Risks and consequences of travel burden on prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor administration and incidence of febrile neutropenia in an aged Medicare population.

OBJECTIVE: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) decrease the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. This study examines the impact patient travel burden has on administration of prophylactic G-CSFs and the subsequent impact on FN incidence. METHODS: Medicare claims data were used to identify a cohort of beneficiaries age 65+ with non-myeloid cancers at high risk for FN between January 2012 and December 2014. Driving distance and time were calculated from patient residence ZIP code to the location of G-CSF and/or chemotherapy administration. Regression models were used to estimate the odds of G-CSF prophylaxis relative to patient driving distance and time, and odds of FN incidence relative to timing of G-CSF administration (optimal [days 2-4 after chemotherapy], sub-optimal [same day], or none). RESULTS: The 52,389 study patients had a mean age of 73.5 years, and were 82% female and 89% white race; 49% had female breast cancer, 12% lung cancer, 15% ovarian cancer, and 24% non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Of these high FN risk patients, 69% had at least one prophylactic G-CSF administration within at least one chemotherapy cycle. The percentage of patients receiving prophylactic G-CSFs in the first cycle was 56%. Median travel time was slightly longer for patients who did not receive G-CSFs and patients receiving short-acting vs long-acting G-CSFs. The odds of receiving no G-CSFs were 26-52% higher (depending on cancer type) for patients with a >80-min one-way travel time, compared to patients traveling <20-min. Concurrently, the odds of FN (using a "narrow" definition) were 18-93% higher for patients who did not receive G-CSFs in the first cycle of chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Travel burden, linked to clinic visits for G-CSF administration following myelosuppressive chemotherapy, is associated with sub-optimal use of G-CSF prophylaxis, which may result in a higher incidence of FN.

Travel burden associated with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor administration in a Medicare aged population: a geospatial analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) is recommended for patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy regimens with a high risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). G-CSFs should be administered starting the day after chemotherapy, necessitating return trips to the oncology clinic at the end of each cycle. We examined the travel burden related to prophylactic G-CSF injections after chemotherapy in the US. METHODS: We used 2012-2014 Medicare claims data to identify a national cohort of beneficiaries age 65+ with non-myeloid cancers who received both chemotherapy and prophylactic G-CSFs. Patient travel origin was based on residence ZIP code. Oncologist practice locations and hospital addresses were obtained from the Medicare Physician Compare and Hospital Compare websites and geocoded using the Google Maps Application Programming Interface (API). Driving distance and time to the care site from each patient ZIP code tabulation area (ZCTA) were calculated using Open Street Maps road networks. Geographic and socio-economic characteristics of each ZCTA from the US Census Bureau's American Community Survey were used to stratify and analyze travel estimates. RESULTS: The mean one-way driving distance to the G-CSF provider was 23.8 (SD 30.1) miles and the mean one-way driving time was 33.3 (SD 37.8) minutes. When stratified by population density, the mean one-way travel time varied from 12.1 (SD 10.1) minutes in Very Dense Urban areas to 76.7 (SD 72.1) minutes in Super Rural areas. About 48% of patients had one-way travel times of <20 minutes, but 19% of patients traveled ≥50 minutes one way for G-CSF prophylaxis. Patients in areas with above average concentrations of aged, poor or disabled residents were more likely to experience longer travel. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of G-CSF therapy after chemotherapy can present a significant travel burden for cancer patients. Technological improvements in the form and methods of drug delivery for G-CSFs might significantly reduce this travel burden.

Clinical factors influencing the decision to order red blood cell transfusions for a sample of US dialysis patients
.

AIM: To characterize the clinical context for the decision to order red blood cell (RBC) transfusions in dialysis patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of medical records from three integrated health systems serving chronic dialysis patients. Subjects were randomly selected from all patients who received at least one transfusion between January 2009 and December 2013. Data abstracted included transfusion setting, prescribing clinician type, patient demographics and hemoglobin (Hb) concentration prior to transfusion, and cataloguing and prioritizing of clinical factors for their contribution to the decision to transfuse. Data from one system were stratified between transfusions before and after the 2011 dialysis payment reform and anemia drug label changes. RESULTS: Charts for 590 patients were reviewed. The primary reason for transfusion was low Hb (51%), medical conditions (22%), symptoms of anemia (18%), surgery-related (6%), and undetermined (3%). In 93% of cases, multiple factors were cited as contributors to the transfusion decision. Mean Hb prior to transfusion was 7.2 g/dL in patients where low Hb was the primary reason for transfusion (range: 4.0 - 9.9 g/dL). CONCLUSIONS: The decision to transfuse dialysis patients is influenced by multiple patient factors and medical conditions, of which low Hb is the main contributor to this decision about half of the time.
.

Annual patient and caregiver burden of oncology clinic visits for granulocyte-colony stimulating factor therapy in the US.

OBJECTIVE: Prophylactic treatment with granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs) is indicated for chemotherapy patients with a significant risk of febrile neutropenia. This study estimates the annual economic burden on patients and caregivers of clinic visits for prophylactic G-CSF injections in the US. METHODS: Annual clinic visits for prophylactic G-CSF injections (all cancers) were estimated from national cancer incidence, chemotherapy treatment and G-CSF utilization data, and G-CSF sales and pricing information. Patient travel times, plus time spent in the clinic, were estimated from patient survey responses collected during a large prospective cohort study (the Prospective Study of the Relationship between Chemotherapy Dose Intensity and Mortality in Early-Stage (I-III) Breast Cancer Patients). Economic models were created to estimate travel costs, patient co-pays and the economic value of time spent by patients and caregivers in G-CSF clinic visits. RESULTS: Estimated total clinic visits for prophylactic G-CSF injections in the US were 1.713 million for 2015. Mean (SD) travel time per visit was 62 (50) min; mean (SD) time in the clinic was 41 (68) min. Total annual time for travel to and from the clinic, plus time at the clinic, is estimated at 4.9 million hours, with patient and caregiver time valued at $91.8 million ($228 per patient). The estimated cumulative annual travel distance for G-CSF visits is 60.2 million miles, with a total transportation cost of $28.9 million ($72 per patient). Estimated patient co-pays were $61.1 million, ∼$36 per visit, $152 per patient. The total yearly economic impact on patients and caregivers is $182 million, ∼$450 per patient. LIMITATIONS: Data to support model parameters were limited. Study estimates are sensitive to the assumptions used. CONCLUSIONS: The burden of clinic visits for G-CSF therapy is a significant addition to the total economic burden borne by cancer patients and their families.

Time savings of weekly versus three-times-per-week administration of erythropoiesis stimulating agents in United States dialysis patients.

OBJECTIVE: Previous research suggests that erythropoiesis stimulating agent (ESA) administration in dialysis is a time-consuming task and switching to less frequently dosed ESAs may offer operational efficiencies. Our objective was to describe and measure the time spent on tasks in the ESA administration process in US dialysis centers, and to estimate potential efficiency gains of using weekly (QW) administration vs three-times-per-week (TIW) administration. METHODS: We conducted a time and motion study of staff time required to prepare, administer and document ESA doses. Dialysis centers using intravenous administration of TIW epoetin alfa (EPO) or QW darbepoetin alfa (DPO) were selected in pairs (one EPO, one DPO) from the same organization to help control for differences in ESA protocols and staffing patterns across organizations. ESA-related tasks were timed by trained observers. Time savings of TIW vs QW administration were estimated. Staff were interviewed about alternate activities that could be accomplished if time were saved in the ESA process. RESULTS: A total of 200 administrations were observed (81 DPO, 119 EPO). A mean of 2.26 (95% CI: 2.1-2.5) minutes per dose were required for ESA administration. ESA process time per administration did not vary significantly between EPO and DPO (p = 0.83). Estimated potential monthly staff time savings for an average facility of 70 patients totaled 23 hours, due to fewer ESA administrations using QW DPO. Patient education and fulfillment of care plans were identified as opportunities for improved care processes that could be implemented if staff time was freed up from the ESA process. LIMITATIONS: Results should not be generalized to other countries, ESAs and/or dosing frequencies. CONCLUSIONS: Switching from TIW EPO to QW DPO can result in time savings due to fewer administrations and provide opportunities to redirect nurse time towards activities aimed at improving patient care.

Trends in prevalence of patient case-mix adjusters used in the Medicare dialysis payment system.

OBJECTIVES: The Medicare End-Stage Renal Disease Prospective Payment System (PPS) used data from 2006-08 to set weights for each case-mix adjuster that is part of the bundled payment formula. The details of the population case-mix were not made public, and little is known about consistency of case-mix over time. This study estimated the prevalence of case-mix adjusters during 2006-2008 and analyzed changes in case-mix prevalence from 2000-2008. METHODS: Cross-sectional cohort study using United States Renal Data System data for Medicare dialysis patients. Three 3-year cohorts (2000-02, 2003-05, 2006-08) were analyzed for changes over time in case-mix prevalence. RESULTS: Double-digit trends were observed in many case-mix categories between 2000-02 and 2006-08. Large declines were observed in prevalence of patients with low BMI, pericarditis, new to dialysis, and ages 18-44. Large increases were observed in chronic co-morbidities, pneumonia and age cohort 80+. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial changes in case-mix adjuster prevalence suggest the PPS payment formula should be regularly updated.

Finding consistency in Medicare's quality ratings for dialysis providers.

As of January 2015, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) now publishes two sets of quality rankings for dialysis facilities: performance ratings tied to the Quality Incentive Program (QIP), and "star ratings" published on the Dialysis Facility Compare website. We sought to compare the two ratings and see how consistent they are for a matched set of dialysis facilities that have ratings on both programs. While the two quality rating programs have somewhat different objectives, both ratings are made available to patients to assist them in understanding the quality of care they can expect to receive from a given dialysis facility. Consistency of the ratings will be important to their acceptance by both patients and providers as valid measures of relative quality.

Efficiency of U.S. dialysis centers: an updated examination of facility characteristics that influence production of dialysis treatments.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the relative efficiency of dialysis facilities in the United States and identify factors that are associated with efficiency in the production of dialysis treatments. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Medicare cost report data from 4,343 free-standing dialysis facilities in the United States that offered in-center hemodialysis in 2010. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional, facility-level retrospective database analysis, utilizing data envelopment analysis (DEA) to estimate facility efficiency. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Treatment data and cost and labor inputs of dialysis treatments were obtained from 2010 Medicare Renal Cost Reports. Demographic data were obtained from the 2010 U.S. Census. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Only 26.6 percent of facilities were technically efficient. Neither the intensity of market competition nor the profit status of the facility had a significant effect on efficiency. Facilities that were members of large chains were less likely to be efficient. Cost and labor savings due to changes in drug protocols had little effect on overall dialysis center efficiency. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of free-standing dialysis facilities in the United States were functioning in a technically inefficient manner. As payment systems increasingly employ capitation and bundling provisions, these institutions will need to evaluate their efficiency to remain competitive.

Geographic disparities in patient travel for dialysis in the United States.

PURPOSE: To estimate travel distance and time for US hemodialysis patients and to compare travel of rural versus urban patients. METHODS: Dialysis patient residences were estimated from ZIP code-level patient counts as of February 2011 allocated within the ZIP code proportional to census tract-level population, obtained from the 2010 U.S. Census. Dialysis facility addresses were obtained from Medicare public-use files. Patients were assigned to an "original" and "replacement" facility, assuming patients used the facility closest to home and would select the next closest facility as a replacement, if a replacement facility was required. Driving distances and times were calculated between patient residences and facility locations using GIS software. FINDINGS: The mean one-way driving distance to the original facility was 7.9 miles; for rural patients average distances were 2.5 times farther than for urban patients (15.9 vs. 6.2 miles). Mean driving distance to a replacement facility was 10.6 miles, with rural patients traveling on average 4 times farther than urban patients to a replacement facility (28.8 vs. 6.8 miles). CONCLUSION: Rural patients travel much longer distances for dialysis than urban patients. Accessing alternative facilities, if required, would greatly increase rural patient travel, while having little impact on urban patients. Increased travel could have clinical implications as longer travel is associated with increased mortality and decreased quality of life.

High Costs of Dialysis Transportation in the United States: Exploring Approaches to a More Cost-effective Delivery System.

Background: The costs of transporting end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients to dialysis centers are high and growing rapidly. Research has suggested that substantial cost savings could be achieved if medically appropriate transport was made available and covered by Medicare. Objectives: To estimate US dialysis transportation costs from a purchaser's perspective, and to estimate cost savings that could be achieved if less expensive means of transport were utilized. Methods: Costs were estimated using an actuarial model. Travel distance estimates were calculated using GIS software from patient ZIP codes and dialysis facility addresses. Cost and utilization estimates were derived from fee schedules, government reports, transportation websites and peer-reviewed literature. Results: The estimated annual cost of dialysis transportation in the United States is $3.0 billion, half of which is for ambulances. Most other costs are due to transport via ambulettes, wheelchair vans and taxis. Approximately 5% of costs incurred are for private vehicle or public transportation use. If ambulance use dropped to 1% of trips from the current 5%, costs could be reduced by one-third. Conclusions: Decision-makers should consider policies to reduce ambulance use, while providing appropriate levels of care.