Invisible weight: Evaluating the impact of distress screening in cancer care.

30 Background: In July 2023, The US Oncology Network began using the NCCN Distress Thermometer within the EHR to screen for Health-Related Social Needs (HRSN) as part of whole-person cancer care. We aim to assess whether patients with identified distress who received a referral to supportive resources achieved greater cost savings under CMMI’s Enhancing Oncology Model (EOM) compared to those without distress or a referral. Methods: Using distress and EOM episode data from July 2023 to June 2024 for 9 practices in The US Oncology Network participating in the EOM, we evaluated savings for those in High Distress Group (HDG distress score(DS) -7,8,9,10), Medium Distress Group (MDG DS – 4,5,6) and Low Distress Group (LDG DS – 1,2,3). Savings for these groups were calculated by the difference in benchmark and actual price / episode. A Kruskal-Wallis test was used to assess differences between cohorts (p-value .00005) (Table). Results: Of 5,738 EOM patients, 4% were in HDG, 7% in MDG, 16% in LDG and 73% had no distress. Savings per episode were higher for patients in the distress group compared to those with no reported distress. Of 1554 patients with identified distress (Table1), 288 were referred to interventions. Among the referred cohort, 41.6% were in HDG, 54.2% in MDG, and 4.2% in LDG. Overall savings for the referred cohort were higher compared to the non-referred cohort. Conclusions: Patients with identified distress who received referrals had greater cost savings than those without, suggesting proactive care management in community oncology can reduce total cost of care (TCOC). Standardized screening improves distress reporting and HRSN identification, enabling earlier intervention. Connecting patients to internal and external resources enhances access to care. We will continue to assess how distress and supportive care interventions impact EOM savings, using these early findings as a baseline for evaluating future practice changes. Distress Level- Referred Episode Count Avg Savings/Episode HDG 120 (41.6%) $3,746 MDG 156 (54.2%) $6,578 LDG 12 (4.2%) $13,237 Total 288 (100%) $5,676 Distress Level- Not Referred Episode Count Avg Savings/Episode HDG 98 (7.8%) $2,351 MDG 266 (20.0%) $2,617 LDG 902 (72.3%) $4,913 Total 1266 (100%) $4,232

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
JCO Oncology Practice
Published
2025-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1200/op.2025.21.10_suppl.30
Primary Topic
Nutrition and Health in Aging
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Invisible weight: Evaluating the impact of distress screening in cancer care.

Jody S. Garey, Stuart George Staggs, Jessica louise Neeb, John Albaugh et al.
JCO Oncology Practice
Nutrition and Health in Aging
article

Invisible weight: Evaluating the impact of distress screening in cancer care.

Jody S. Garey, Stuart George Staggs, Jessica louise Neeb, John Albaugh, Dana Weber, Divya Deepak
article en

Abstract

30 Background: In July 2023, The US Oncology Network began using the NCCN Distress Thermometer within the EHR to screen for Health-Related Social Needs (HRSN) as part of whole-person cancer care. We aim to assess whether patients with identified distress who received a referral to supportive resources achieved greater cost savings under CMMI’s Enhancing Oncology Model (EOM) compared to those without distress or a referral. Methods: Using distress and EOM episode data from July 2023 to June 2024 for 9 practices in The US Oncology Network participating in the EOM, we evaluated savings for those in High Distress Group (HDG distress score(DS) -7,8,9,10), Medium Distress Group (MDG DS – 4,5,6) and Low Distress Group (LDG DS – 1,2,3). Savings for these groups were calculated by the difference in benchmark and actual price / episode. A Kruskal-Wallis test was used to assess differences between cohorts (p-value .00005) (Table). Results: Of 5,738 EOM patients, 4% were in HDG, 7% in MDG, 16% in LDG and 73% had no distress. Savings per episode were higher for patients in the distress group compared to those with no reported distress. Of 1554 patients with identified distress (Table1), 288 were referred to interventions. Among the referred cohort, 41.6% were in HDG, 54.2% in MDG, and 4.2% in LDG. Overall savings for the referred cohort were higher compared to the non-referred cohort. Conclusions: Patients with identified distress who received referrals had greater cost savings than those without, suggesting proactive care management in community oncology can reduce total cost of care (TCOC). Standardized screening improves distress reporting and HRSN identification, enabling earlier intervention. Connecting patients to internal and external resources enhances access to care. We will continue to assess how distress and supportive care interventions impact EOM savings, using these early findings as a baseline for evaluating future practice changes. Distress Level- Referred Episode Count Avg Savings/Episode HDG 120 (41.6%) $3,746 MDG 156 (54.2%) $6,578 LDG 12 (4.2%) $13,237 Total 288 (100%) $5,676 Distress Level- Not Referred Episode Count Avg Savings/Episode HDG 98 (7.8%) $2,351 MDG 266 (20.0%) $2,617 LDG 902 (72.3%) $4,913 Total 1266 (100%) $4,232

JCO Oncology PracticeVol. 21(10_suppl)
McKesson (United States) (US), The US Oncology Network (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 65%
Nutrition and Health in Aging
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.