Dive Brief:
- The American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) on Tuesday released a new policy statement, recommending reform of the 'clinical pathways' approach to oncology in order to improve patient care.
- There are thousands of clinical pathways built around the 'if-then,' approach, designed to guide physicians towards proper patient treatment. But the pathways can be riddled with shortcomings and conflicts of interests, hindering their use in serving patients.
- Providers may be faced with multiple pathways, created by different groups with different agendas. ASCO claims the guidance can be too "rigid and inconsistent."
Dive Insight:
The existing set of clinical pathways is very challenging for oncologists, who must explain a choice to the patient as well as convincing payers their choice is the best approach. While ASCO points out that well-designed pathways work, the organization argues clinical pathways have become widely varied in quality and created a "major administrative burden" for doctors. Additionally, there are no guarantees ensuring guidance doesn't present conflicts of interest.
In its statement, ASCO pushes for the development of a consistent, transparent set of pathways. The organization also wants a nationwide effort to reduce the administrative burden and make pathways flexible to allow doctors more choice.
In June 2015, ASCO also released a tool allowing oncologists to compare prices, survival rates, and side effects of treatments for four common cancers.
There are other movements underway to reform the system, including from activist-oncologists, such as Dr. Vincent T. DeVita Jr., the former director of the National Cancer Institute. His book, "The Death of Cancer," makes the case for overcoming inefficient clinical pathways.