Social Vulnerability and Receipt of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients Undergoing Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between a population-level measure of social determinants of health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), and receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) undergoing radical cystectomy. METHODS: We queried our institutional database for patients with nonmetastatic MIBC treated with radical cystectomy between 2000 and 2022. Patients were assigned an SVI via ZIP code of residence and grouped into quintiles of SVI (i.e. least vulnerable to most vulnerable). Multivariable logistic regression was performed to evaluate the association between SVI and receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, adjusting for age, race, gender, and cancer stage. A sub-analysis was performed to evaluate the association between subthemes of SVI (socioeconomic status, household composition/disability, race/ethnicity/language, and housing/transportation) and receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. RESULTS: Of the 978 patients identified, 490 (50.1%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients that received neoadjuvant chemotherapy had a lower SVI, were younger, and had >cT2 stage (all, p<0.05). The most vulnerable patients had lower odds of receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (OR 0.61, 0.39 - 0.95) compared to the least vulnerable patients. Analysis of subthemes of SVI demonstrated similar associations by socioeconomic status (OR 0.56, 0.36 - 0.86) and household composition/disability (OR 0.57, 0.33 - 0.99). DISCUSSION: Adverse social determinants of health, or social vulnerability, is associated with suboptimal and disparate utilization of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with MIBC undergoing radical cystectomy. Strategies for identifying vulnerable populations may allow for more targeted interventions that would improve equity in bladder cancer care.

The 340B Program and oral specialty drugs for advanced prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Expensive oral specialty drugs for advanced prostate cancer can be associated with treatment disparities. The 340B program allows hospitals to purchase medications at discounts, generating savings that can improve care of the socioeconomically disadvantaged. This study assessed the effect of hospital 340B participation on advanced prostate cancer. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries with advanced prostate cancer from 2012 to 2019. The primary outcome was use of an oral specialty drug. Secondary outcomes included monthly out-of-pocket costs and treatment adherence. We evaluated the effects of 1) hospital 340B participation, 2) a regional measure vulnerability, the social vulnerability index (SVI), and 3) the interaction between hospital 340B participation and SVI on outcomes. RESULTS: There were 2237 and 1100 men who received care at 340B and non-340B hospitals. There was no difference in specialty drug use between 340B and non-340B hospitals, whereas specialty drug use decreased with increased SVI (odds ratio, 0.95, p = .038). However, the interaction between hospital 340B participation and SVI on specialty drug use was not significant. Neither 340B participation, SVI, or their interaction were associated with out-of-pocket costs. Although hospital 340B participation and SVI were not associated with treatment adherence, their interaction was significant (p = .020). This demonstrated that 340B was associated with better adherence among socially vulnerable men. CONCLUSIONS: The 340B program was not associated with specialty drug use in men with advanced prostate cancer. However, among those who were started on therapy, 340B was associated with increased treatment adherence in more socially vulnerable men.

Association Between Urologist Merit-Based Incentive Payment System Performance and Quality of Prostate Cancer Care.

INTRODUCTION: We performed a study to evaluate the association between urologist performance in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), and quality and spending for prostate cancer care. METHODS: Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer diagnosed between 2017 and 2019 were assigned to their primary urologist. Associated MIPS scores were identified and categorized based on thresholds for payment adjustment as low (worst), moderate, and high (best). Multivariable mixed effects models were used to measure the association between MIPS performance and adherence to quality measures and price standardized spending for prostate cancer. RESULTS: Adherence to quality measures did not vary across MIPS performance groups for pretreatment counselling by both a urologist and radiation oncologist (low-76%, [95% CI 73%-80%], moderate-77% [95% CI 74%-79%], and high-75% [95% CI 74%-76%]) and avoiding treatment in men with a high risk of noncancer mortality within 10 years of diagnosis (low-40% [95% CI 35%-45%], moderate-39% [95% CI 36%-43%], high-38% [95% CI 36%-39%]). Men on active surveillance managed by high performers more likely received a confirmatory test (44% [95% CI 43%-46%]) compared to those managed by moderate (38% [95% CI 33%-42%]) performers, but not low performers (36% [95% CI 29%-44%]). There was no difference in adjusted spending across MIPS performance groups. CONCLUSIONS: Better performance in MIPS is associated with a higher rate of confirmatory testing in men initiating active surveillance for prostate cancer. However, performance was not associated with other dimensions of quality nor spending.

National Trends in Management of Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Deciding whether to treat or conservatively manage patients with prostate cancer is challenging. Recent changes in guidelines, advances in treatment technologies, and policy can influence decision making surrounding management, particularly for those for whom the decision to treat is discretionary. Contemporary trends in management of newly diagnosed prostate cancer are unclear. METHODS: Using national Medicare data, men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer were identified between 2014 and 2019. Patients were classified by 5- and 10-year noncancer mortality risk. Multinomial logistic regression models were fit to assess adjusted trends in management over time. The primary outcome was management of prostate cancer: local treatment (inclusive of surgery, radiation, brachytherapy, or cryotherapy), hormone therapy, or observation. RESULTS: Local treatment was the most common form of management and stable across years (68%). Use of observation increased (21%-23%, P < .001) and use of hormone therapy decreased (11%-8%, P < 0.001). After stratifying by 10-year non-cancer mortality risk, observation increased among men with low (22.3%-26.1%, P < .001) and moderate (19.9%-23.5%, P < .001) mortality risk. Conversely, use of treatment increased among those with high (62.8%-68.0%, P = .004) and very high (45.5%-54.1%, P < .001) risk of noncancer mortality. These trends were similar across groups when stratified by 5-year noncancer mortality risk. CONCLUSION: Nationally, use of local treatment remains common and was stable throughout the study period. However, while local treatment declined among men with a lower risk of noncancer mortality, it increased among men with a higher risk of non-cancer mortality.

Financial Implications of the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System for Surgical Health Care Professionals.

This study describes financial implications of the merit-based incentive payment system for surgical health care professionals.

Urologist practice divestment from radiation vault ownership and treatment patterns for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Urologists practicing in single-specialty groups with ownership in radiation vaults are more likely to treat men with prostate cancer. The effect of divestment of vault ownership on treatment patterns is unclear. METHODS: A 20% sample of national Medicare claims was used to perform a retrospective cohort study of men with prostate cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2019. Urology practices were categorized by radiation vault ownership as nonowners, continuous owners, and divested owners. The primary outcome was use of local treatment, and the secondary outcome was use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). A difference-in-differences framework was used to measure the effect of divestment on outcomes compared to continuous owners. Subgroup analyses assessed outcomes by noncancer mortality risk (high [>50%] vs. low [≤50%]). RESULTS: Among 72 urology practices that owned radiation vaults, six divested during the study. Divestment led to a decrease in treatment compared with those managed at continuously owning practices (difference-in-differences estimate, -13%; p = .03). The use of IMRT decreased, but this was not statistically significant (difference-in-differences estimate, -10%; p = .13). In men with a high noncancer mortality risk, treatment (difference-in-differences estimate, -28%; p < .001) and use of IMRT (difference-in-differences estimate, -27%; p < .001) decreased after divestment. CONCLUSIONS: Urology group divestment from radiation vault ownership led to a decrease in prostate cancer treatment. This decrease was most pronounced in men who had a high noncancer mortality risk. This has important implications for health care reform by suggesting that payment programs that encourage constraints on utilization, when appropriate, may be effective in reducing overtreatment.

Value-based payment models and management of newly diagnosed prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of urologist participation in value-based payment models on the initial management of men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. METHODS: Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer diagnosed between 2017 and 2019, with 1 year of follow-up, were assigned to their primary urologist, each of whom was then aligned to a value-based payment model (the merit-based incentive payment system [MIPS], accountable care organization [ACO] without financial risk, and ACO with risk). Multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression was used to measure the association between payment model participation and treatment of prostate cancer. Additional models estimated the effects of payment model participation on use of treatment in men with very high risk (i.e., >75%) of non-cancer mortality within 10 years of diagnosis (i.e., a group of men for whom treatment is generally not recommended) and price-standardized prostate cancer spending in the 12 months after diagnosis. RESULTS: Treatment did not vary by payment model, both overall (MIPS-67% [95% CI 66%-68%], ACOs without risk-66% [95% CI 66%-68%], ACOs with risk-66% [95% CI 64%-68%]). Similarly, treatment did not vary among men with very high risk of non-cancer mortality by payment model (MIPS-52% [95% CI 50%-55%], ACOs without risk-52% [95% CI 50%-55%], ACOs with risk-51% [95% CI 45%-56%]). Adjusted spending was similar across payment models (MIPS-$16,501 [95% CI $16,222-$16,780], ACOs without risk-$16,140 [95% CI $15,852-$16,429], ACOs with risk-$16,117 [95% CI $15,585-$16,649]). CONCLUSIONS: How urologists participate in value-based payment models is not associated with treatment, potential overtreatment, and prostate cancer spending in men with newly diagnosed disease.

The immediate effects of private equity acquisition of urology practices on the management of newly diagnosed prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Some worry that physician practices acquired by private equity may increase the use of services to maximize revenue. We assessed the effects of private equity acquisition on spending, use of treatment, and diagnostic testing in men with prostate cancer. METHODS: We used a 20% sample of national Medicare claims to perform a retrospective cohort study of men with prostate cancer diagnosed from 2014 through 2019. The primary outcome was prostate cancer spending in the first 12 months after diagnosis. Secondary outcomes included the use of treatment and a composite measure of diagnostic testing (e.g., imaging, genomics) in the first 12 months after diagnosis. Multilevel modeling was used to adjust for differences in patient and market characteristics. The effect of practice acquisition on each outcome was assessed using a difference-in-differences design. RESULTS: There were 409 and 4021 men with prostate cancer managed by urologists in acquired and nonacquired practices, respectively. After acquisition, prostate cancer spending was comparable between acquired and nonacquired practices (difference-in-differences estimate $1182, p = 0.36). Acquisition did not affect the use of treatment (difference-in-differences estimate 3.7%, p = 0.30) or the use of diagnostic testing in men who were treated (difference-in-differences -5.5%, p = 0.12) and those managed conservatively (difference-in-differences -2.0%, p = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS: In the year following acquisition of urology practices, private equity did not increase prostate cancer spending, the use of treatment or diagnostic testing in men with prostate cancer. Future work should evaluate the effects of private equity acquisition on practice patterns and quality over a longer time horizon.

Acquisition of Urology Practices by Private Equity Firms and Performance in the Merit-based Incentive Payment System.

INTRODUCTION: Private equity is increasingly engaged in the acquisition of urology practices. The implications of strategies to enhance practice value deployed by these firms for patients are unclear. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of urologist performance in the MIPS (Merit-based Incentive Payment System) program for 2017 to 2020 using national Medicare data from the Quality Payment Program file. The primary outcome was the overall MIPS score. Secondary outcomes included MIPS component scores (ie, quality, interoperability, improvement activities, cost) and the percentage of urologists receiving a bonus payment. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate the relationship between private equity acquisition and outcomes using a difference-in-differences framework. RESULTS: Between 2017 and 2020, 181 urologists were in a urology practice acquired by private equity with MIPS data available the year before and after acquisition. Compared to urologists in practices not acquired by private equity, those in acquired practices had worse overall MIPS performance after acquisition (difference-in-differences estimate, -14 points, P = .04). The decrease in the overall score was driven by worse performance in the quality score (difference-in-differences estimate, -28 points, P < .001). Finally, acquisition resulted in a decrease in the percentage of urologists receiving bonus payments (difference-in-differences estimate, -43%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Private equity acquisition of urology practices was associated with significantly lower MIPS performance. As private equity acquisition of urology practices becomes more prevalent, key stakeholders should ensure that the quality of patient care is maintained and that the involvement of for-profit entities in health care is being made transparent to patients.

Association between urology practice use of multiparametric MRI and genomic testing and treatment of men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Biomarkers for prostate cancer, such as multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and tissue-based genomics, are increasingly used for treatment decision-making. Using biomarkers indiscriminately and thus ignoring competing risks of mortality may lead to treatment in some men who derive little clinical benefit. We assessed the relationship between urology practice use of biomarkers and subsequent treatment in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. METHODS: We used a 20% random sample of national Medicare data to perform a retrospective cohort study of men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer diagnosed from 2015 through 2019. Urology practice-level use of biomarkers was characterized based on urology practice propensity to use either biomarker after diagnosis (never, below median, above the median). Noncancer mortality risk within 10 years of diagnosis was calculated for all men. Multilevel models were used to assess the relationship between practice-level biomarker use and treatment by noncancer mortality risk. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2019, 1,764 (65%) urology practices used mpMRI and 897 (33%) used genomic testing for prostate cancer. Compared with urology practices never using each biomarker, those using mpMRI above the median (56% vs. 47%, P = 0.003) and tissue-based genomics below the median (56% vs. 50%, P = 0.03) were more likely to treat men with >75% risk of noncancer mortality. Additionally, compared with urology practices never using either biomarker, use of mpMRI (72% vs. 69%, P = 0.07) or tissue-based genomics (71% vs. 70%, P = 0.65) did not impact treatment in the healthiest group (i.e., those with <25% risk of noncancer mortality). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to practices that do not use each biomarker in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, urology practices using mpMRI, and tissue-based genomics to a lesser extent, are more likely to treat men at very high risk of dying from competing risks of mortality within 10 years of prostate cancer diagnosis.

In-office dispensing of oral targeted agents by urology practices in men with advanced prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Management of men with advanced prostate cancer has evolved to include urologists, made possible by oral targeted agents (eg, abiraterone or enzalutamide) that can be dispensed directly to patients in the office. We sought to investigate whether this increasingly common model improves access to these agents, especially for Black men who are historically undertreated. METHODS: We used 20% national Medicare data to perform a retrospective cohort study of men with advanced prostate cancer from 2011 through 2019, managed by urology practices with and without in-office dispensing. Using a difference-in-difference framework, generalized estimating equations were used to measure the effect of in-office dispensing on prescriptions for abiraterone and/or enzalutamide, adjusting for differences between patients, including race. RESULTS: New prescription fills for oral targeted agents increased after the adoption of in-office dispensing (+4.4%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.4% to 5.4%) relative to that for men managed by practices without dispensing (+2.4%, 95% CI = 1.4% to 3.4%). The increase in the postintervention period (difference-in-difference estimate) was 2% higher (95% CI = 0.6% to 3.4%) for men managed by practices adopting dispensing relative to men managed by practices without dispensing. The effect was strongest for practices adopting dispensing in 2015 (difference-in-difference estimate: +4.2%, 95% CI = 2.3% to 6.2%). The effect of dispensing adoption did not differ by race. CONCLUSION: Adoption of in-office dispensing by urology practices increased prescription fills for oral targeted agents in men with advanced prostate cancer. This model of delivery may improve access to this important class of medications.

Accountable care organizations and use of surgery among patients with Alzheimer disease and related dementias.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the effects of accountable care organizations (ACOs) on use of surgery in patients with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective national cohort study of all Medicare beneficiaries identified in a 20% sample between 2010 and 2017. The primary exposure was participation in ACOs. The primary outcome was use of 1 of 6 common surgical procedures (aortic valve replacement [AVR], abdominal aortic aneurysm [AAA] repair, colectomy, carotid artery repair, major joint repair, and prostatectomy). METHODS: Multivariable logistic regression models were fit using beneficiary-year as the unit of analysis to estimate the likelihood of undergoing each procedure among patients with ADRD and without ADRD, stratified by ACO participation. Additional models were fit to determine how the relationship between ACO participation and surgery was altered based on procedure urgency and the availability of minimally invasive technology. RESULTS: Adjusted odds for use of surgery were lower among patients with ADRD compared with patients without ADRD for all procedures. ACO participation had varying impact on patients with ADRD, with higher odds of AVR and major joint surgery and lower odds of carotid artery repair. Availability of minimally invasive technology increased the likelihood of AVR and AAA repair among patients with ADRD; however, ACO participation reduced these effects. The effect of ACO participation on the likelihood of undergoing surgery did not vary by urgency of the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The likelihood of undergoing surgery is overall lower among patients with ADRD and may vary by ACO participation for specific procedures.

Health care delivery system contributions to management of newly diagnosed prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Despite clinical guidelines advocating for use of conservative management in specific clinical scenarios for men with prostate cancer, there continues to be tremendous variation in its uptake. This variation may be amplified among men with competing health risks, for whom treatment decisions are not straightforward. The degree to which characteristics of the health care delivery system explain this variation remains unclear. METHODS: Using national Medicare data, men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer between 2014 and 2019 were identified. Hierarchical logistic regression models were used to assess the association between use of treatment and health care delivery system determinants operating at the practice level, which included measures of financial incentives (i.e., radiation vault ownership), practice organization (i.e., single specialty vs. multispecialty groups), and the health care market (i.e., competition). Variance was partitioned to estimate the relative influence of patient and practice characteristics on the variation in use of treatment within strata of noncancer mortality risk groups. RESULTS: Among 62,507 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, the largest variation in the use of treatment between practices was observed for men with high and very high-risk of noncancer mortality (range of practice-level rates of treatment for high: 57%-71% and very high: 41%-61%). Addition of health care delivery system determinants measured at the practice level explained 13% and 15% of the variation in use of treatment among men with low and intermediate risk of noncancer mortality in 10 years, respectively. Conversely, these characteristics explained a larger share of the variation in use of treatment among men with high and very high-risk of noncancer mortality (26% and 40%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Variation among urology practices in use of treatment was highest for men with high and very high-risk noncancer mortality. Practice characteristics explained a large share of this variation.

Practice Competition and Treatment of Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of urology practice market competition on use of treatment in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. METHODS: We performed a retrospective national cohort study of 48,067 Medicare beneficiaries with newly diagnosed prostate cancer between 2014 and 2018. The primary exposure was urology practice-level market competition. Markets were established by the flow of patients to a practice using a variable radius approach. Practice level competition was measured annually using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index. The primary outcome was use of treatment for prostate cancer (ie, surgery, radiation, or cryotherapy) stratified by 10-year risk of noncancer mortality. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2018, there was a decrease in the total percent of urologists practicing in small single-specialty groups (49%-41%) with an increase in multispecialty practices (38%-47%). After adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics, a lower percentage of men underwent treatment in practices with low competition relative to those managed in practices with high competition (70% vs 67.0%, P < .001). Among men with the highest risk of noncancer mortality, those managed in practices in the least competitive markets were less likely to receive treatment relative to men managed by practices in the most competitive markets (48% vs 60%, P-value<.001). CONCLUSION: Reduction in competition between urology practices is not associated with greater use of treatment in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, particularly in those with a high risk of noncancer mortality.

New technology in prostate cancer and financial toxicity.

The management of prostate cancer has significantly evolved over the last few decades with the emergence of new diagnostic and treatment technologies, which are typically more expensive than the previous alternatives. However, decision-making regarding which diagnostics and treatment to pursue is often influenced by perceived benefits, adverse effects, and physician recommendations, without considering the financial liability borne by patients. New technologies may exacerbate financial toxicity by replacing less costly alternatives, promoting unrealistic expectations, and expanding treatment to those who would have previously gone untreated. More judicious use of technologies with an understanding of the contexts in which they are most beneficial may help prevent avoidable financial toxicity to patients.

Barriers to rural health care from the provider perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Rural populations routinely rank poorly on common health indicators. While it is understood that rural residents face barriers to health care, the exact nature of these barriers remains unclear. To further define these barriers, a qualitative study of primary care physicians practicing in rural communities was performed. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with primary care physicians practicing in rural areas within western Pennsylvania, the third largest rural population within the USA, using purposively sampling. Data were then transcribed, coded, and analyzed by thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three key themes emerged from the analysis addressing barriers to rural health care: (1) cost and insurance, (2) geographic dispersion, and (3) provider shortage and burnout. Providers mentioned strategies that they either employed or thought would be beneficial for their rural communities: (1) subsidize services, (2) establish mobile and satellite clinics (particularly for specialty care), (3) increase utilization of telehealth, (4) improve infrastructure for ancillary patient support (ie social work services), and (5) increase utilization of advanced practice providers. CONCLUSION: There are numerous barriers to providing rural communities with quality health care. Barriers that are encountered are multidimensional. Patients are unable to obtain the care they need because of cost-related barriers. More providers need to be recruited to rural areas to combat the shortage and burnout. Advanced care-delivery methods such as telehealth, satellite clinics, or advanced practice providers can help bridge the gaps caused by geographic dispersion. Policy efforts should target all these aspects in order to appropriately address rural healthcare needs.

Effects of In-office Dispensing by Single-specialty Urology Practices on Management of Advanced Prostate Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: We examine changes in the volume of patients with advanced prostate cancer and prescriptions for abiraterone and enzalutamide among urology practices with and without in-office dispensing. METHODS: Using data from the National Council for Prescription Drug Programs, we identified in-office dispensing by single-specialty urology practices from 2011 to 2018. As the greatest growth in implementing dispensing occurred among large groups in 2015, outcomes were measured at the practice level in 2014 (before) and 2016 (after) for dispensing and non-dispensing practices. Outcomes included the volume of men with advanced prostate cancer managed by a practice and prescriptions for abiraterone and/or enzalutamide. Using national Medicare data, generalized linear mixed models were fit to compare the practice-level ratio of each outcome (2016 relative to 2014) adjusting for regional contextual factors. RESULTS: In-office dispensing increased from 1% to 30% of single-specialty urology practices from 2011 to 2018, with 28 practices implementing dispensing in 2015. In 2016 compared to 2014, adjusted changes in the volume of patients with advanced prostate cancer managed by a practice were similar between non-dispensing (0.88, 95% CI 0.81-0.94) and dispensing (0.93, 95% CI 0.76-1.09) practices (P = .60). Prescriptions for abiraterone and/or enzalutamide increased in both non-dispensing (2.00, 95% CI 1.58-2.41) and dispensing (8.99, 95% CI 4.51-13.47) practices (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: In-office dispensing is increasingly common in urology practices. This emerging model is not associated with changes in patient volume but is associated with increased prescriptions for abiraterone and enzalutamide.

Merit-based Incentive Payment System Quality Reporting in Urology Practices.

INTRODUCTION: Most urologists are required to participate in Merit-based Incentive Payment System-an alternative payment model in which physicians must track and report quality measures. However, Merit-based Incentive Payment System measures are urology-specific, and it remains unclear what measures urologists are choosing to track and report. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of Merit-based Incentive Payment System measures reported by urologists for the most recent performance year. Urologists were categorized by their reporting affiliation (ie, individual, group, or alternative payment model). We identified the measures most frequently reported by urologists. Among reported measures, we identified those that were specific to urological conditions and those that were "topped out" (ie, measures considered indiscriminate by Medicare because high performance is easily achieved). RESULTS: A total of 6,937 urologists reported in Merit-based Incentive Payment System during the 2020 performance year, of whom 14% reported as an individual, 56% as a group, and 30% as an alternative payment model. Among the top 10 most frequently reported measures, none were urology-specific. Eleven percent of urologists reported measures that were directly specific to urological conditions; 65% of individual urologists, 58% of those in groups, and 92% in alternative payment models reported at least 1 or more "topped out" measures. CONCLUSIONS: Most measures reported by urologists are not specific to urological conditions, and therefore performance within Merit-based Incentive Payment System may be a poor indicator of the quality of urological care provided. As Medicare transitions Merit-based Incentive Payment System to implement specific quality measures, the urological community will need to develop and submit measures that will be most impactful for urology patients.