Unveiling SEER-CAHPS®: a new data resource for quality of care research.

BACKGROUND: Since 1990, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have collaborated to create linked data resources to improve our understanding of patterns of care, health care costs, and trends in utilization. However, existing data linkages have not included measures of patient experiences with care. OBJECTIVE: To describe a new resource for quality of care research based on a linkage between the Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) patient surveys and the NCI's Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data. DESIGN: This is an observational study of CAHPS respondents and includes both fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries with and without cancer. The data linkage includes: CAHPS survey data collected between 1998 and 2010 to assess patient reports on multiple aspects of their care, such as access to needed and timely care, doctor communication, as well as patients' global ratings of their personal doctor, specialists, overall health care, and their health plan; SEER registry data (1973-2007) on cancer site, stage, treatment, death information, and patient demographics; and longitudinal Medicare claims data (2002-2011) for fee-for-service beneficiaries on utilization and costs of care. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 150,750 respondents were in the cancer cohort and 571,318 were in the non-cancer cohort. MAIN MEASURES: The data linkage includes SEER data on cancer site, stage, treatment, death information, and patient demographics, in addition to longitudinal data from Medicare claims and information on patient experiences from CAHPS surveys. KEY RESULTS: Sizable proportions of cases from common cancers (e.g., breast, colorectal, prostate) and short-term survival cancers (e.g., pancreas) by time since diagnosis enable comparisons across the cancer care trajectory by MA vs. FFS coverage. CONCLUSIONS: SEER-CAHPS is a valuable resource for information about Medicare beneficiaries' experiences of care across different diagnoses and treatment modalities, and enables comparisons by type of insurance.

A comparison of 2 methods of endoscopic laryngeal sensory testing: a preliminary study.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined the association between laryngeal sensory deficits and penetration or aspiration. Two methods of testing laryngeal sensation were carried out to determine which was more highly correlated with Penetration-Aspiration Scale (PAS) scores. METHODS: Healthy participants and patients with dysphagia received an endoscopic swallowing evaluation including 2 sequential laryngeal sensory tests-air pulse followed by touch method. Normal/impaired responses were correlated with PAS scores. RESULTS: Fourteen participants completed the endoscopic swallowing evaluation and both sensory tests. The air pulse method identified sensory impairment with greater frequency than the touch method (P<.0001). However, the impairment identified by the air pulse method was not associated with abnormal PAS scores (P=.46). The sensory deficits identified by the touch method were associated with abnormal PAS scores (P=.05). CONCLUSION: Sensory impairment detected by the air pulse method does not appear to be associated with risk of penetration/aspiration. Significant laryngeal sensory loss revealed by the touch method is associated with compromised airway protection.

Non-compliance with the initial screening exam visit in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Identify predictors of non-compliance with first round screening exams in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. METHOD: The PLCO was conducted from 1993 to 2011 at 10 US institutions. A total of 154,897 healthy men and women ages 55-74 years were randomized. Intervention arm participants were invited to receive gender-appropriate screening exams for prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer. Using intervention-arm data (73,036 participants), non-compliance percentages for 13 covariates were calculated, as were unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals. Covariates included demographic factors as well as factors specific to PLCO (e.g., method of consent, distance from screening center). RESULTS: The rate of non-compliance was 11% overall but varied by screening center. Significant associations were observed for most covariates but indicated modest increases or decreases in odds. An exception was the use of a two-step consent process (consented intervention arm participants for exams after randomization) relative to a one-step process (consented all participants prior to randomization) (OR: 2.2, 95% CI: 2.0-2.5). Non-compliance percentages increased with further distance from screening centers, but ORs were not significantly different from 1. CONCLUSIONS: Many factors modestly influenced compliance. Consent process was the strongest predictor of compliance.

Supplemental coverage associated with more rapid spending growth for Medicare beneficiaries.

Lowering both Medicare spending and the rate of Medicare spending growth is important for the nation's fiscal health. Policy makers in search of ways to achieve these reductions have looked at the role that supplemental coverage for Medicare beneficiaries plays in Medicare spending. Supplemental coverage makes health care more affordable for beneficiaries but also makes beneficiaries insensitive to the cost of their care, thereby increasing the demand for care. Ours is the first empirical study to investigate whether supplemental Medicare coverage is associated with higher rates of spending growth over time. We found that supplemental insurance coverage was associated with significantly higher rates of overall spending growth. Specifically, employer-sponsored and self-purchased supplemental coverage were associated with annual total spending growth rates of 7.17 percent and 7.18 percent, respectively, compared to 6.08 percent annual growth for beneficiaries without supplemental coverage. Results for Medicare program spending were more equivocal, however. Our results are consistent with the belief that current trends away from generous employer-sponsored supplemental coverage and efforts to restrict the generosity of supplemental coverage may slow spending growth.