weeks ago? Can you talk a little bit about that and, its practical implications? RP: Yes. The Project Facilitate call center is a pilot program only for oncology that will serve a single point of contact. We have FDA oncology staff there, oncology nurses, oncology pharmacists who will assist the physician and their health care team throughout the process to submit and expanded access request for an individual cancer patient. This is a concierge service to support the patient's medical team throughout the process. It ranges from the initiation of the FDA form 3926. The process will also provide information about IRBs, particularly central IRBs, and really will also follow up on the status of a given patient to determine if that patient has received any benefit from the therapy and if there were any adverse events that need to be reported to the FDA. CH: So imagine that Project Facilitate works as hoped for. What's the thumbnail before and after experience? That is, how will things appear to be different to the physicians and to the patients? RP: It should make the process easier for physicians to get information that they need to submit an expanded access request. As I said before, it's often somewhat complicated, especially for physicians don't have experience with either the drug or with the process. And it's obviously easier to talk to somebody over the phone to ask specific questions rather than just being directed to a website. We're also working in conjunction with Reagan-Udall Foundation for the FDA, which started the expanded access navigator website to educate patients and health care professionals about the expanded access process. This navigator approach offers information provided by companies about their expanded access policy, and now includes the expanded access programs listed in ClinicalTrials.gov. Patients and physicians can look for treatment options. They could discuss clinical trials, and company information could be provided at the navigator at Navigator.Reagan-Udall.org. So this is really to give patients and their physicians information about what is out there. Once the patient obviously has this information and their doctor, then the doctor can utilize the Project Facilitate, which allows easier access to actually submitting these forms and going through the actual process. I'd like to emphasize that companies are now required by the 21st Century Cures Act to publicly list their expanded access policy. And the Reagan-Udall Navigator website helps them comply with that requirement. Again, so once the physician and the patient have identified the investigational therapy they want to try, the physician or other members of the health care team then can contact Project Facillitate for assistance in locating IRB resources and help with the FDA form 3926. CH: So I think you mentioned this when you launched this or announced it at the annual meeting just now, that physicians do already-- or at least before project facilitate often would successfully go straight to pharmaceutical companies and ask for treatments. And I guess in some cases they'd be denied, and in some cases they would be approved. And that would be through the company's expanded access programs. Obviously, that means that regulators wouldn't necessarily know the full extent of expanded access use. So assuming that Project Facilitate will allow the FDA to collect much more data on expanded use, how will the data be useful? And obviously, I'm hinting at the fact that some fear that it will be actually a negative. RP: Well, prior to launching Project Facilitate, the expanded access requests for cancer patients arrived at multiple places within the FDA and were forwarded separately to FDA oncology or hematology divisions. Sometimes these requests could be delayed, being sent from one place to another in the agency. So this gives a focus point for physicians to contact. In addition, we're seeing that most of the expanded access requests were coming from patients and physicians at larger academic centers. The patients who don't live near these cancer centers and may not be able to get on clinical trials can also hopefully have access to investigational agents by having a more facile and easier process to use here. We're also seeing that many companies have turned down requests from patients, and we have no idea what really the number of requests a company may get if they're turning down these requests. Because generally, they don't come to the FDA. So really, by having the initial contact at the FDA we'll be able to determine number one, the number of patients that are requesting a single patient access. We'll also be able to determine and discuss with the companies their reasons for denying these requests. And there could be multiple reasons. And we also have a process in place that can follow up with what are the benefits that an individual patient may have from this therapy or, as I stated before, were there any adverse events. We have also heard this kind of urban myth-- and I label that in quotations, "urban myth," that companies fear that perhaps adverse events may be held against them when their drug is coming for drug approval. We have not done that. We take into context where the adverse event reporting is coming from. And there really are no instances that I am aware of in oncology where a report of an adverse event has delayed or curtailed an approval of a drug. CH: So really, this is a bright ray of sunshine on a dark corner of drug access. And if it works right, you'll just have much more understanding of the overall use of expanded access. Right? RP: Yeah. I think that gives some clarity to the process here. Here again, we don't know the numbers at this time of actually the number of patients. We only know the numbers of patients that receive a affirmative position from the drug company regarding that the process can continue. But we don't know the numbers of patients that may be requesting single patient access and are denied by an individual drug company. And also, the reasons. And, as I stated before, there can be very legitimate reasons, including inadequate supply of the drug, lack of support staff to follow up on these drug requests, potential interference with clinical trials that the patient may be eligible for. CH: You just used a phrase about patients requesting. And I thought as you described this process you were referring to physicians requesting on behalf of patients. And so I do want to ask, are there resources that are aimed directly at patients or is it really solely aimed at the oncologists in this case? RP: Well, here again, this is a two-prong process. Project Facilitate, the FDA portion of this, is for physicians to call up for assistance in filling out the form and also navigating the process once the decision is made. The other prong of this is, as I stated before, by Reagan-Udall foundation, which patients can call to look at what our options available to them that are potentially listed on ClinicalTrials.gov. And that is also for patients and physicians. However, the portion of the program that is Project Facilitate is for the requesting physician. CH: All right. Well, that's clear. So once we talk about patient's involvement, and even many physicians I think for that matter, we quickly can drift towards the very heated discussion that took place in public over the last year in the area or that we call Right to Try. And I wonder if you could talk for a minute and help us, for the listeners, make this distinction between expanded access and Right to Try. RP: Of course. These programs, Right to Try and single patient INDs are really mutually exclusive programs. The main difference between these programs are first, that under Right to Try the drugs have to complete a Phase I trial. For single patient INDs, it could be done anywhere, even within the context that the drug is being conducted in a Phase I trial. However, the major difference is that the FDA and the IRB does not review Right to Try applications, whereas under a single patient IND, the FDA obviously has to give permission for the patient to proceed as well as an IRB has to review these requests. CH: So to be very clear, Project Facilitate is supporting the single patient INDs, and Right to Try is a separate matter entirely. They are distinctly different programs. Project Facilitate does not apply to Right to Try. That is an independent, separate program. CH: Great. So, you know, one of the problems for a busy clinician is figuring out how to do all this under pressure with a sick patient, and the other pressures of clinic and administration and research. If our listeners want to learn about this more casually, where can they go not under duress, just to start reading up and learning about how to access the program? RP: They could go-- physicians can go and learn more about the program at our website, www.FDA.gov/oce. The Project Facilitate phone number is 240-402-0004. That's 240-402-0004. And the email address is ONCProjectFacilitate@FDA.HHS.gov. CH: That's great. So hopefully, some of our listeners will take advantage of that and learn about this when they're not under pressure so that they're familiar with it if they have to turn to it some months later. Now you mentioned that the host is the Oncology Center of Excellence. And I mentioned in my introduction that we would want to talk a little bit about that. CH: You've been at the helm of the OCE since it was established a little over two years ago, I think. Now that you've been in the role a while, I wonder if you could talk a little bit about your view of what the OCE should be accomplishing, and maybe how that aim has evolved over these two years. RP: Yes. The OCE basically was an offshoot of the Moonshot Program several years ago, and was aimed to be the first center that coordinates activity among the therapeutic center. Obviously, at the FDA there is a center for drugs, a center for biologics, and a center for radiologic health and devices. And they all can review oncology products. The OCE has a designation to really coordinate the activities, particularly in the clinical review of the products that involve the treatment of cancer. So, this is a unique center within the FDA, and is somewhat of an experiment at the FDA to see how we can really coordinate the activities of drugs that affect cancer patients. And here again, the oncology center is primarily designated for the clinical review. And we don't really get into the manufacturing of drugs. That's handled in the individual centers, whether it be a biologic and CBER, the Center for Biological Evaluation and Research or CDER, the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. With that given said, in addition to the actual bread and butter of reviewing applications, we have many research projects that we're doing. We have a big project looking at real world data. We have a project looking at updating labels called Project Renewal. We have, as I stated before, this project that we launched at this year's ASCO, Project Facilitate. We also have a project aimed at really improving our relationships with international drug regulators. We have monthly meetings, teleconferences with five different regulatory agencies throughout the world to go over applications and discuss different regulatory policies. We have a host of a symposium that we conduct both here at the FDA, inviting external stakeholders including physicians, leading academics, patients to come to the FDA really to discuss important topics to our drug reviewers and the entire discipline of regulatory and oncology, so to speak, how we make decisions in medicine. We have a whole, also, program that we're developing aimed at educating physicians and other health care professionals for educating other health care professionals on how we evaluate drugs, what our thought processes are here at the FDA. So, in addition to the regulatory work, there is a whole body of scientific work that we're also doing, including independent research on different databases, looking at patient populations more likely to respond to different drugs, ways of evaluating and describing toxicities, ways of really looking at patient experiences while they're getting drugs, and different ways of reporting patient reported outcomes. We'd like to thank ASCO, obviously, for their assistance during and helping us with many of these projects throughout the year, especially the educational projects involving fellows, involving different topics that we've found of interest that needed to really have a public disclosure in the community, really, to get input from leading academics, as well as treating physicians. CH: Wow. You are busy. And there's a lot we cou…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    ASCO President Shares Struggles and Solutions to Closing Rural Cancer Care Gap May 28, 2019
    Show notes

    Subscribe through iTunes and Google Play. In the latest ASCO in Action Podcast, ASCO's President, Dr. Monica Bertagnolli, FACS, FASCO sat down with ASCO CEO Dr. Clifford A. Hudis to discuss cancer care in rural America. Improving cancer care access in rural America has been a signature issue in Dr. Bertagnolli's presidential year, during which she has held town halls in communities across the country to discuss the real-world challenges facing patients in rural America and their cancer care teams. The podcast reveals some of Dr. Bertagnolli's learnings from her town halls, and she explains what rural cancer care in America looks like today and offers steps to improve rural cancer outcomes in the future. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Welcome to this ASCO in Action podcast. This is ASCO's monthly podcast series where we explore policy and practice issues that impact oncologists, the entire cancer care delivery team, and the individuals we care for, people with cancer. My name is Clifford Hudis, and I'm the CEO of ASCO, as well as the host of the ASCO in Action podcast series. For today's podcast, I am delighted to have with me today ASCO's current president, Dr. Monica Bertagnolli. And we're going to be talking about cancer care in rural America. Dr. Bertagnolli has long been a champion for improving access to cancer care in rural America, and it has been a signature issue for her throughout her presidency at ASCO. Indeed, she has held town halls in communities across the US to discuss the real-world challenges that face patients and the entire care team in these locations. She shared some of those learnings recently at ASCO's State of Cancer Care in America event, which we entitled Closing the Rural Cancer Care Gap. Today, we're going to talk about what rural cancer care looks like in America and how we can take steps to improve outcomes in these many communities. Dr. Bertagnolli, welcome and thank you for joining me today to discuss this important topic. It's great to be here, Cliff. So, to kick off our discussion, I'm going to ask you to describe briefly some of the disparities that currently exist between patients with cancer in rural areas compared to those who live in urban or suburban areas. Well, just imagine that you live in a town where most things are certainly like they are anywhere else, except the hospital is a very small one. The medical care is a primary care physician and maybe a general surgeon. They can do X-rays. They can diagnose most things. But if you have a need for anything beyond the basics of care, you have to drive three, four, six hours in order to reach it. I think, throughout our country, we really do have a health care system that gets to most people. But particularly when it's an issue of specialty care, such as a cancer diagnosis, that's not always available. Finally, there's a lot of our country that fits in this category. By the one government agency that looks at these things, the Federal Office for Rural Health Policy, 84% of the country, of the geographic area of the United States, is a rural location. And in that 84%, 18% of the population lives. So, we think, in oncology, it's very important that we understand more about the people who live in these locations so that we can figure out how to get them what they need. So, starting in a quantitative way is an interesting mathematical representation, that about a fifth of the country in population is distributed over more than 4/5 of the landmass. And I think that's a way of visualizing the lack of density. But there are common challenges that patients in rural areas face that go beyond just distance and geography. What are some of those that you have uncovered and thought about this year? You know, it's important not to overgeneralize, because certainly, there are people from every single socioeconomic status and walk of life that live in rural locations, no question. But when you go into big generalities, people who live in rural locations tend to have less education level. They tend to be less affluent. They tend to have more risky behaviors, more smoking and alcohol use. And some of the things that we know are associated with cancer development in general seem to be more predominant in rural locations. And finally, citizens who live in rural locations are, again, generally less likely than those who live in urban locations to have health insurance. Yeah, so that's a long list of challenges that are only compounded by the geographic challenges that we spoke about before. We go and look at the most recent data that I think you shared at ASCO's State of Cancer Care in America. As we noted a moment ago, just under a fifth of the US population lives in these rural areas. But going one step further, not focusing on landmass but now focusing on the oncology workforce, fewer than 10%-- in fact, we think it's about 7%-- of oncologists practice in those areas. So, on the one hand, there's a lower distribution of American citizens into that space, but there's even proportionately a lower distribution of oncologists. How does this impact patients with cancer? Well, it's a little bit of what I was referring to before. Going to see a specialist when you've got a disease such as cancer, where knowledge outside of the usual primary care physician's scope is really important, and by the fact that such a small percentage of oncologists live in rural areas and the fact that, in rural areas, distance is so great between various locations means that patients who have cancer just don't have access to the experts that they need. To get that access, they have to travel. And there's not really public transportation that works between cities that might be 100 miles apart in some rural locations. So, the single greatest issue I hear from many patients in rural locations is the challenge of distance. Yeah, it's really amazing. So of course, as I'm sure we're going to talk about, at ASCO, we don't enumerate these problems just to make a list. We do this to try to take action, to do something about it. And I guess the first question, and I know one that you've started to think about with ASCO volunteers and staff, is the fundamental one. How can we support the existing infrastructure, the existing oncology workforce in those areas? And taking it a step further, what can we do to possibly expand this workforce, at least bring it to parity with the population distribution? We were really fortunate to have a very talented team of physicians within ASCO take this task to heart over the last year. And they formed a task force to look at issues of rural access to cancer care. It was led by Dr. Bhatia, who's from the University of Alabama-- Birmingham. And they produced a really great roadmap for us. The one area you're alluding to now is workforce. How do we get care providers? Or how do we get our patients in rural locations access to the care providers that they need? There's a couple of different approaches the task force identified. The first is to think about education opportunities for rural health care providers. For example, one of the gaps that the task force identified is people with knowledge for the particular needs of cancer patients who live in rural locations. Well, knowledge is something that ASCO is-- that's our core mission to provide. And so, the task force brought together a whole list of things like expanding ASCO meetings to locations throughout the United States, making it easier for rural care providers to attend, designing and implementing virtual tumor boards. Telephones are everywhere, either web-based or telephone-based communication networks that will allow those taking care of patients in rural locations to get information that they need specifically and support them there. And then finally, every community is different. Every rural location is different. And one of the things we realized we needed to do as an organization is reach out more to everyone and just find out, what are the individual needs of our care providers? So, in a way, you're raising the issue of complexity in terms of the built and available infrastructure. But that's paralleled, as was pointed out in the State of Cancer Care in America event, by complexity in terms of our understanding of cancer and how we treat it. So, what challenges does this increased complexity bring to those oncologists and other clinicians who care for patients in rural areas. That is, is it different for them or just more of the same? So, I can give you some snapshots, because I visited seven different rural communities during my year as ASCO president. And some of the common things all have to do with distance and have to do with access to specialists. But there are other specific issues to each location. Let me just give you some quick examples. In South Dakota, near the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, there was a great need for programs that could help address cancer control, screening for cancer, smoking cessation, education for diet and overall wellness, and providers who could engage with the Native American population in order to educate the population and provide those services. At the complete other end of the spectrum for that community, there was no access whatsoever to palliative care services. So the oncologists, who were about 100 miles away in Rapid City, were struggling with, what do we do when we have an elderly resident of Pine Ridge who has a terminal illness, and we don't have the ability to support them to get palliative care? And what the community is doing is partnering with health providers that work through the tribal council to provide these services. But when someone needs advice, needs a consult, they have to have someone to reach out to. And that is networking through the teams in Rapid City. That's the way they're beginning to solve those problems, kind of a regional network of support and help. Another quick example I can give you is in Appalachia. There is a rural community I visited with Electra Paskett in the Appalachian counties of Ohio, where, again, it's about a two-hour drive to the nearest large cancer center. There, it's a combination of regional hospitals who provide services to cancer patients and the Ohio State University, where the most acute patients with very high-level specialty needs can go for consultation. A patient, let's say, with acute leukemia who's from rural Appalachia and needs to be treated would be transported to Ohio State. Others with more routine care are cared for by providers who are oncologists locally. So, it's different in every location. I think the underlying theme is collaboration with whatever resources are closest, and finally, the ability to have people who really go deep into the community and problem solve. They all kind of have the whatever-it-takes attitude and come up with very creative solutions particular to the patients that they're serving. It sounds like, as you described all that, that it's awareness, knowing your limits, and then it's networks and connections that really are the pieces of the solution. Does that make sense to you? Yeah, that's very well said. And one size absolutely does not fit all. The other thing that you notice is, it's about the whole community, not just the individual patients and their doctor. I heard so many stories of neighbors helping out, somebody arranging to drive someone who was ill to a doctor's visit hours away, neighbors being willing to take care of-- one situation was where the neighbors chipped in to take care of an entire family while the mother was away having radiation therapy for her cancer at a city two hours away. These are the kinds of special challenges that you see in rural locations. Yeah, I mean, you're really just drifting back and forth in and out of conventional, mainstream medical system infrastructure into the broader community. As I think about that, everybody who's listening to this, of course, knows you because of your years of leadership in the realm of clinical research, which is another component of all this we haven't yet touched on. But often, access to clinical research is a surrogate marker for access to high-quality care-- not always, but often-- and it's certainly an indicator of access to cutting-edge care. So I wonder if you want to talk a little bit about access to clinical research in these disadvantaged rural communities? I'm so glad you brought that up, Cliff, because we're completely in the dark without research. Like I said, I've gone around and visited these various locations and realized that even though I grew up in a rural area, very rural area of Wyoming, when I visited rural Appalachia and rural Texas and rural even North Dakota, which is very similar to Wyoming, I realized that I really couldn't fully understand the challenges in those different locations. And the only way to understand what patients really need, what they're facing, and how to best help is by research. It's a way-- in this, I'm saying that one of the most important things we can offer our cancer patients everywhere is the ability to have their challenges addressed by research so that we truly understand them. That's the only way we're ever going to make progress. So, one of the things that the US government, I think, has done well is the National Cancer Institute has a network of research groups under the National Clinical Trials Network that are centered within community practices and community locations. It's the National Clinical Oncology Research Program, or the NCORP. And almost all of the NCORP sites spread throughout the United States have at least significant outreach components into rural communities for cancer research. Finally, the US Comprehensive Cancer Centers also have a really important mandate to serve their community, and their community for most of the Comprehensive Cancer Centers includes rural locations. So, it's a hub-and-spoke model that's been developed for research. I won't say that it's perfect, because it certainly could be broader and more comprehensive. But it's a very, very good start, and right now, it definitely covers a large portion of rural America. And I'm just curious. Is it too soon, or do we yet have data that shows that there's been an uptick or a change in registration out of those rural communities to clinical research trials? We do know that we have more-- that when you look at the National Clinical Trials Network participants, the patients who enroll on those studies, that the proportion from rural locations is higher than it is in most clinical trials that are done by, say, the industry. So we do definitely know that it's been helpful. We still don't have the numbers of rural residents in clinical research that meet their population needs. I mean, the patients who live in rural locations are still vastly underrepresented in clinical research. But this goes along with the multifactorial issues of being in a rural location. We know that it's harder for uninsured patients to be in clinical trials. It's harder for anyone who has to travel to participate in clinical trials. And it's certainly harder for individuals of lower socioeconomic status to be…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Ensuring Response to Opioid Crisis Doesn't Harm Patients with Cancer May 14, 2019
    Show notes

    Subscribe through iTunes and Google Play.

    Welcome to this ASCO in Action podcast. This is ASCO's podcast series where we explore policy and practice issues that impact oncologists, the entire cancer care delivery team, and most importantly, the patients we care for, people with cancer. My name is Cliff Hudis. And I'm the CEO of ASCO, as well as the host of this ASCO in Action podcast series.

    For today's podcast, we're going to do something a little different. We don't have a guest today. Instead, we're going to spend some time going over a quick update on an important clarification issued recently by the CDC, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and specifically, their guidelines for prescribing opioids for chronic pain, a very topical issue.

    The clarification they issued was the form of a letter from the agency to ASCO, as well as to ASH and the NCCN. And in this letter, the clarification affirmed that the CDC guideline was never intended to deny access to clinically appropriate opioid therapy for patients suffering with acute or chronic pain from conditions like cancer and sickle cell disease.

    But I want to explain first why it was important that they issue this clarification and then talk about what we have to do next. Opioid abuse in the United States is clearly a very serious issue. And the tremendous toll that it's been extracting on individuals and families across the nation is well-reported. Indeed, it was one of the reasons originally given for the passage of the 21st Century Cures Act. In fact, one of the motivations had to do with addressing some parts of the opioid crisis.

    And so this just makes the point that finding a solution to the problem is among the very highest priorities that government and really the general public, as well as professional societies and advocacy groups and all stakeholders, have to be working towards. However, we do have to, at the same time, be careful that we don't overreach and cause additional harm, especially to vulnerable populations, as we take steps to reduce opioid abuse. What happened before was that there was a misinterpretation of the opioid prescribing recommendations that had been issued by the CDC.

    And this resulted in part in new laws and regulations, as well as third-party payment policies that severely limited essential pain medications from patients with cancer and sickle cell disease. The consequence for them was suffering and even more prolonged hospitalizations and health care expenses.

    So the challenge here was to fix this mistake. As we talk about how this happened, I want to take a moment and provide a little bit of background on this. Last spring, about a year ago I think, there were papers published, at least one in particular, that highlighted seeming discrepancies-- and I emphasize the word seeming-- between opioid use guidelines that had been issued by the CDC, the NCCN, ASCO, and others.

    To their credit, the NCCN, led by Bob Carlson, responded to this by reaching out to us at ASCO and asking if we would be willing to collaborate on a meeting of the minds to identify what was true and not true in terms of those supposedly conflicting guidelines and then issue some sort of a unified statement to help address the situation.

    In November of 2018, hosted here at ASCO headquarters, representatives from ASCO, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network or NCCN, the American Society of Hematology, ASH, and the CDC met to discuss the similarities, as well as the differences, among our various published respective guidelines in the area of managing chronic pain. We also discussed how to more clearly communicate to all of our respective memberships how and when practice guidelines should be applied in patient care.

    While discussing the CDC guideline, it became very clear to all of us that it was necessary to issue at some point a clarification on the question of where the CDC guideline applied to patients with cancer and sickle cell. And indeed, the first action item we took after this November meeting was that ASCO, ASH, and the NCCN sent a letter to the CDC asking for clarification.

    We're really happy, again, to report that this collaboration worked. Very soon after they received this letter from us, the CDC responded favorably. And in their response letter, they noted that their guideline, that is, the CDC's guideline, was initially developed to provide recommendations for primary care clinicians who prescribe opioids for patients with chronic pain outside of active cancer treatment, outside of palliative care, and outside of end of life care.

    So I want to pause for just a second and make very clear the aim of their original publication was primary care docs, not oncologists or hematologists, and the patients they were talking about were by and large not the patients who are seen and cared for in oncologists' offices. So the letter really did clarify that the CDC's guideline was never intended to deny clinically appropriate opioid therapy to any patients with acute or chronic pain from conditions like cancer and sickle cell disease.

    But instead, it was intended to ensure that physicians and patients consider all safe and effective treatment options for all patients with pain. And underneath all this remained the shared goal of reducing inappropriate use. Beyond this, the CDC also noted that the treatment guidelines from disease-specific experts-- and that means ASCO, NCCN, and ASH-- should be the guide to treatment and reimbursement decisions in the specific circumstances they cover.

    So let's just spend another 30 seconds on this idea. They did issue a guideline. It does apply to the general population. They never intended for it to apply to cancer patients or sickle cell patients. And they further called out in a sense the primacy of the disease special list in terms of the guideline priority.

    So it's great that we got this clarification. It's wonderful news. But I would submit to you that it's really just the first step towards ensuring that our patients don't suffer needlessly. So with this clarification in hand, we can and I would say we must act swiftly to correct existing policies that have already resulted in some areas in blanket restrictions on opioid prescribing, again, based on a misinterpretation over application of the CDC guideline. Every single day that goes by, there are Americans who are experiencing debilitating pain that could be avoided with appropriate treatment. We have some evidence for this. In 2018, as you may know, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, that's ACS CAN, reported that 30% of cancer patients and survivors said that they were unable to obtain their prescribed opioid medication because of insurance denials. And that was a significant increase almost threefold from the 11% reported in 2016.

    So if you remember what we were talking about a moment ago, here's a set of guidelines that come out. They're not meant to be applied to cancer patients. And yet, we saw that as they were being misinterpreted and misapplied, there was a tripling in the number of patients reporting trouble getting indicated medications, and I mean cancer patients.

    Furthermore, 48% of individuals with cancer reported that their options for pain management were being limited by laws, guidelines, or insurance coverage denials. So this was, again, an external hand influencing their care coming from outside of their doctor's office.

    And even in states that exempt patients undergoing cancer treatment, there are significant administrative hurdles that are delaying access to much needed pain relief, not to mention that such exemptions often excluded cancer survivors. And survivors can have chronic pain for years sometimes from the disease or treatment. And without that exemption, they would, in fact, be suffering in a way that should be avoided.

    So it goes without saying, but I'll say it, that we really appreciate the CDC's leadership on this complex crisis. The agency has rightly noted that the opioid epidemic will continue to need ongoing collaboration and leadership. And we all need this as we work towards resolving the crisis. But they also acknowledge the importance of making sure that cancer patients and patients with sickle cell disease get the care and caring that they need and they deserve.

    I'll also point out that the US Food and Drug Administration plays an important role in advancing the use of evidence-based prescribing guidelines so that they are able to more accurately and appropriately direct the prescription of opioids. Former FDA commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb recognized this. And we look forward to continuing this important partnership with acting FDA commissioner Dr. Ned Sharpless.

    I think it's fair to say that the opioid crisis requires a response that protects the public, limits abuse, and ensures access for individuals who live with severe chronic pain. That's a vulnerable group. Clinicians, legislators, regulators, insurers, guideline developers, and patients have to join forces to make sure that we establish sensible, evidence-based approaches that confront opioid abuse but do not add a new group that suffers unnecessarily. We don't want to have one national crisis become two.

    So I want to close by extending my deepest appreciation to NCCN and ASH for collaborating with us to address this critically important issue and to ensure that our respective members are able to provide the highest quality care that their patients expect and deserve.

    If you want more information on our efforts to ensure access to appropriate pain control for patients with cancer and our other policy priorities, please visit ASCO in Action on our website at asco.org/ascoaction all one word. And until next time, I thank you for listening to this ASCO in Action podcast.


    Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next

    Related Podcasts

    The Joe Rogan Experience

    1

    The Joe Rogan Experience Comedy
    Casefile True Crime

    2

    Casefile True Crime Games & Hobbies
    Invisibilia

    3

    Invisibilia Personal Journals
    Reply All

    4

    Reply All Games & Hobbies
    Science Vs

    5

    Science Vs Science
    Science Friday

    6

    Science Friday Astronomy
    footer-logo

    Contact Us

    Toll Free: 844-670-7747

    Links

    • Home
    • Top Charts
    • Networks
    • Apps
    • Independents Podcasts
    • Podcast Advertising
    • Podcast News
    • Contact Us
    • About Us
    • Analytics & Insights

    Stay Connected

      Privacy, Terms of Use & Our Code of Ethics Protecting Content Creators Copyrights