Search

Studies have demonstrated that comorbidities compound the adverse influence of cancer on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Comorbidities adversely impact adherence to cancer treatment. Additionally, adherence to medications for comorbidities is positively associated with HRQoL for various diseases. This study used the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's Healthy Days measure of HRQoL to explore the association between HRQoL and adherence to comorbidity medication for elderly patients with cancer and at least one comorbid condition.We conducted a cross-sectional survey combined with retrospective claims data. Patients with metastatic breast, lung or colorectal cancer were surveyed regarding their HRQoL, comorbidity medication adherence and cancer-related symptoms. Patients reported the number of physical, mental and total unhealthy days in the prior month. The Morisky Medication Adherence 8-point scale was differentiated into moderate/high ( 6) and low (≤ 6) comorbidity medication adherence.Of the 1847 respondents, the mean age was 69.2 years, most were female (66.8%) and the majority of the sample had Medicare coverage (88.2%). Low comorbidity medication adherence was associated with significantly more total, mental and physical unhealthy days. Low comorbidity medication adherence was associated with the presence of patient-reported cancer-related symptoms. Patients reporting low, as compared to moderate/high, comorbidity medication adherence had 23.4% more unhealthy days in adjusted analysis,The positive association between low comorbidity medication adherence and the number of unhealthy days suggests that addressing barriers to comorbidity medication adherence during cancer treatment may be an avenue for improving or maintaining HRQoL for older patients with cancer and comorbid conditions.

Guideline-recommended therapy for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) encourages evidence-based treatment; however, there is a knowledge gap regarding the influence of guideline-recommended initiation of therapy on outcomes and cost.To investigate if lack of guideline-recommended initiation of first-line systemic therapy was associated with worse patient outcomes and increased costs for patients with mNSCLC.In this retrospective analysis, 1,344 Medicare patients with mNSCLC were identified from Humana data. Performance status (PS) was imputed using procedure, diagnosis, and durable medical equipment codes pre-index. Guideline-recommended initiation of therapy was defined as ≥1 cycle of National Comprehensive Cancer Network-recommended first-line therapy based on age and PS or targeted therapies regardless of age and PS. Demographics and clinical characteristics were compared by guideline-recommended initiation of therapy. A Cox model assessed factors associated with 6-month mortality. End-of-life quality of care indicators included hospital admission and oncology infusions 30 days preceding death and were evaluated using logistic regression models. A generalized linear model assessed the relationship between guideline-recommended initiation of therapy and total health care costs in the 6 months post-index controlling for clinical, demographic, and treatment characteristics. Logistic models for inpatient stays and emergency department visits were also evaluated.Guideline-recommended therapy initiation was observed in 75.5% of patients. Patients not initiating guideline-recommended therapy were older, with a mean (SD) age of 72.5 (6.7) versus 71.2 (6.2) years (P = 0.001), and more frequently identified as having a low-income subsidy (30.0% vs. 16.4%; P0.001). Among the 24.6% of patients who died ≤ 6 months post-index, a greater percentage had not initiated guideline-recommended therapy (28.8% vs. 23.2%; P = 0.040). In adjusted models, PS (not initiation of guideline-recommended therapy) was predictive of mortality (patients with poor PS had an 84% higher probability of death [P = 0.014]). Among decedents, 64.2% were hospitalized, and 33.9% had an oncology-related infusion within 30 days of death, with no differences by guideline-recommended initiation of therapy. These end-of-life quality indicators were not associated with guideline-recommended initiation of therapy in adjusted models. Overall, 47.5% of patients who initiated guideline-recommended therapy were hospitalized compared with 55.0% of patients who did not (P = 0.026). Patients initiating guideline-recommended therapy had higher post-index total and oncology-related health care costs and fewer hospitalizations. In models, these differences in costs and hospitalizations were not associated with initiation of guideline-recommended therapy.Most patients initiated guideline-recommended therapy, with no differences in mortality and quality of care at the end of life by guideline-recommended initiation of therapy, though adherence beyond treatment initiation was not assessed. Unadjusted hospitalization rates were lower and costs were higher for patients who initiated guideline-recommended therapy. These differences were no longer observed after risk adjustment, suggesting that they may have been influenced by patient characteristics, disease progression, and subsequent treatment decisions.This study was sponsored by Genentech. Khoury, Michael, Parikh, and Bunce are employed by Genentech. Casebeer, Drzayich Antol, DeClue, Hopson, Li, and Stemkowski are employed by Comprehensive Health Insights, Humana, which was contracted by Genentech to conduct this study. Sehman is employed by Humana. Based on this research, 2 posters were presented at the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy Nexus 2017 on October 16-19, 2017, in Dallas, Texas. Another poster was also presented at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Annual European Congress on October 29-November 2, 2016, in Vienna, Austria.

Background Healthcare providers (HCPs) and patient communication are integral to high-quality oncology care. The patient and HCP perspectives are needed to identify gaps in care and develop communication tools. . Objectives This study aimed to understand patient- and HCP-perceived elements of and gaps in high-quality care to develop novel communication tools to improve care. . Methods Qualitative interviews were conducted among 16 patients with cancer and 10 HCPs in the United States. Trained interviewers elicited patients' and HCPs' concerns, views, and perceived needs for communication tools. A thematic analysis was used to identify four quality of care domains, depicted in a conceptual model, and two draft communication tools were developed to address identified gaps. . Findings No patients reported previously using a communication tool, and gaps in communication regarding treatment aims and education were evident. Two tools were developed to assess patients' life and treatment goals and the importance of ongoing education.

This study investigated factors associated with patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Healthy Days tool for patients with Medicare Advantage undergoing treatment for metastatic breast, lung, and colorectal cancer. In 2015, a total of 6390 patients were mailed surveys regarding factors that may influence their HRQoL, including cancer-related symptoms. HRQoL was measured as the number of physically and mentally unhealthy days experienced in the past 30 days and summed for the total number of unhealthy days. Frequent unhealthy days was defined as ≥14 total unhealthy days in the prior month. Of 1567 respondents, the mean number of total unhealthy days (standard deviation) was 14.0 (11.9) with 46.2% experiencing frequent unhealthy days. On average, patients reported 10.5 (10.5) physically and 6.7 (9.4) mentally unhealthy days. Cancer-related symptoms, particularly pain and fatigue, were significantly associated with increased unhealthy days. In adjusted models, patients with pain had 83% more unhealthy days than patients without pain; patients with fatigue had 104% more unhealthy days than patients without fatigue. Diarrhea/constipation and shortness of breath also were associated with more unhealthy days. Cancer-related symptoms, most notably pain and fatigue, were associated with worse HRQoL for patients with metastatic cancer. Interventions aimed at ameliorating symptoms may improve quality of life for patients undergoing cancer treatment.

Radiologists aspire to improve patient experience and engagement, as part of the Triple Aim of health reform. Patient engagement requires active partnerships among health providers and patients, and rigorous teamwork provides a mechanism for this. Patient and care team engagement are crucial at the time of cancer diagnosis and care initiation but are complicated by the necessity to orchestrate many interdependent consultations and care events in a short time. Radiology often serves as the patient entry point into the cancer care system, especially for breast cancer. It is uniquely positioned to play the value-adding role of facilitating patient and team engagement during cancer care initiation. The 4R approach (Right Information and Right Care to the Right Patient at the Right Time), previously proposed for optimizing teamwork and care delivery during cancer treatment, could be applied at the time of diagnosis. The 4R approach considers care for every patient with cancer as a project, using project management to plan and manage care interdependencies, assign clear responsibilities, and designate a quarterback function. The authors propose that radiology assume the quarterback function during breast cancer care initiation, developing the care initiation sequence, as a project care plan for newly diagnosed patients, and engaging patients and their care teams in timely, coordinated activities. After initial consultations and treatment plan development, the quarterback function is transitioned to surgery or medical oncology. This model provides radiologists with opportunities to offer value-added services and solidifies radiology's relevance in the evolving health care environment. To implement 4R at cancer care initiation, it will be necessary to change the radiology practice model to incorporate patient interaction and teamwork, develop 4R content and local adaption approaches, and enrich radiology training with relevant clinical knowledge, patient interaction competence, and teamwork skill set.

Cancer care is highly complex and suffers from fragmentation and lack of coordination across provider specialties and clinical domains. As a result, patients often find that they must coordinate care on their own. Coordinated delivery teams may address these challenges and improve quality of cancer care. Task interdependence is a core principle of rigorous teamwork and is essential to addressing the complexity of cancer care, which is highly interdependent across specialties and modalities. We examined challenges faced by a patient with early-stage breast cancer that resulted from difficulties in understanding and managing task interdependence across clinical domains involved in this patient’s care. We used team science supported by the project management discipline to discuss how various task interdependence aspects can be recognized, deliberately designed, and systematically managed to prevent care breakdowns. This case highlights how effective task interdependence management facilitated by project management methods could markedly improve the course of a patient’s care. This work informs efforts of cancer centers and practices to redesign cancer care delivery through innovative, practical, and patient-centered approaches to management of task interdependence in cancer care. Future patient-reported outcomes research will help to determine optimal ways to engage patients, including those who are medically underserved, in managing task interdependence in their own care.

The article entitled, "Using the Healthy Days Measure to Assess Factors Associated with Poor Health-Related Quality of Life for Patients with Metastatic Breast, Lung, or Colorectal Cancer Enrolled in a Medicare Advantage Health Plan," by Casebeer AW et al, which published online ahead of print in Population Health Management [doi: 10.1089/pop.2018.0024], is being retracted by the authors so that they can remove references to the 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8) and republish the article without such references. Dr. Casebeer's team obtained a license to use the MMAS-8 scale from Dr. Morisky prior to conducting the study. Nevertheless, after publication of a separate article in the Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes that also cited the MMAS-8, as the lead author, Dr. Casebeer was contacted by Dr. Morisky who requested that a number of changes be made to the article. Dr. Casebeer and her team have no desire to engage in a dispute with Dr. Morisky and therefore proactively contacted the Editor of Population Health Management and requested that the scale be removed from her published paper. After assessing all of the provided information, the Editor agreed to the authors' request. It is important to note that the retraction of Dr. Casebeer's article is not the result of any misconduct on her part or that of her team. The retraction serves to remove the published version of the article that contains the MMAS-8 scale and a revised version that does not contain the tool or any references to it will be published. The elimination of the scale does not alter the results or conclusions of the study. Population Health Management is committed to upholding the highest standards of peer review and the community it serves.

BackgroundStudies have demonstrated that comorbidities compound the adverse influence of cancer on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Comorbidities adversely impact adherence to cancer treatment. Additionally, adherence to medications for comorbidities is positively associated with HRQoL for various diseases. This study used the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Healthy Days measure of HRQoL to explore the association between HRQoL and adherence to comorbidity medication for elderly patients with cancer and at least one comorbid condition.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey combined with retrospective claims data. Patients with metastatic breast, lung or colorectal cancer were surveyed regarding their HRQoL, comorbidity medication adherence and cancer-related symptoms. Patients reported the number of physical, mental and total unhealthy days in the prior month. The Morisky Medication Adherence 8-point scale was differentiated into moderate/high (> 6) and low (≤ 6) comorbidity medication adherence.ResultsOf the 1847 respondents, the mean age was 69.2 years, most were female (66.8%) and the majority of the sample had Medicare coverage (88.2%). Low comorbidity medication adherence was associated with significantly more total, mental and physical unhealthy days. Low comorbidity medication adherence was associated with the presence of patient-reported cancer-related symptoms. Patients reporting low, as compared to moderate/high, comorbidity medication adherence had 23.4% more unhealthy days in adjusted analysis,P = 0.007.ConclusionThe positive association between low comorbidity medication adherence and the number of unhealthy days suggests that addressing barriers to comorbidity medication adherence during cancer treatment may be an avenue for improving or maintaining HRQoL for older patients with cancer and comorbid conditions.

e18032 Background: The IOM ’11 and ’13 reports recommend a written care plan (WCP) at cancer diagnosisto enable teamwork and patient (pt) engagement. Standardized multimodality WCP is a key part of the 4R model of care planning and pt engagement proposed under “NCI ASCO Teams” Project (Trosman JOP 2016). 4R (Right Information / Care / Patient / Time) is under implementation at 3 centers: academic, community and safety net. As current state assessment prior to implementing 4R and standard multimodality WCP, we surveyed pts not impacted by 4R on care planning, enablement and whether they received any WCP. Methods: Survey of breast cancer stage I-III pts who received care at the three sites Jan ’15 - Mar ’16, prior to 4R. We used simple frequencies and Fisher’s exact test in analysis. Results: Survey response rate: 47%, 241/515. Gaps of > 30% were reported in 7 of 8 aspects of care planning and pt enablement - Table. A non standard WCP was received by 46% of pts. Receiving a WCP impacted whether pts were clear about care (85% with WCP vs 52% without, p < .0001), able to manage own care (79% with WCP vs 58% without, p = .0005) and overwhelmed (35% with WCP vs 49% without, p = .04). Care complexity was a significant factor for feeling overwhelmed by pts without WCP (49% of pts receiving > 6 care services felt overwhelmed vs. 30% of pts receiving < = 6 services, p = .04), but not a significant factor in pts with WCP (45% vs 41%, p = .7). More pts with WCP reported well managed care by providers than pts without WCP (77%, 62%, P = .02). Conclusions: Serious gaps found in care planning and pt enablement at our sites support the need for 4R implementation. Even pre-4R, non standard WCPs improve pt understanding of care and ability to manage it, and reduce the impact of care complexity on pts. Providers using WCP appear to also coordinate care, but WCP itself may be an important factor of patient enablement. [Table: see text]

e12067 Background: The “NCI ASCO Teams” Project emphasized management of interdependent cancer care across specialties as crucial to teamwork, yet a considerable challenge (Taplin JOP 2015). Interdependent care requires well-managed timing and sequencing of events across specialties. We developed the 4R model (Right Information / Care / Patient / Time) to manage interdependent care and facilitate teamwork (Trosman JOP 2016). 4R is being implemented at 3 centers: academic, community and safety net. Pre-implementation, we identified guideline recommended interdependent care whose timing / sequencing is challenging, developed relevant adherence metrics and gathered current state data. Methods: Interviews with 42 clinicians across breast cancer (BC) specialties at the 3 sites, using theme analysis to identify challenging interdependent care. Guidelines and literature were used to define adherence metrics. Clinical data were reviewed for 216 Stage I-III patients at 3 sites to measure adherence. Results: We identified 7 BC interdependent care events for which timing / sequencing is a challenge - Table. Adherence ranged from 0% to 100%, and was < 50% for 5 of the 7 care events. Preoperative BRCA 1/2 results and neoadjuvant consult showed highest adherence, yet were most frequently noted as a challenge: interviewees reported substantial ad-hoc efforts applied to managing timeliness of these events. Conclusions: Identified challenges and adherence gaps support the need for the 4R implementation for systematic, consistent and timely delivery of interdependent care. Established metrics will allow pre / post 4R implementation comparison and may inform broader adoption of the 4R model. [Table: see text]

150 Background: End-of-Life Care (EOLC) discussions are frequently delayed past the time of usefulness, resulting in cancer patients (pts) receiving aggressive, expensive, non-desired care. The “Living with Cancer” project has developed a 7-item, 5-level Likert scale PRO tool that evaluates, from the pt perspective, their concerns regarding performance status, pain, family/financial burden, and depression during their cancer journey. The instrument was shown to correlate well with the oncologist’s opinion of appropriateness to continue treatment and might be useful as a quality metric in guiding timing of EOLC discussions (J Palliative Med 2016). Methods: The LWC PRO was administered to 1302 pts with advanced malignancies receiving care by Regional Cancer Care Associates (NJ) between Sept 2015 and Aug 2016, with confirmation of life status in Sept 2016. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the LWC instrument to identify latent constructs (factors) contributing to the item scores. The data set was deemed suitable for factor analysis based on standard statistical tests, including Bartlett’s test (p < 0.001). Results: A 3-factor model comprised of factors (1) Global functioning (using 5/7 items), (2) Financial toxicity (1/7 items), and (3) Depression (1/7 items) was fitted to the data using maximum likelihood and promax rotation (p = 0.043). Factor scores were compared between the cohort of 133 pts who expired within 3 months of completing their final survey and the 1124 who remained alive after 3 months. The mean global functioning score was significantly greater (worse) in the expired cohort (p < 0.001), suggesting the PRO description of distress correlated with survival. Financial toxicity and depression factor scores did not correlate with survival. Conclusions: The 7-item LWC PRO instrument contains 5 items defined by a global functioning factor that discriminates based on 3-month overall survival. This finding adds further evidence that the 7-item PRO tool can be used to time EOLC discussions with the aim to ensure better correlation between pts’ treatment desires and delivered care. LWC may also serve as a quality metric evaluating timing of EOLC discussions.

171 Background: The “NCI ASCO Teams” Project emphasized management of interdependent cancer care across specialties as crucial to teamwork, yet a considerable challenge (Taplin JOP 2015). Interdependent care requires well-managed timing and sequencing of events across specialties. We developed the 4R model (Right Information / Care / Patient / Time) to manage interdependent care and facilitate teamwork (Trosman JOP 2016). 4R is being implemented at 3 centers: academic, community and safety net. Pre-implementation, we identified guideline recommended interdependent care whose timing / sequencing is challenging, developed relevant adherence metrics and gathered current state data. Methods: Interviews with 42 clinicians across breast cancer (BC) specialties at the 3 sites, using theme analysis to identify challenging interdependent care. Guidelines and literature were used to define adherence metrics. Clinical data were reviewed for 162 Stage I-III patients at 3 sites to measure adherence. Results: We identified 7 interdependent BC care events for which timing / sequencing is a challenge - Table. Adherence ranged from 0% to 100%, and was < = 50% for 6 of the 7 care events. Preoperative BRCA 1/2 results and neoadjuvant consult showed highest adherence, yet were most frequently noted as a challenge: interviewees reported substantial ad-hoc efforts applied to managing timeliness of these events. Conclusions: Identified challenges and adherence gaps support the need for the 4R implementation for systematic, consistent and timely delivery of interdependent care. Established metrics will allow pre / post 4R implementation comparison and may inform broader adoption of the 4R model. [Table: see text]

55 Background: The IOM ’11 and ’13 reports recommend a written care plan (WCP) at cancer diagnosisto enable teamwork and patient (pt) engagement. Standardized multimodality WCP is a key part of the 4R model of care planning and pt engagement proposed under “NCI ASCO Teams” Project (Trosman JOP 2016). 4R (Right Information / Care / Patient / Time) is under implementation at three centers: academic, community and safety net. As current state assessment prior to implementing 4R and standard multimodality WCP, we surveyed pts not impacted by 4R on care planning, enablement and whether they received any WCP. Methods: Survey of breast cancer stage I-III pts who received care at the three sites Jan ’15 - Mar ’16, prior to 4R. We used simple frequencies and Fisher’s exact test in analysis. Results: Survey response rate: 48%, 197/410. Gaps of > 30% were reported in 6 of 8 aspects of care planning and pt enablement - Table. A non standard WCP was received by 45% of pts. Receiving a WCP impacted whether pts were clear about care (90% with WCP vs 50% without, p < .0001), able to manage own care (81% with WCP vs 59% without, p = .001) and overwhelmed (49% with WCP vs 68% without, p = .006). Care complexity was a significant factor for feeling overwhelmed by pts without WCP (60% of pts receiving > 6 care services felt overwhelmed vs. 39% of pts receiving < = 6 services, p = .04), but not a significant factor in pts with WCP (38% vs 44%, p = .7). More pts with WCP reported well managed care by providers than pts without WCP (78%, 64%, P = .04). Conclusions: Serious gaps found in care planning and pt enablement at our sites support the need for 4R implementation. Even pre-4R, non standard WCPs improve pt understanding of care and ability to manage it, and reduce the impact of care complexity on pts. Providers using WCP appear to also coordinate care, but WCP itself may be an important factor of patient enablement. [Table: see text]

e18179Background: There is an established link between patient-reported symptoms and health related quality of life (HRQoL) for patients with cancer. This study aims to quantify the impact of patie...

189 Background: Previous studies established the link between comorbidities and Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) for cancer patients. Adherence to comorbid medications has been found to be predictive of HRQoL in other disease states, but this has not been established for patients with cancer. This study sought to investigate the association between healthy days (HDs) and comorbidity medication adherence (CMA) for cancer patients. Methods: A survey was mailed to 5,098 patients with metastatic breast, lung or colorectal cancer who received treatment in 2014 and had at least one comorbid condition. Survey responses were merged with Humana claims data for analysis. The CDC’s Healthy Days measure was used to identify self-reported overall, physical and mental unhealthy days in the past 30 days and the number of days that poor physical or mental health limited usual activities. The Morisky Medication Adherence 8-point scale was used to differentiate high CMA ( > 6) and low CMA ( < 6). P-values are from chi-square and t-tests. Results: The survey response rate was 32% (N = 1,629). Respondents were mostly female (66%), and Medicare beneficiaries (90%) with mean age of 69.7 years. Patients with lung cancer experienced more overall unhealthy days than those with either breast or colorectal cancer (mean: 16.2 vs 12.6 and 13.5, p < 0.0001). The number of overall unhealthy days was higher among patients with low CMA compared to high CMA (mean: 15.4 vs 13.5, p = < 0.0001). Patients with low CMA had more mentally unhealthy days than those with high CMA (mean: 6.0 vs 8.2, p = 0.0128). There was no difference in physically unhealthy days by CMA. Patients with low CMA had 3.7 more unhealthy days that kept them from doing their usual activities (12.0 vs 8.3, p< 0.0001). Conclusions: Surveyed oncology patients with high comorbidity medication adherence reported fewer unhealthy days, in particular mentally unhealthy days, in the past 30 days. The complex interplay between comorbidity medication adherence and HDs for cancer patients warrants further investigation. These results suggest that increasing patients’ level of comorbidity medication adherence may be an avenue for improving the number of healthy days they experience.

99 Background: Patient engagement is essential for high-quality care. This study aimed to develop novel communication tools to be used between patients and HCPs to address current gaps in cancer care. Methods: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 16 US patients with various cancers and stage, 6 oncology nurses, and 4 oncologists. Goals were to understand: patients’ changing concerns at diagnosis and during treatment; HCPs views on eliciting patient preferences; and perspectives from both on improving care. A thematic analysis was conducted to identify gaps in care. 8 patients rated their experience and importance of quality care items on a scale of 1 (not experienced/not important) to 5 (experienced/very important). Two draft tools were developed to address identified gaps. Results: None of the 16 patients reported using a communication tool before or during treatment. Gaps in quality care were identified, including communication, patient-centered care, education, and comprehensive care. Communication and patient-centered care items important to patients, but not always experienced, included clearly explained treatment options, time to discuss topics of concern, patient-led decision making, an open-minded care team, and the ability to change one’s mind (mean experience ≤ 4). The first tool assesses patient’s life and treatment goals and establishes early expectations through an open-ended questionnaire. This tool aims to enrich communication between patients and HCPs, enabling more patient-centered care. The second tool addresses the importance of ongoing education using a checklist. Treatment outcomes and the impact of treatment on QOL were identified as the two most important education items for patients when making treatment decisions (mean importance = 5). This tool aims to enhance educational discussions and enable patients to specify where more information is desired. Conclusions: Patients reported a need for communication tools at the beginning of treatment, specifically related to patient goals and educational needs. With patient and HCP input, two novel communication tools were developed to improve quality care. Future studies will validate and implement the tools in clinical practice.

Background Providers and healthcare organizations have begun recognizing the importance of patient empowerment as a driver of patient-centered care. Unfortunately, most studies have investigated empowerment with single diseases. Identifying factors of empowerment across conditions and populations would enable a greater understanding of this construct. Objective The purpose of this study was to understand empowerment in relation to health information-seeking, interactions with providers and peers, and healthcare access in chronic disease patients. This study also sought to identify key empowerment factors and their association with patient characteristics. Methods Participants were recruited through PatientsLikeMe, an online research platform where patients share their personal and medical history data. Patients completed an online survey that assessed self-reported health behavior (e.g. knowledge-seeking, experiences with healthcare providers, and peer interactions) and healthcare access. An exploratory factor analysis identified key empowerment domains. Domain level sum scores and sum of all domains (total score) were compared across patient characteristics and diseases. Results Overall, 3988 participants were included in the study, with the majority actively involved in their healthcare, but many cited difficulties with matching their treatment goals with those of their physician (34 %) and spending sufficient time with the physician (36 %). Factor analysis identified two domains—Positive Patient–Provider Interaction, and Knowledge and Personal Control—that explained >60 % of the overall variance in the observed variables. Mean total empowerment scores for patients with a primary complaint of Parkinson’s disease (61.8) and multiple sclerosis (60.3) were significantly greater than fibromyalgia (55.3) and chronic fatigue syndrome (54.8). Patients who were older, male, more educated, and insured also reported significantly greater levels of empowerment. Conclusions The two domains of empowerment identified in this study are consistent with previous studies, but the differences in empowerment levels across diseases suggest a need for further studies on disease-related attributes of empowerment. Future research should examine the pathways for empowerment, as well as the relationship between empowerment domains and clinical outcomes. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40271-016-0171-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.