Medical Service Use and Charges for Cancer Care in 2018 for Privately Insured Patients Younger Than 65 Years in the US.

Importance: Currently, there are limited published data regarding resource use and spending on cancer care in the US. Objective: To characterize the most frequent medical services provided and the associated spending for privately insured patients with cancer in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data from the MarketScan database for the calendar year 2018 from a sample of 27.1 million privately insured individuals, including patients with a diagnosis of the 15 most prevalent cancers, predominantly from large insurers and self-insured employers. Overall societal health care spending was estimated for each cancer type by multiplying the mean total spending per patient (estimated from MarketScan) by the number of privately insured patients living with that cancer in 2018, as reported by the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. Analyses were performed from February 1, 2018, to July 8, 2021. Exposures: Evaluation and management as prescribed by treating care team. Main Outcomes and Measures: Current Procedural Terminology and Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes based on cancer diagnosis code. Results: The estimated cost of cancer care in 2018 for 402 115 patients with the 15 most prevalent cancer types was approximately $156.2 billion for privately insured adults younger than 65 years in the US. There were a total of 38.4 million documented procedure codes for 15 cancers in the MarketScan database, totaling $10.8 billion. Patients with breast cancer contributed the greatest total number of services (10.9 million [28.4%]), followed by those with colorectal cancer (3.9 million [10.2%]) and prostate cancer (3.6 million [9.4%]). Pathology and laboratory tests contributed the highest number of services performed (11.7 million [30.5%]), followed by medical services (6.3 million [16.4%]) and medical supplies and nonphysician services (6.1 million [15.9%]). The costliest cancers were those of the breast ($3.4 billion [31.5%]), followed by lung ($1.1 billion [10.2%]) and colorectum ($1.1 billion [10.2%]). Medical supplies and nonphysician services contributed the highest total spent ($4.0 billion [37.0%]), followed by radiology ($2.1 billion [19.4%]) and surgery ($1.8 billion [16.7%]). Conclusions and Relevance: This analysis suggests that patients with breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers had the greatest number of services performed, particularly for pathology and laboratory tests, whereas patients with breast, lung, lymphoma, and colorectal cancer incurred the greatest costs, particularly for medical supplies and nonphysician services. The cost of cancer care in 2018 for the 15 most prevalent cancer types was estimated to be approximately $156.2 billion for privately insured adults younger than 65 years in the US.

Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening: Patterns Among Women With Medicaid and Commercial Insurance.

INTRODUCTION: Despite healthcare reforms mandating expanded insurance coverage and reduced out-of-pocket costs for preventive care, cancer screening rates remain relatively static. No study has measured cancer screening rates for multiple tests among non-Medicare patients. METHODS: This retrospective, population-based claims analysis, conducted in 2016-2017, of commercially insured and Medicaid-insured women aged 30-59 years enrolled in IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicaid Databases (containing approximately 90 and 17 million enrollees, respectively) during 2010-2015 describes screening rates for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer. Key outcomes were (1) proportion screened for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer among the age-eligible population compared with accepted age-based recommendations and (2) proportion with longer-than-recommended intervals between tests. RESULTS: One half (54.7%) of commercially insured women aged 40-59 years (n=1,538,444) were screened three or more times during the 6-year study period for breast cancer; for Medicaid-insured women (n=78,897), the rates were lower (23.7%). One third (43.4%) of commercially insured and two thirds (68.9%) of Medicaid-insured women had a >2.5-year gap between mammograms. Among women aged 30-59 years, 59.3% of commercially insured women and 31.4% of Medicaid-insured women received two or more Pap tests. The proportion of patients with a >3.5-year gap between Pap tests was 33.9% (commercially insured) and 57.1% (Medicaid-insured). Among women aged 50-59 years, 63.3% of commercially insured women and 47.2% of Medicaid-insured women were screened at least one time for colorectal cancer. Almost all women aged 30-59 years (commercially insured, 99.1%; Medicaid-insured, 98.9%) had at least one healthcare encounter. CONCLUSIONS: Breast and cervical cancer screenings remain underutilized among both commercially insured and Medicaid-insured populations, with lower rates among the Medicaid-insured population. However, almost all women had at least one healthcare encounter, suggesting opportunities for better coordinated care.

Estimating a Change from TRICARE to Commercial Insurance Plans.

Introduction: We estimate the effect on health care spending of an option to change TRICARE. Under the option, which is based on a proposal made by the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission (MCRMC), most beneficiaries could choose from a range of commercial health networks instead of the current TRICARE plans. Military treatment facilities would become network providers under the commercial plans. Materials and Methods: We used data from the Department of Defense (DoD) to estimate the cost of providing the current health care benefit to working-age retirees and their dependents and survivors, and active duty family members. We then adjusted those data to estimate what the private insurance premiums would be for those groups. Greater details about the methodology can be found in earlier work by the Congressional Budget Office. Because payments by TRICARE to physicians and hospitals are tied to payments made by Medicare, we used the information from studies that compare Medicare payment rates to rates paid to doctors and hospitals by private insurance to estimate what it would cost private insurers to provide approximately the same level of care, with adjustments to account for the higher out-of-pocket costs that beneficiaries would pay under the option. We also made adjustments to account for the possibility that many beneficiaries would decrease their use of the MTFs in favor of private providers, which could increase the overall costs of DoD. We then estimated that increasing the cost sharing to a level found in popular civilian plans would lower overall demand for services by about 10% for military retiree households and about 18% for active duty family members. Results: We estimated that DoD would pay subsidies to retain about half of the excess capacity created by beneficiaries switching their care from MTFs to the private sector. Evaluated at the midpoint of the ranges, the net effect on DoD's budget would be approximately $0, we estimate, but costs could fall in a likely range from about $3 billion in annual savings to about $3 billion in annual costs. Thus, the MCRMC estimate of $3.2 billion implicitly assumed that no excess capacity would be retained by MTFs. In 2031, under current law, the average retiree family is expected to cost the federal government about $24,100 (in 2017 dollars) and that family's out-of-pocket costs are expected to amount to about $1,900. The option would reduce the government's costs for the average retiree family to $23,500, but retiree families could see their out-of-pocket costs rise to $7,500 per year. Conclusion: This article outlined a method of identifying two particular sources of that uncertainty: the extent to which people will receive care outside of MTFs and the extent to which the MTFs can adjust to reductions in demand. For one particular option, we demonstrate that the potential savings from changing the system depends on increasing the share of costs paid by beneficiaries - particularly working-age retirees - and on DoD's ability to reduce excess capacity in the system.

Relationships between Medicare Advantage contract characteristics and quality-of-care ratings: an observational analysis of Medicare Advantage star ratings.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) publishes star ratings on Medicare Advantage (MA) contracts to measure plan quality of care with implications for reimbursement and bonuses. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether MA contract characteristics are associated with quality of care through the Medicare plan star ratings. DESIGN: Retrospective study of MA star ratings in 2010. Unadjusted and adjusted multivariable linear regression models assessed the relationship between 5-star rating summary scores and plan characteristics. SETTING: CMS MA contracts nationally. PARTICIPANTS: 409 (71%) of a total of 575 MA contracts, covering 10.56 million Medicare beneficiaries (90% of the MA population) in the United States in 2010. MEASUREMENTS: The MA quality ratings summary score (stars range from 1 to 5) is a quality measure based on 36 indicators related to processes of care, health outcomes, access to care, and beneficiary satisfaction. RESULTS: Nonprofit, larger, and older MA contracts were more likely to receive higher star ratings. Star ratings ranged from 2 to 5. Nonprofit contracts received an average 0.55 (95% CI, 0.42 to 0.67) higher star ratings than for-profit contracts (P  < 0.001) after controls were set for contract characteristics. LIMITATION: The study focused on persons aged 65 years or older covered by MA. CONCLUSION: In 2010, nonprofit MA contracts received significantly higher star ratings than for-profit contracts. When comparing health plans in the future, the CMS should give increasing attention to for-profit plans with lower quality ratings and consider developing programs to assist newer and smaller plans in improving their care for Medicare beneficiaries. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.