Download the Survey Results
Cost of treatment is the biggest threat to cancer program growth
When asked to identify the top three threats to future cancer program growth, 68% of respondents selected cost of drugs and/or new treatment modalities—clearly the number one threat. In comparison, only 47% selected the next ranked threat, physician alignment around services and program goals.
Other top threats include changes in health care coverage, cuts to fee-for-service reimbursement, and shifting reimbursement towards value-based care.
Which of the following are the biggest threats to future cancer program growth at your organization?
Percentage of respondents that ranked threat in top five, 2017
n=234
Competition increasing for majority of respondents
For the question above, marketplace competition was ranked sixth out of twelve response choices. Despite only 35% of respondents including it as a top-three threat to their growth, the majority of programs indicated that competition has increased in their market across the past two years.
Over the 24 months, how has the level of competition in your market changed?
Percentage of respondents, 2017
n=235
Clinical standardization and drugs are seen as biggest opportunities to save costs
When asked to select the top three opportunities to save costs, respondents overwhelmingly pointed to clinical standardization and drugs. These two options far outranked all other options—less than 30% of respondents selected the next-ranked options of supplies, capital expenses, and non-clinical staff.
To realize these two top opportunities, nearly 30% of respondents said they are planning to adopt clinical pathways for medical oncology, either vendor sponsored or homegrown, in the next two years.
Which of the following are your cancer program's biggest opportunities for cost savings?
Percentage of respondents who ranked opportunity in top three, 2017
n=222
Programs believe sub-specialists most likely to drive financial gains
To understand how cancer programs rank the profitability of different services, we asked respondents to select the three investment they believed would yield a positive return. Nearly 60% of respondents included increasing the number of sub-specialists, such as gynecologic oncologists and breast surgeons, in their response. In contrast, only 34% included increasing the number of general oncology physicians, indicating how much potential cancer programs see in physician specialization.
The second-highest ranked investment was marketing, reflecting the trend of cancer patients acting more like consumers and deciding where to receive their care. Next, nearly 36% of respondents ranked specialty pharmacy in their top three. In contrast, only 14% of respondents believe retail pharmacy will yield a return for their program.
Which of the following investments do you believe are most likely to yield a return for your cancer program?
Percentage of respondents who ranked investment in top three, 2017
n=221
