Adverse events after outpatient colonoscopy in the Medicare population.

BACKGROUND: Although use of colonoscopy has increased substantially among elderly Medicare beneficiaries, no one has described colonoscopy-related adverse events in a representative sample of Medicare patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine risk for adverse events after outpatient colonoscopy in elderly patients. DESIGN: Population-based, matched cohort study. SETTING: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry areas. PATIENTS: Random 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries, age 66 to 95 years, who underwent outpatient colonoscopy between 1 July 2001 and 31 October 2005 (n = 53 220), matched with beneficiaries who did not have colonoscopy. MEASUREMENTS: Medicare claims were used to measure the rate of serious gastrointestinal events (bleeding and perforation), other gastrointestinal events, and cardiovascular events resulting in a hospitalization or emergency department visit within 30 days after colonoscopy compared with matched beneficiaries who did not have colonoscopy. Logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted predictive risks for adverse events and to assess whether these events varied by age, comorbid conditions, or type of colonoscopy. RESULTS: Persons undergoing colonoscopy had a higher risk for adverse gastrointestinal events than their matched group. Rates of adverse events after colonoscopy increased with age. Patients having polypectomy had higher risk for all adverse events compared with their matched group and with the screening and diagnostic colonoscopy groups. Comorbid conditions increased the risk for adverse events. Patients with a history of stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, atrial fibrillation, or congestive heart failure had significantly higher risk for serious gastrointestinal events. LIMITATION: The analysis relied on the diagnosis and procedure codes recorded on the Medicare claims. CONCLUSION: Risks for adverse events after outpatient colonoscopy among elderly Medicare beneficiaries were low; however, they increased with age with specific comorbid conditions and depending on whether polypectomy was done. These data may inform decisions on whether to perform colonoscopy in persons of advanced age or those with comorbid conditions.

Comparison of approaches for estimating incidence costs of care for colorectal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Estimates of the costs of medical care vary across patient populations, data sources, and methods. The objective of this study was to compare 3 approaches for estimating the incidence costs of colorectal cancer (CRC) care using similar patient populations, but different data sources and methods. METHODS: We used 2 data sources, linked SEER-Medicare and Medicare claims alone, to identify newly diagnosed CRC patients aged 65 and older and estimated their healthcare costs during the observation period, 1998 to 2002. Controls were matched by sex, age-group, and geographic location. We compared mean net costs, measured as the difference in total cost between cases and controls, for: (1) a SEER-Medicare cohort, (2) a Medicare claims alone cohort, and (3) a modeled phase of care approach using linked SEER-Medicare data. The SEER-Medicare cohort approach was considered the reference. RESULTS: We found considerable variability across approaches for estimating net costs of care in CRC patients. In the first year after diagnosis, mean net costs were $32,648 (95% CI: $31,826 and $33,470) in the SEER-Medicare cohort. The other approaches understated mean net costs in year 1 by about 16%. Mean net 5-year costs of care were $37,227 (95% CI: $35,711 and $38,744) in the SEER-Medicare cohort, and $30,310 (95% CI: $25,894 and $34,726) in the claims only approach, with the largest difference in the 65 to 69 age group. Mean net 5-year costs of care were more similar to the reference in the modeled phase of care approach ($37,701 [range: $36,972 and $38,446]). Differences from the SEER-Medicare cohort estimates reflect misclassification of prevalent cancer patients as newly diagnosed patients in the Medicare claims only approach, and differences in years of data and assumptions about comparison groups in the modeled phase of care approach. CONCLUSIONS: CRC incidence cost estimates vary substantially depending on the strategy and data source for identifying newly diagnosed cancer patients and methods for estimating longitudinal costs. Our findings may inform estimation of costs for other cancers as well as other diseases.

Comparison of approaches for estimating prevalence costs of care for cancer patients: what is the impact of data source?

BACKGROUND: National prevalence costs of medical care can be key inputs in health policy decisions. Cost estimates vary across data sources, patient populations, and methods, however, the objective of this study was to compare 3 approaches for estimating the prevalence costs of colorectal cancer (CRC) care using different data sources, but similar patient populations and methods. METHODS: We identified prevalent CRC patients aged 65 and older from: (1) linked Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registry-Medicare data, (2) Medicare claims only, and (3) the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). Controls were matched by sex, age-group, and geographic location. Mean per person total and net costs, measured as the difference between patients and controls, were compared for each approach during a similar observation period. The SEER-Medicare approach was our reference, and we evaluated the impact of patient selection criteria with sensitivity analyses. Aggregate prevalence estimates were also compared. RESULTS: We found considerable variability across the different approaches to estimating prevalence costs of CRC. Mean net annual per person estimates in the SEER-Medicare reference were $5341 (95% CI: $5243, $5439), compared with $8736 (95% CI: $8203, $9269) for the Medicare claims only and $11,614 (95% CI: $7566, $15,663) for the MEPS. Aggregate national estimates of net prevalence costs of CRC in 2004 ranged from $4524 million, using the SEER-Medicare approach, to $9629 million, using the MEPS approach. Estimates varied by data source based on the payors included and identification of prevalent CRC patients. CONCLUSIONS: CRC prevalence cost estimates vary substantially depending on the data sources. Our findings have implications for estimating prevalence costs for other cancers and other diseases without registry systems that can be used to identify newly diagnosed individuals as well as those diagnosed less recently.

Overview of the SEER--Medicare Health Outcomes Survey linked dataset.

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)--Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (MHOS) links cancer registry data with survey data from Medicare managed care enrollees. The linked file includes clinical information about the cancer with self-reported data about symptoms, functional status and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) for Medicare managed care enrollees. This article provides a description of the SEER-MHOS data as a tool to study cancer among Medicare enrollees. In order to highlight the strengths of the database, we also present some descriptive statistics from the database.

Disparities in HRQOL of cancer survivors and non-cancer managed care enrollees.

Health plan member survey and cancer registry data were analyzed to understand differences in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among cancer survivors and those without a cancer diagnosis enrolled in Medicare managed care. HRQOL was measured by the physical component summary score (PCS) and mental component summary score (MCS) of the Medical Outcomes Study SF-36, version 1.0. Cancer survivors enrolled in Medicare managed care have lower PCS and MCS scores than those enrollees who have never been diagnosed with cancer. PCS scores are worse than the MCS scores, and lowest for cancer survivors who are Hispanic, Medicaid enrollees, and those who have low income or education. HRQOL disparities are greatest among cancer survivors diagnosed with lung cancer and those with multiple primary cancer diagnoses. The influence of these variables persists when controlling for multiple variables including comorbidity status. Health plans should focus on addressing these disparities.

Revisiting the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results Cancer Registry and Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (SEER-MHOS) Linked Data Resource for Patient-Reported Outcomes Research in Older Adults with Cancer.

Researchers and clinicians are increasingly recognizing the value of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data to better characterize people's health and experiences with illness and care. Considering the rising prevalence of cancer in adults aged 65 and older, PRO data are particularly relevant for older adults with cancer, who often require complex cancer care and have additional comorbid conditions. A data linkage between the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) cancer registry and the Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (MHOS) was created through a partnership between the National Cancer Institute and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that created the opportunity to examine PROs in Medicare Advantage enrollees with and without cancer. The December 2013 linkage of SEER-MHOS data included the linked data for 12 cohorts, bringing the number of individuals in the linked data set to 95,723 with cancer and 1,510,127 without. This article reviews the features of the resource and provides information on some descriptive characteristics of the individuals in the data set (health-related quality of life, body mass index, fall risk management, number of unhealthy days in the past month). Individuals without (n=258,108) and with (n=3,440) cancer (1,311 men with prostate cancer, 982 women with breast cancer, 689 with colorectal cancer, 458 with lung cancer) were included in the current descriptive analysis. Given increasing longevity, advances in effective therapies and earlier detection, and population growth, the number of individuals aged 65 and older with cancer is expected to reach more than 12 million by 2020. SEER-MHOS provides population-level, self-reported, cancer registry-linked data for person-centered surveillance research on this growing population.

Development of a prognostic model for six-month mortality in older adults with declining health.

CONTEXT: Estimation of six-month prognosis is essential in hospice referral decisions, but accurate, evidence-based tools to assist in this task are lacking. OBJECTIVES: To develop a new prognostic model, the Patient-Reported Outcome Mortality Prediction Tool (PROMPT), for six-month mortality in community-dwelling elderly patients. METHODS: We used data from the Medicare Health Outcomes Survey linked to vital status information. Respondents were 65 years old or older, with self-reported declining health over the past year (n=21,870), identified from four Medicare Health Outcomes Survey cohorts (1998-2000, 1999-2001, 2000-2002, and 2001-2003). A logistic regression model was derived to predict six-month mortality, using sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL), ascertained by measures of activities of daily living and the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 Health Survey; k-fold cross-validation was used to evaluate model performance, which was compared with existing prognostic tools. RESULTS: The PROMPT incorporated 11 variables, including four HRQOL domains: general health perceptions, activities of daily living, social functioning, and energy/fatigue. The model demonstrated good discrimination (c-statistic=0.75) and calibration. Overall diagnostic accuracy was superior to existing tools. At cut points of 10%-70%, estimated six-month mortality risk sensitivity and specificity ranged from 0.8% to 83.4% and 51.1% to 99.9%, respectively, and positive likelihood ratios at all mortality risk cut points ≥40% exceeded 5.0. Corresponding positive and negative predictive values were 23.1%-64.1% and 85.3%-94.5%. Over 50% of patients with estimated six-month mortality risk ≥30% died within 12 months. CONCLUSION: The PROMPT, a new prognostic model incorporating HRQOL, demonstrates promising performance and potential value for hospice referral decisions. More work is needed to evaluate the model.

Associations between selected biomarkers and prognosis in a population-based pancreatic cancer tissue microarray.

Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Prognostic biomarkers are lacking, and treatment has limited effect on survival. Tissues from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries (Iowa, Hawaii, and Los Angeles) were used to build a tissue microarray of 161 pancreatic tumors (113 resections and 48 biopsies). Proportional hazard models adjusted for age, race, sex, stage, time-period of diagnosis, and treatment. Associations were examined between markers (MUC1, MUC2, MUC5AC, synaptophysin, chromogranin, neuron specific enolase, epidermal growth factor receptor, HER2, CD5, CD138, CK5/6, CK19, CK20, and p53) and survival time from diagnosis. After adjusting for covariates, borderline statistically significant associations were seen between expression of each of the three mucins (MUC1, MUC2, and MUC5AC) and shorter survival time. The associations strengthened for 154 (96%) adenocarcinomas, particularly the 120 (75%) well-differentiated to moderately differentiated ductal adenocarcinomas, a tumor type that occurred more often in the cohort among White cases than cases of other racial origin (P<0.01). For differentiated ductal adenocarcinomas, associations with shorter survival time were seen for expression of all three mucins combined versus other mucin expression patterns (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.6) and for MUC2(+) versus MUC2(-) expression (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-2.4). Mucin gene expression, particularly MUC2 expression, may have prognostic value for differentiated adenocarcinomas. Tumor histologies differed in this and Japanese cohorts. The tissue microarray is available to evaluate other biomarkers. Tissue-based surveillance can be used to monitor tumor histology in populations and facilitate applied research.

Cost of care for elderly cancer patients in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Timely estimates of the costs of care for cancer patients are an important element in the formulation of national cancer programs and policies. We estimated net costs of care for elderly cancer patients in the United States for the 18 most prevalent cancers and for all other tumor sites combined. METHODS: We used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare files to identify 718,907 cancer patients and 1,623,651 noncancer control subjects. Within each tumor site, noncancer control subjects were matched to patients by sex, age group, geographic location, and phase of care (ie, initial, continuing, and last year of life). Costs of care were estimated for each phase by use of Medicare claims data from January 1, 1999, through December 31, 2003. Per-patient net costs of care were applied to the 5-year survival of cancer patients by phase of care to estimate 5-year costs of care and extrapolated to the elderly US Medicare population diagnosed with cancer in 2004. RESULTS: Across tumor sites, mean net costs of care were highest in the initial and last year of life phases of care and lowest in the continuing phase. Mean 5-year net costs varied widely, from less than $20,000 for patients with breast cancer or melanoma of the skin to more than $40,000 for patients with brain or other nervous system, esophageal, gastric, or ovarian cancers or lymphoma. For elderly cancer patients diagnosed in 2004, aggregate 5-year net costs of care to Medicare were estimated to be approximately $21.1 billion. Costs to Medicare were highest for lung, colorectal, and prostate cancers, reflecting underlying incidence, stage distribution at diagnosis, survival, and phase-specific costs for these tumor sites. CONCLUSIONS: The costs of cancer care to Medicare are substantial and vary by tumor site, phase of care, stage at diagnosis, and survival.

Evaluation of trends in the cost of initial cancer treatment.

BACKGROUND: Despite reports of increases in the cost of cancer treatment, little is known about how costs of cancer treatment have changed over time and what services have contributed to the increases. METHODS: We used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database for 306,709 persons aged 65 and older and diagnosed with breast, lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer between 1991 and 2002 to assess the number of patients assigned to initial cancer care, from 2 months before diagnosis to 12 months after diagnosis, and mean annual Medicare payments for this care according to cancer type and type of treatment. Mutually exclusive treatment categories were cancer-related surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and other hospitalizations during the period of initial cancer care. Linear regression models were used to assess temporal trends in the percentage of patients receiving treatment and costs for those treated. We extrapolated our results based on the SEER data to the US Medicare population to estimate national Medicare payments by cancer site and treatment category. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: For patients diagnosed in 2002, Medicare paid an average of $39,891 for initial care for each lung cancer patient, $41 134 for each colorectal cancer patient, and $20,964 for each breast cancer patient, corresponding to inflation-adjusted increases from 1991 of $7139, $5345, and $4189, respectively. During the same interval, the mean Medicare payment for initial care for prostate cancer declined by $196 to $18261 in 2002. Costs for any hospitalization accounted for the largest portion of payments for all cancers. Chemotherapy use increased markedly for all cancers between 1991 and 2002, as did radiation therapy use (except for colorectal cancers). Total 2002 Medicare payments for initial care for these four cancers exceeded $6.7 billion, with colorectal and lung cancers being the most costly overall. CONCLUSIONS: The statistically significant increase in costs of initial cancer treatment reflects more patients receiving surgery and adjuvant therapy and rising prices for these treatments. These trends are likely to continue in the near future, although more efficient targeting of costly therapies could mitigate the overall economic impact of this trend.

Current and future utilization of services from medical oncologists.

PURPOSE: There is limited information on the current use of oncologists and projections of future need. This analysis assesses current utilization patterns and projects the number of people with cancer and their use of oncologists' services through 2020. METHODS: Data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registries and Medicare physician claims were used to estimate oncologists' services from 1998 to 2003. We estimated the portion of patients with cancer who saw an oncologist, the mean number of visits, and the clinical setting where care was provided. Care was divided into initial, continuing, and last-year-of-life phases. Projections for future number of patients with cancer and visits were calculated by applying incidence and prevalence rates derived from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data to census population projections through 2020. RESULTS: The percentage of patients who saw an oncologist was 47% during the initial-care phase, 36% during the continuing-care phase, and 70% in the last year of life. The number of visits varied by age, sex, cancer site, and phase. The total number of cancer patients in the United States is projected to increase 55%, from 11.8 million in 2005 to 18.2 million in 2020. Total oncology visits are projected to increase from 38 million in 2005 to 57 million in 2020. CONCLUSION: Utilization of oncologists' services will increase appreciably between 2005 and 2020; this will be driven predominantly by an increase in survivors of cancer and by the aging of the population. The United States may face an acute shortage of medical oncologists if efforts are not taken to meet this growing need.

Patient time costs associated with cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Although costs of medical care for cancer have been investigated extensively, patient time costs associated with cancer care have rarely been estimated systematically. In this study, we estimated patient time costs associated with cancer care in patients aged 65 years and older in the United States. METHODS: We identified 763,527 patients with breast, colorectal, corpus uteri, gastric, head and neck, lung, melanoma of the skin, ovary, prostate, renal, and urinary bladder cancers from linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare files and 1,145,159 noncancer control subjects among Medicare enrollees who were matched by sex, age-group, and geographic location. Frequency of service use was calculated by category for patients and control subjects using Medicare claims data from 1995 to 2001. For each service category, time estimates were combined with service frequency and an hourly value of patient time. Net patient time costs were summed in the initial, continuing, and last-year-of-life phases of care for each tumor site. Net time cost estimates for the initial phase of care were applied to national estimates of numbers of new cancers in 2005 to obtain national time costs for the initial phase of care. RESULTS: Net patient time costs during the initial phase of care ranged from 271 dollars (95% confidence interval [CI] = 213 dollars to 329 dollars) and 842 dollars (95% CI = 806 dollars to 878 dollars) for melanoma of the skin and prostate cancer, respectively, to 5348 dollars (95% CI = 4978 dollars to 5718 dollars) and 5605 dollars (95% CI = 5273 dollars to 5937 dollars) for gastric and ovarian cancers, respectively. Net patient time costs for care during the last year of life ranged from 1509 dollars (95% CI = 1343 dollars to 1675 dollars) for melanoma of the skin to 7799 dollars (95% CI = 7433 dollars to 8165 dollars), 7435 dollars (95% CI = 7207 dollars to 7663 dollars), and 7388 dollars (95% CI = 7018 dollars to 7758 dollars) for gastric, lung, and ovarian cancers, respectively. In 2005, patient time costs for the initial phase of care were 2.3 billion dollars. CONCLUSIONS: Patient time costs for cancer care in the United States are substantial and vary by tumor site and phase of care, likely reflecting differences in stage at diagnosis and availability and intensity of treatment.

Effect of surgeon specialty on processes of care and outcomes for ovarian cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: For many diseases, specialized care (i.e., care rendered by a specialist) has been associated with superior-quality care (i.e., better outcomes). We examined associations between physician specialty and outcomes in a population-based cohort of elderly ovarian cancer surgery patients. METHODS: We analyzed the Medicare claims, by physician specialty, of all women aged 65 years or older who underwent surgery for pathologically confirmed invasive epithelial ovarian cancer between January 1, 1992, and December 31, 1999, while living in an area monitored by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program to assess important care processes (i.e., the appropriate extent of surgery and use of adjuvant chemotherapy) and outcomes (i.e., surgical complications, ostomy rates, and survival). All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Among 3067 ovarian cancer patients who underwent surgery, 1017 patients (33%) were treated by a gynecologic oncologist, 1377 patients (45%) by a general gynecologist, and 673 patients (22%) by a general surgeon. Among patients with stage I or II disease, those treated by a gynecologic oncologist (60%) were more likely to undergo lymph node dissection than those treated by a general gynecologist (36%) or a general surgeon (16%). Patients with stage III or IV disease were more likely to undergo a debulking procedure if the initial surgery was performed by a gynecologic oncologist (58%) than by a general gynecologist (51%) or a general surgeon (40%; P < .001) and were more likely to receive postoperative chemotherapy when operated on by a gynecologic oncologist (79%) or a general gynecologist (76%) than by a general surgeon (62%, P < .001). Survival among patients operated on by gynecologic oncologists (hazard ratio [HR] of death from any cause = 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.76 to 0.95) or general gynecologists (HR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.78 to 0.96) was better than that among patients operated on by general surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: Ovarian cancer patients treated by gynecologic oncologists had marginally better outcomes than those treated by general gynecologists and clearly superior outcomes compared with patients treated by general surgeons.