Maryland's Global Budget Revenue Payment Model and Shifts in the Surgical Site of Care Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between the Global Budget Revenue (GBR) payment model and shifts to the outpatient setting for surgical procedures among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in Maryland versus control states. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The GBR model provides fixed global payments to hospitals to reduce spending growth and incentivize hospitals to reduce the costs of care while improving care quality. Since surgical care is a major contributor to hospital spending, the GBR model might accelerate the ongoing shift from the inpatient to the outpatient setting to generate additional savings. METHODS: A difference-in-differences (DiD) design was used to compare changes in surgical care settings over time from pre-GBR (2011-2013) to post-GBR (2014-2018) for Maryland versus control states for common surgeries that could be performed in the outpatient setting. A cross-sectional approach was used to compare the difference in care settings in 2018 for total knee arthroplasty which was on Medicare's Inpatient-Only List before then. RESULTS: We studied 47,542 surgical procedures from 44,410 beneficiaries in Maryland and control states. GBR's 2014 implementation was associated with an acceleration in the shift from inpatient to outpatient settings for surgical procedures in Maryland (DiD: 3.9 percentage points, 95% CI: 2.3, 5.4). Among patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty in 2018, the proportion of outpatient surgeries in Maryland was substantially higher than that in control states (difference: 27.6 percentage points, 95% CI: 25.6, 29.6). CONCLUSIONS: Implementing Maryland's GBR payment model was associated with an acceleration in the shift from inpatient to outpatient hospital settings for surgical procedures.

Breast cancer treatment receipt and the role of financial stress, health literacy, and numeracy among diverse breast cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: Disparities in breast cancer treatment for low-income and minority women are well documented. We examined economic hardship, health literacy, and numeracy and whether these factors were associated with differences in receipt of recommended treatment among breast cancer survivors. METHODS: During 2018-2020, we surveyed adult women diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer between 2013 and 2017 and received care at three centers in Boston and New York. We inquired about treatment receipt and treatment decision-making. We used Chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests to examine associations between financial strain, health literacy, numeracy (using validated measures), and treatment receipt by race and ethnicity. RESULTS: The 296 participants studied were 60.1% Non-Hispanic (NH) White, 25.0% NH Black, and 14.9% Hispanic; NH Black and Hispanic women had lower health literacy and numeracy and reported more financial concerns. Overall, 21 (7.1%) women declined at least one component of recommended therapy, without differences by race and ethnicity. Those not initiating recommended treatment(s) reported more worry about paying large medical bills (52.4% vs. 27.1%), worse household finances since diagnosis (42.9% vs. 22.2%), and more uninsurance before diagnosis (9.5% vs. 1.5%); all P < .05. No differences in treatment receipt by health literacy or numeracy were observed. CONCLUSION: In this diverse population of breast cancer survivors, rates of treatment initiation were high. Worry about paying medical bills and financial strain were frequent, especially among non-White participants. Although we observed associations of financial strain with treatment initiation, because few women declined treatments, understanding the scope of impact is limited. Our results highlight the importance of assessments of resource needs and allocation of support for breast cancer survivors. Novelty of this work includes the granular measures of financial strain and inclusion of health literacy and numeracy.

Implementation research: including breast examinations in a cervical cancer screening programme, Rwanda.

Objective: To evaluate whether integrating breast and cervical cancer screening in Rwanda's Women's Cancer Early Detection Program led to early breast cancer diagnoses in asymptomatic women. Methods: Launched in three districts in 2018-2019, the early detection programme offered clinical breast examination screening for all women receiving cervical cancer screening, and diagnostic breast examination for women with breast cancer symptoms. Women with abnormal breast examinations were referred to district hospitals and then to referral hospitals if needed. We examined how often clinics were held, patient volumes and number of referrals. We also examined intervals between referrals and visits to the next care level and, among women diagnosed with cancer, their initial reasons for seeking care. Findings: Health centres held clinics > 68% of the weeks. Overall, 9763 women received cervical cancer screening and clinical breast examination and 7616 received breast examination alone. Of 585 women referred from health centres, 436 (74.5%) visited the district hospital after a median of 9 days (interquartile range, IQR: 3-19). Of 200 women referred to referral hospitals, 179 (89.5%) attended after a median of 11 days (IQR: 4-18). Of 29 women diagnosed with breast cancer, 19 were ≥ 50 years and 23 had stage III or stage IV disease. All women with breast cancer whose reasons for seeking care were known (23 women) had experienced breast cancer symptoms. Conclusion: In the short-term, integrating clinical breast examination with cervical cancer screening was not associated with detection of early-stage breast cancer among asymptomatic women. Priority should be given to encouraging women to seek timely care for symptoms.

Quality of Medication Cost Conversations and Interest in Future Cost Conversations Among Older Adults.

BACKGROUND: Medication cost conversations occur less frequently than patients prefer, and it is unclear whether patients have positive experiences with them when they do occur. OBJECTIVE: To describe patients' experiences discussing their medication costs with their health care team. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Nationally representative survey fielded in the United States in 2022 (response rate = 48.5%). PATIENTS: 1020 adults over age 65. MEASUREMENTS: Primary measures were adapted from Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers Survey visit survey v4.0 and captured patients' experiences of medication cost conversations. Additional measures captured patients' interest in future cost conversations, the type of clinicians with whom they would be comfortable discussing costs, and sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: Among 1020 respondents who discussed medication prices with their health care team, 39.3% were 75 or older and 78.6% were non-Hispanic White. Forty-three percent of respondents indicated that their prior medication cost conversation was not easy to understand; 3% indicated their health care team was not respectful and 26% indicated their health care team was somewhat respectful during their last conversation; 48% indicated that there was not enough time. Those reporting that their prior discussion was not easy to understand or that their clinician was not definitely respectful were less likely to be interested in future discussions. Only 6% and 10% of respondents indicated being comfortable discussing medication prices with financial counselors or social workers, respectively. Few differences in responses were observed by survey participant characteristics. LIMITATIONS: This cross-sectional survey of prior experiences may be subject to recall bias. CONCLUSION: Among older adults who engaged in prior medication cost conversations, many report that these conversations are not easy to understand and that almost one-third of clinicians were somewhat or not respectful. Efforts to increase the frequency of medication cost conversations should consider parallel interventions to ensure the discussions are effective at informing prescribing decisions and reducing cost-related medication nonadherence.

Comparing adult-child and spousal caregiver burden and potential contributors.

BACKGROUND: Adult-children caring for a parent with cancer comprise a significant segment of caregivers. Yet less is known about adult-child caregivers, their burden, or caregivers' and patients' gender's impact, which may differ from the well-studied spousal caregiver. This knowledge gap may hinder efforts to ameliorate adult-children's caregiver burden. METHODS: We analyzed caregiver surveys from the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium, a multi-regional population-based study of patients with colorectal or lung cancer. Using t tests and multivariate regression models, we assessed whether adult-child and spousal caregivers' caregiving responsibilities and social/emotional and financial burdens differed and used structural equation models (SEMs) to examine mediating factors. RESULTS: Compared with spouses/partners (N = 1007), adult-children (N = 227) spent less time caregiving (14 vs 23 hours/week; P < .001), but experienced higher social/ emotional burden (P < .01). In models adjusted for objective caregiving burden measures and demographics, adult-children's social/emotional (P < .05) and financial burdens (P < .01) were greater than spouses'. Poor communication quality was associated with greater social/emotional burden for both groups (P < .05). SEMs indicated that gender concordance between caregivers and patients (eg, daughters caring for mothers) and caregiver employment increased the difference between adult-child and spouses' social/emotional burden, whereas caregiver-patient relationship quality reduced it. CONCLUSIONS: Adult-children spend less time caregiving than spouses/partners, but have higher social/emotional and financial caregiving burdens, partially due to adult-children's employment, caregiver-patients' gender concordance, and relationship quality. Gender concordance's contribution to greater social/emotional burden adds important context to prior findings, indicating female caregivers experience the most burden. Interventions that improve caregiver-patient communication may reduce both adult-child and spousal caregiver burden.

Survival outcomes following pregnancy or assisted reproductive technologies after breast cancer: A population-based study.

BACKGROUND: This study sought to determine the impact of pregnancy or assisted reproductive technologies (ART) on breast-cancer-specific survival among breast cancer survivors. METHODS: The authors performed a cohort study using a novel data linkage from the California Cancer Registry, the California birth cohort, and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System data sets. They performed risk-set matching in women with stages I-III breast cancer diagnosed between 2000 and 2012. For each pregnant woman, comparable women who were not pregnant at that point but were otherwise similar based on observed characteristics were matched at the time of pregnancy. After matching, Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association of pregnancy with breast-cancer-specific survival. We repeated these analyses for women who received ART. RESULTS: Among 30,021 women with breast cancer, 553 had a pregnancy and 189 attempted at least one cycle of ART. In Cox proportional hazards modeling, the pregnancy group had a higher 5-year disease-specific survival rate; 95.6% in the pregnancy group and 90.6% in the nonpregnant group (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24-0.77). In women with hormone receptor-positive cancer, we found similar results (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.2-0.91). In the ART analysis, there was no difference in survival between groups; the 5-year disease-specific survival rate was 96.9% in the ART group and 94.1% in the non-ART group (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.17-1.13). CONCLUSION: Pregnancy and ART are not associated with worse survival in women with breast cancer. LAY SUMMARY: We sought to determine the impact of pregnancy or assisted reproductive technologies (ART) among breast cancer survivors. We performed a study of 30,021 women by linking available data from California and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System. For each pregnant woman, we matched at the time of pregnancy comparable women who were not pregnant at that point but were otherwise similar based on observed characteristics. We repeated these analyses for women who received ART. We found that pregnancy and ART were not associated with worse survival.

Breast cancer knowledge and understanding treatment rationales among diverse breast cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: The degree to which breast cancer survivors know about their tumors and understand treatment rationales is not well understood. We sought to identify information gaps within a diverse sample and explore whether knowledge about breast cancer and treatment may impact care. METHODS: We conducted a one-time, interviewer-administered survey of women who were diagnosed with breast cancer during 2013-2017 and received care at one of three centers in Boston, MA, and New York, NY. We examined knowledge of breast cancer and treatment rationales, information preferences, and treatment receipt. RESULTS: During 2018-2020, we interviewed 313 women (American Association for Public Opinion Research Cooperation Rates 58.4-76.5% across centers) who were 56.9% White, 23.6% Black, 14.1% Hispanic, and 5.4% other. Among the 296 included in analyses, we observed high variability in knowledge of breast cancer and treatment rationales, with a substantial number demonstrating limited knowledge despite feeling highly informed; > 25% actively avoided information. Black and Hispanic (vs. White) women consistently knew less about their cancers. Lack of understanding of treatment rationales for chemotherapy, radiation, and hormonal therapy was common but not consistently different by race and ethnicity. Understanding treatment rationale (but not cancer knowledge) was associated with treatment initiation, but small sample sizes limited in-depth examination. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the need for enhanced informational support for breast cancer survivors, who are challenged with complex information during the decision-making process and beyond. More research is needed to understand how to further educate and empower diverse populations of patients with breast cancer.

Acceptability of a companion patient guide to support expert consensus guidelines on surveillance mammography in older breast cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: To support shared decision-making, patient-facing resources are needed to complement recently published guidelines on approaches for surveillance mammography in breast cancer survivors aged ≥ 75 or with < 10-year life expectancy. We created a patient guide to facilitate discussions about surveillance mammography in older breast cancer survivors. METHODS: The "Are Mammograms Still Right for Me?" guide estimates future ipsilateral and contralateral breast (in-breast) cancer risks, general health, and the potential benefits/harms of mammography, with prompts for discussion. We conducted in-clinic acceptability testing of the guide by survivors and their clinicians at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center, including two community practices. Patients and clinicians received the guide ahead of a clinic visit and surveyed patients (pre-/post-visit) and clinicians (post-visit). Acceptability was defined as ≥ 75% of patients and clinicians reporting that the guide (a) should be recommended to others, (b) is clear, (c) is helpful, and (d) contains a suitable amount of information. We also elicited feedback on usability and mammography intentions. RESULTS: We enrolled 45 patients and their 21 clinicians. Among those responding in post-visit surveys, 33/37 (89%) patients and 15/16 (94%) clinicians would recommend the guide to others; 33/37 (89%) patients and 15/16 (94%) clinicians felt everything/most things were clear. All other pre-specified acceptability criteria were met. Most patients reported strong intentions for mammography (100% pre-visit, 98% post-visit). CONCLUSION: Oncology clinicians and older breast cancer survivors found a guide to inform mammography decision-making acceptable and clear. A multisite clinical trial is needed to assess the guide's impact mammography utilization. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT03865654, posted March 7, 2019.

Geographic Variability, Time Trends and Association of Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging with Surgical Outcomes for Elderly United States Men with Prostate Cancer: A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare Analysis.

PURPOSE: Our goal was to assess patterns of adoption and population-level outcomes of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and association with surgical outcomes across a sample of U.S. elderly. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This population-based retrospective study used Surveillance Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked data from 2003-2016 to identify men receiving prostatectomy for prostate cancer. We characterized the proportion of men receiving preoperative MRI in each year and in each hospital referral region (HRR). A 2-stage instrumental variable analysis was performed to assess the association of preoperative MRI with margin status, surgical complications and further cancer-directed therapies. RESULTS: A total of 19,369 men received prostatectomy in 72 HRRs; the mean age was 70.2 years (SD 3.2). The proportion of men receiving a preoperative MRI increased from 2.9% to 28.2% over the study period and ranged from 0.0% to 28.8% in the different HRRs. In our instrumental variable analysis, preoperative MRI was associated with lower odds of positive surgical margin (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72-0.97, p=0.01) lower odds of blood transfusions at 30 and 90 days (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.38-0.83, p=0.003 and OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.41-0.84, p=0.004) but higher odds of further treatments (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.32-1.70, p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Given that a minority of men receive presurgical MRIs with marked geographic variability, the association of MRI with lower odds of positive surgical margin suggests that efforts to support the dissemination of prostate MRI may improve surgical outcomes-but may come with a tendency for more resource-intensive cancer care overall.

Challenges and Opportunities in Engaging Primary Care Providers in BRCA Testing: Results from the BFOR Study.

PURPOSE: Engaging primary care providers (PCPs) in BRCA1/2 testing and results disclosure would increase testing access. The BRCA Founder OutReach (BFOR) study is a prospective study of BRCA1/2 founder mutation screening among individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish descent that sought to involve participants' PCPs in results disclosure. We used quantitative and qualitative methods to evaluate PCPs' perspectives, knowledge, and experience disclosing results in BFOR. METHODS: Among PCPs nominated by BFOR participants to disclose BRCA1/2 results, we assessed the proportion agreeing to disclose. To examine PCP's perspectives, knowledge, and willingness to disclose results, we surveyed 501 nominated PCPs. To examine PCPs' experiences disclosing results in BFOR, we surveyed 101 PCPs and conducted 10 semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: In the BFOR study overall, PCPs agreed to disclose their patient's results 40.5% of the time. Two hundred thirty-four PCPs (46.7%) responded to the initial survey. Responding PCPs were more likely to agree to disclose patients' results than non-responders (57.3% vs. 28.6%, p<0.001). Among all respondents, most felt very (19.7%) or somewhat (39.1%) qualified to share results. Among PCPs declining to disclose, insufficient knowledge was the most common reason. In multivariable logistic regression, feeling qualified was the only variable significantly associated with agreeing to disclose results (OR 6.53, 95% CI 3.31, 12.88). In post-disclosure surveys (response rate=55%), PCPs reported largely positive experiences. Interview findings suggested that although PCPs valued the study-provided educational materials, they desired better integration of results and decision support into workflows. CONCLUSION: Barriers exist to incorporating BRCA1/2 testing into primary care. Most PCPs declined to disclose their patients' BFOR results, although survey respondents were motivated and had positive disclosure experiences. PCP training and integrated decision support could be beneficial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03351803), November 24, 2017.

Uncertainty in lung cancer stage for survival estimation via set-valued classification.

The difficulty in identifying cancer stage in health care claims data has limited oncology quality of care and health outcomes research. We fit prediction algorithms for classifying lung cancer stage into three classes (stages I/II, stage III, and stage IV) using claims data, and then demonstrate a method for incorporating the classification uncertainty in survival estimation. Leveraging set-valued classification and split conformal inference, we show how a fixed algorithm developed in one cohort of data may be deployed in another, while rigorously accounting for uncertainty from the initial classification step. We demonstrate this process using SEER cancer registry data linked with Medicare claims data.

Long-term follow-up of smokers following lung and colorectal cancer diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Continued smoking after a cancer diagnosis limits the effectiveness of treatment, increases the risk of cancer recurrence or secondary malignancies, and is associated with poorer quality of life and survival. A cancer diagnosis may provide a meaningful timepoint for quitting, but the prevalence and characteristics of continued smoking through survivorship are poorly understood. METHODS: In the multi-regional Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) cohort, we examined smoking rates and factors associated with continued smoking at long-term follow-up among lung and colorectal cancer patients. This paper builds upon previous CanCORS participant data addressing quit rates and associated characteristics at baseline and 5 months post-diagnosis. RESULTS: At long-term follow-up (median 7.3 years post-diagnosis [IQR = 5.9-8.7]), 16.7% of lung cancer and 11.6% of colorectal cancer survivors continued to smoke combustible cigarettes. Factors independently associated with continued smoking at long-term follow-up included being male, younger, not married or partnered, having Medicare, Medicaid/other public or no insurance, more depression symptoms, smoking more cigarettes per day, and having a history of lung disease (p < .05). Continued smoking did not vary by lung vs. colorectal cancer diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Of active smokers at the time of diagnosis, an important minority of lung and colorectal cancer survivors continued to smoke well into survivorship. Understanding characteristics associated with continued smoking after a cancer diagnosis may help inform the development of tobacco treatment programs for cancer patients and survivors. IMPLICATIONS FOR SURVIVORS: While addressing smoking cessation at the time of diagnosis is critical to ensure better long-term treatment outcomes and quality of life, it is essential to continue smoking cessation discussions and efforts throughout care and survivorship.

Racial and ethnic disparities in cancer caregiver burden and potential sociocultural mediators.

PURPOSE: Black and Hispanic cancer patients experience many worse care quality and health outcomes than non-Hispanic White patients, yet less is known about disparities in caregiving responsibilities and burden among cancer caregivers. METHODS: We analyzed cross-sectional data from Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance consortium, a large multi-regional, population-based study of colorectal and lung cancer patients and their caregivers. Bivariate and multivariable regression models assessed differences by racial and ethnic groups in caregiving responsibilities and social/emotional, financial, and health burdens. Structural equation models estimated whether sociocultural resources (social support, caregiving preparedness, caregiver-patient communication) mediated racial and ethnic differences in caregiver burden. RESULTS: Compared with non-Hispanic White caregivers (N = 1,169), Black (N = 220) and Hispanic (N = 84) caregivers spent more time caregiving (18 vs. 26 vs. 26 h/week; P < 0.001), completed more tasks (6.8 vs. 7.6 vs. 8.7; P < 0.05), and reported greater financial burden (P = 0.02). Yet, compared to non-Hispanic Whites, Hispanic caregivers reported similar social/emotional and health burdens, while Black caregivers reported lower levels (P < 0.01). In adjusted models, disparities in financial burden disappeared, and Hispanic caregivers had less health burden than non-Hispanic White caregivers (P = 0.01). Social support and/or caregiving preparedness partially mediated the Black-White gap for all three types of burdens. CONCLUSIONS: Black and Hispanic cancer caregivers perform more caregiving and report greater financial burden than non-Hispanic White caregivers, but experience lower or equivalent social/emotional and health burdens. Racial differences in caregivers' social support and caregiving preparedness levels partially explain Black-White burden differences. Research and policy should address Black and Hispanic caregivers' increased financial burden.

Prescription Drug Spending in Fee-for-Service Medicare, 2008-2019.

Importance: Prescription drug spending is a topic of increased interest to the public and policymakers. However, prior assessments have been limited by focusing on retail spending (Part D-covered drugs), omitting clinician-administered (Part B-covered) drug spending, or focusing on all fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, regardless of their enrollment into prescription drug coverage. Objective: To estimate the proportion of health care spending contributed by prescription drugs and to assess spending for retail and clinician-administered prescriptions. Design, Setting, and Participants: Descriptive, serial, cross-sectional analysis of a 20% random sample of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in the United States from 2008 to 2019 who were continuously enrolled in Parts A (hospital), B (medical), and D (prescription drug) benefits, and not in Medicare Advantage. Exposure: Calendar year. Main Outcomes and Measures: Net spending on retail (Part D-covered) and clinician-administered (Part B-covered) prescription drugs; prescription drug spending (spending on Part B-covered and Part D-covered drugs) as a percentage of total per-capita health care spending. Measures were adjusted for inflation and for postsale rebates (for Part D-covered drugs). Results: There were 3 201 284 beneficiaries enrolled in Parts A, B, and D in 2008 and 4 502 718 in 2019. In 2019, beneficiaries had a mean (SD) age of 71.7 (12.0) years, documented sex was female for 57.7%, and 69.5% had no low-income subsidies. Total per-capita spending was $16 345 in 2008 and $20 117 in 2019. Comparing 2008 with 2019, per-capita Part A spending was $7106 (95% CI, $7084-$7128) vs $7120 (95% CI, $7098-$7141), Part B drug spending was $720 (95% CI, $713-$728) vs $1641 (95% CI, $1629-$1653), Part B nondrug spending was $5113 (95% CI, $5105-$5122) vs $6702 (95% CI, $6692-$6712), and Part D net spending was $3122 (95% CI, $3117-$3127) vs $3477 (95% CI, $3466-$3489). The proportion of total annual spending attributed to prescription drugs increased from 24.0% in 2008 to 27.2% in 2019, net of estimated rebates and discounts. Conclusions and Relevance: In 2019, spending on prescription drugs represented approximately 27% of total spending among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Part D, even after accounting for postsale rebates.

Survival after Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery was adopted as an alternative to laparotomy (open surgery) for radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer before high-quality evidence regarding its effect on survival was available. We sought to determine the effect of minimally invasive surgery on all-cause mortality among women undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. METHODS: We performed a cohort study involving women who underwent radical hysterectomy for stage IA2 or IB1 cervical cancer during the 2010-2013 period at Commission on Cancer-accredited hospitals in the United States. The study used inverse probability of treatment propensity-score weighting. We also conducted an interrupted time-series analysis involving women who underwent radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer during the 2000-2010 period, using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program database. RESULTS: In the primary analysis, 1225 of 2461 women (49.8%) underwent minimally invasive surgery. Women treated with minimally invasive surgery were more often white, privately insured, and from ZIP Codes with higher socioeconomic status, had smaller, lower-grade tumors, and were more likely to have received a diagnosis later in the study period than women who underwent open surgery. Over a median follow-up of 45 months, the 4-year mortality was 9.1% among women who underwent minimally invasive surgery and 5.3% among those who underwent open surgery (hazard ratio, 1.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.22 to 2.22; P=0.002 by the log-rank test). Before the adoption of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (i.e., in the 2000-2006 period), the 4-year relative survival rate among women who underwent radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer remained stable (annual percentage change, 0.3%; 95% CI, -0.1 to 0.6). The adoption of minimally invasive surgery coincided with a decline in the 4-year relative survival rate of 0.8% (95% CI, 0.3 to 1.4) per year after 2006 (P=0.01 for change of trend). CONCLUSIONS: In an epidemiologic study, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated with shorter overall survival than open surgery among women with stage IA2 or IB1 cervical carcinoma. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others.).

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Older Adult Oncology, Version 1.2021.

The NCCN Guidelines for Older Adult Oncology address specific issues related to the management of cancer in older adults, including screening and comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA), assessing the risks and benefits of treatment, preventing or decreasing complications from therapy, and managing patients deemed to be at high risk for treatment-related toxicity. CGA is a multidisciplinary, in-depth evaluation that assesses the objective health of the older adult while evaluating multiple domains, which may affect cancer prognosis and treatment choices. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines providing specific practical framework for the use of CGA when evaluating older adults with cancer.

Oncologists' perceptions of the usefulness of cancer survivorship care plan components.

PURPOSE: The Institute of Medicine recommends that cancer patients receive survivorship care plans (SCP) summarizing information important to the individual's long-term care. The various components of SCPs have varying levels of evidence supporting their impact. We surveyed medical oncologists to better understand how they perceived the relative value of different SCP components. METHODS: Medical oncologists caring for patients in diverse US practice settings were surveyed (357 respondents; participation rate 52.9%) about their perceptions of the usefulness of various components of SCPs to both patients and primary care physicians (PCPs). RESULTS: Oncologists perceived treatment summaries as "very useful" for PCPs but were less likely to perceive them as "very useful" for patients (55% vs. 40%, p < 0.001). Information about the psychological effects of cancer (41% vs. 29%; p < 0.001) and healthy behaviors (67% vs. 41%; p < 0.001) were considered more useful to patients than to PCPs. From 3 to 20% of oncologists believed that any given component of the SCP was not useful to either PCPs or patients. Oncologists who perceived SCPs to be more useful tended to be female or to practice in settings with a fully implemented electronic health record. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologists do not perceive all components of SCPs to be equally useful to both patients and PCPs. To be successfully implemented, the SCP should be efficiently tailored to the unique needs and knowledge of patients and their PCPs. A minority of oncologists appear to be late adopters, suggesting that some resistance to the adoption of SCPs remains.

Association of Participation in the Oncology Care Model With Medicare Payments, Utilization, Care Delivery, and Quality Outcomes.

IMPORTANCE: In 2016, the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services initiated the Oncology Care Model (OCM), an alternative payment model designed to improve the value of care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries with cancer. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of the OCM with changes in Medicare spending, utilization, quality, and patient experience during the OCM's first 3 years. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Exploratory difference-in-differences study comparing care during 6-month chemotherapy episodes in OCM participating practices and propensity-matched comparison practices initiated before (January 2014 through June 2015) and after (July 2016 through December 2018) the start of the OCM. Participants included Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with cancer treated at these practices through June 2019. EXPOSURES: OCM participation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Total episode payments (Medicare spending for Parts A, B, and D, not including monthly payments for enhanced oncology services); utilization and payments for hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) visits, office visits, chemotherapy, supportive care, and imaging; quality (chemotherapy-associated hospitalizations and ED visits, timely chemotherapy, end-of-life care, and survival); and patient experiences. RESULTS: Among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, 483 319 beneficiaries (mean age, 73.0 [SD, 8.7] years; 60.1% women; 987 332 episodes) were treated at 201 OCM participating practices, and 557 354 beneficiaries (mean age, 72.9 [SD, 9.0] years; 57.4% women; 1 122 597 episodes) were treated at 534 comparison practices. From the baseline period, total episode payments increased from $28 681 for OCM episodes and $28 421 for comparison episodes to $33 211 for OCM episodes and $33 249 for comparison episodes during the intervention period (difference in differences, -$297; 90% CI, -$504 to -$91), less than the mean $704 Monthly Enhanced Oncology Services payments. Relative decreases in total episode payments were primarily for Part B nonchemotherapy drug payments (difference in differences, -$145; 90% CI, -$218 to -$72), especially supportive care drugs (difference in differences, -$150; 90% CI, -$216 to -$84). The OCM was associated with statistically significant relative reductions in total episode payments among higher-risk episodes (difference in differences, -$503; 90% CI, -$802 to -$204) and statistically significant relative increases in total episode payments among lower-risk episodes (difference in differences, $151; 90% CI, $39-$264). The OCM was not significantly associated with differences in hospitalizations, ED visits, or survival. Of 22 measures of utilization, 10 measures of quality, and 7 measures of care experiences, only 5 were significantly different. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this exploratory analysis, the OCM was significantly associated with modest payment reductions during 6-month episodes for Medicare beneficiaries receiving chemotherapy for cancer in the first 3 years of the OCM that did not offset the monthly payments for enhanced oncology services. There were no statistically significant differences for most utilization, quality, and patient experience outcomes.

Patient and proxy reports regarding the experience of treatment decision-making in cancer care.

OBJECTIVE: Shared decision-making, including the elicitation of patient preferences regarding treatment decisions, is considered part of high-quality cancer care. However, patients may not be able to self-report due to illness, and therefore proxy reports may be used. We sought to determine the difference between proxy and patient reports about patient decisions and preferences among patients who received or were scheduled for chemotherapy using data from a large, population-based survey of patients with incident lung or colorectal cancer. METHODS: Of 3573 patients who received or were scheduled for chemotherapy, 3108 self-reported and 465 had proxies reporting on their behalf about preferred and actual decision roles regarding this treatment. Preferred and actual decision roles were assessed using the Control Preferences Scale, and categorized as shared, patient-controlled, or doctor-controlled. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the association between patient and proxy responses and whether preferences were met. The models adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical variables and patient/proxy-reported health status. RESULTS: Sixty-three percent of all respondents reported actual roles in decisions that matched their preferred roles (role attainment). Proxies and patients were similarly likely to report role attainment (65% vs 63%). In adjusted analyses, proxies were more likely report role attainment (OR = 1.27, 95%CI = 1.02-1.59), but this difference was smaller if health variables were excluded from the model (OR = 1.14, 95%CI = 0.92-1.41). CONCLUSION: Most patients' preferences for treatment participation were met. Surveys from proxies appear to yield small differences on the reports of attainment of preferred treatment decision-making roles in cancer care vs surveys from patients.