The 340B Program and High-Risk Prescribing of Oral Targeted Therapies for Advanced Prostate Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The use of expensive oral targeted agents for advanced prostate can be influenced by those who stand to gain from their use. The 340B drug pricing program allows eligible hospitals to purchase medications at steep discounts, generating millions of dollars in savings. The extent to which hospitals engage in higher-risk prescribing due to program incentives is unclear. METHODS: Medicare claims were used to perform a retrospective study of men with advanced prostate cancer. The primary outcome was targeted therapy use in men with high noncancer mortality risk. Secondary outcomes included androgen biosynthesis inhibitor use in men with cardiovascular history, androgen receptor inhibitor use in men with neurocognitive history, and therapy within 14 days of death. Proportional hazards models were used to assess time-to-event outcomes, while logistic regression was used for binary outcomes. RESULTS: In men with high noncancer mortality risk, targeted therapy use did not differ at 340B participating compared to nonparticipating hospitals (hazard ratio [HR] 1.1, 95% CI 0.67-1.5). There was no difference in androgen biosynthesis inhibitor use in men with a prior cardiac event (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.70-1.3) or androgen receptor inhibitor use in men with a prior neurocognitive event (HR 1.5, 95% CI 0.65-3.4) in those treated at 340B participating compared to nonparticipating hospitals. Therapy use in the last 14 days of life did not vary by 340B participation (odds ratio 1.3, 95% CI 0.86-1.9). CONCLUSIONS: In men with advanced prostate cancer, high-risk prescribing and futility measures did not vary by participation in the 340B drug pricing program.

Survival by first-line therapy and prognostic group among men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is a heterogeneous disease with prognoses varying from months to years at time of castration-resistant diagnosis. Optimal first-line therapy for those with different prognoses is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of men in a national healthcare delivery system receiving first-line therapy for mCRPC (abiraterone, enzalutamide, docetaxel, or ketoconazole) from 2010 to 2017, with follow-up through 2019. Using commonly drawn prognostic labs at start of mCRPC therapy (hemoglobin, albumin, and alkaline phosphatase), we categorized men into favorable, intermediate, or poor prognostic groups depending on whether they had none, one to two, or all three laboratory values worse than designated laboratory cutoffs. We used Kaplan-Meier methods to examine prostate specific antigen (PSA) progression-free and overall survival (OS) according to prognostic group and first-line therapy, and multivariable cox regression to determine variables associated with survival outcomes. RESULTS: Among 4135 patients, median PSA progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.6-7.3), and median OS 18.8 months (95% CI 18.0-19.6), ranging from 5.7 months (95% CI 4.8-7.0) in the poor prognosis group to 31.3 months (95% CI 29.7-32.9) in the favorable group. OS was similar regardless of initial treatment received for favorable and intermediate groups, but worse for those in the poor prognostic group who received ketoconazole (adjusted hazard ratio 2.07, 95% CI 1.2-3.6). PSA PFS was worse for those who received ketoconazole compared to abiraterone across all prognostic groups (favorable HR 1.76, 95% CI 1.34-2.31; intermediate HR 1.78, 95% CI 1.41-2.25; poor HR 8.01, 95% CI 2.93-21.9). CONCLUSION: Commonly drawn labs at mCRPC treatment start may aid in predicting survival and response to therapies, potentially informing discussions with care teams. First-line treatment selection impacts disease progression for all men with mCRPC regardless of prognostic group, but impacted OS only for men with poor prognosis at treatment start.

Quality of care for dual eligible beneficiaries in the oncology care model.

INTRODUCTION: Dual eligible beneficiaries are a vulnerable population who often experience inferior access to care and outcomes compared to non-dual eligible beneficiaries. The Oncology Care Model (OCM) is an alternative payment model that aims to improve coordination and quality of care in beneficiaries receiving chemotherapy and thus may improve care for dual eligible beneficiaries with cancer. METHODS: We used 100% Medicare claims data from 2014 through 2019 and included beneficiaries with bladder, breast, esophageal, colorectal, kidney, lung, pancreatic, or prostate cancer receiving chemotherapy. We constructed multivariable difference-in-differences regression models to evaluate the effect of OCM participation on healthcare utilization and quality of care at the end-of-life among dual eligible beneficiaries. We also compared healthcare utilization and quality of care outcomes to non-dual eligible beneficiaries. RESULTS: We identified 3,043,944 episodes of care among 1,260,892 unique Medicare beneficiaries. Ten percent of all beneficiaries (n = 126,758) were dual eligible and 64,087 (22%) of episodes among dual eligible patients were in an OCM participating practice. We noted no effect of OCM participation on healthcare utilization or end-of-life quality of care for dual eligible beneficiaries. However, we observed higher rates of hospitalization, emergency department visits, intensive care unit stays, and a lower number of office visits among dual eligible beneficiaries compared to non-dual eligible beneficiaries. CONCLUSIONS: Participation in OCM was not associated with improvements in quality of care or healthcare utilization for dual eligible beneficiaries. Dual eligible beneficiaries experience lower quality of care across several measures compared to non-dual eligible beneficiaries. Focused policies and incentives may be necessary to address disparities within emerging health reforms.

Adverse events in men with advanced prostate cancer treated with androgen biosynthesis inhibitors and androgen receptor inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: The use of androgen biosynthesis and second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors for advanced prostate cancer is increasing. Because these therapies alter the androgen pathway, they have been associated with cardiometabolic and neurocognitive toxicities. Although their safety profiles have been assessed in clinical trials, real-world data are limited. METHODS: A 20% sample of national Medicare claims was used to perform a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries with advanced prostate cancer treated with androgen biosynthesis (ie, abiraterone) and second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors between 2012 and 2019. Outcomes were assessed after the first fill of either class of drug for the 12-month period after starting therapy. The primary outcome was a hospital admission or emergency department visit for a cardiometabolic event. Secondary outcomes included neurocognitive events and fractures. Multivariable regression was used to assess the association between the class of drug and occurrence of an adverse event. RESULTS: There were 3488 (60%) men started on an androgen biosynthesis inhibitor and 2361 (40%) started on an androgen receptor inhibitor for the first time. Cardiometabolic adverse events were more common in men managed with androgen biosynthesis inhibitor (9.2% vs 7.5%, P = .027). No difference between androgen biosynthesis and androgen receptor inhibitors was observed for neurocognitive events (3.3% vs 3.4%, respectively; P = .71) or fractures (4.2% vs 3.6%, respectively; P = .26). CONCLUSIONS: Men with advanced prostate cancer initiating an androgen biosynthesis inhibitor for the first time more commonly had cardiometabolic events than those started on androgen receptor inhibitors. Neurocognitive events and fractures did not differ by drug class.

Teaching Hospitals and Textbook Outcomes After Major Urologic Cancer Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To assess textbook outcomes by hospital teaching status following major surgery for urologic cancers. METHODS: We used 100% national Medicare Provider Analysis and Review files from 2017-2020 to assess rates of textbook outcomes in patients undergoing bladder (ie, radical cystectomy), kidney (ie, radical or partial nephrectomy), and prostate (ie, radical prostatectomy) surgery for genitourinary malignancies. The extent of integration of learners into each hospital's workforce-defined as major, minor, and non teaching hospitals-was the primary exposure. A textbook outcome, measured at the patient level, was defined as the absence of in-hospital mortality and mortality within 30days of surgery, no readmission 30days following discharge, no postoperative complication, and no prolonged length of stay. RESULTS: Textbook outcomes were achieved in 51% (8564/16,786) of patients after bladder cancer surgery, 70% (39,938/57,300) of patients after kidney cancer surgery, and 82% (50,408/61,385) of patients after prostate cancer surgery. After adjusting for patient- and hospital-level characteristics, teaching hospitals had higher rates of textbook outcomes in those undergoing bladder (50.7% vs 44.0%; P = .001), kidney (72.0% vs 69.7%; P = .02), and prostate (85.3% vs 81.0%; P <.001) surgery. This effect was attenuated, but not eliminated, by surgical volume in additional sensitivity analyses for bladder (OR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.00-1.42; P = .04) and prostate (OR: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.00-1.32; P = .04) surgery. There were no significant differences in kidney cancer surgery outcomes after adjusting for hospital volume (OR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.93-1.14; P = .6). CONCLUSION: Undergoing major cancer surgery at a teaching hospital was associated with an increased likelihood of achieving a textbook outcome. This effect was attenuated by volume but persisted for bladder and prostate surgery.

Addressing financial toxicity in cancer treatment-An opportunity for the 340B drug pricing program.

Cancer treatment has become increasingly expensive, partially due to the use of specialty drugs. The costs of these drugs are often passed down to patients, who may face the consequences of paying for more than they can afford, leading to financial toxicity. The 340B drug pricing program is a health care policy that may provide an opportunity to mitigate the financial consequences of cancer care. The 340B program requires manufacturers to sell outpatient drugs at a discount to hospitals caring for a significant number of socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals. The program intended for hospitals to use savings from discounted purchases to expand their safety net to vulnerable patients. Some studies have shown that participating hospitals do this by offering more charity and discounted care, whereas others have demonstrated that hospitals fail to sufficiently expand their safety net. A potential flaw of the program is the lack of guidance from governing bodies on how hospitals should use savings from discounted purchases. There has been growing discussion among stakeholders to reform the 340B program given the mixed findings of its effectiveness. With the rising costs of specialty drugs and associated prevalence of financial toxicity in patients with cancer, there is an opportunity to address these issues through reform that improves the program. Directing hospitals to offer specific safety net opportunities, such as passing along discounted drug prices to vulnerable populations, could help the growing number of patients who are financially burdened by medications at the core of the 340B program.

Unpacking overuse of androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer to inform de-implementation strategies.

BACKGROUND: Many men with prostate cancer will be exposed to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). While evidence-based ADT use is common, ADT is also used in cases with no or limited evidence resulting in more harm than benefit, i.e., overuse. Since there are risks of ADT (e.g., diabetes, osteoporosis), it is important to understand the behaviors facilitating overuse to inform de-implementation strategies. For these reasons, we conducted a theory-informed survey study, including a discrete choice experiment (DCE), to better understand ADT overuse and provider preferences for mitigating overuse. METHODS: Our survey used the Action, Actor, Context, Target, Time (AACTT) framework, the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behavior (COM-B) Model, and a DCE to elicit provider de-implementation strategy preferences. We surveyed the Society of Government Service Urologists listserv in December 2020. We stratified respondents based on the likelihood of stopping overuse as ADT monotherapy for localized prostate cancer ("yes"/"probably yes," "probably no"/"no"), and characterized corresponding Likert scale responses to seven COM-B statements. We used multivariable regression to identify associations between stopping ADT overuse and COM-B responses. RESULTS: Our survey was completed by 84 respondents (13% response rate), with 27% indicating "probably no"/"no" to stopping ADT overuse. We found differences across respondents who said they would and would not stop ADT overuse in demographics and COM-B statements. Our model identified 2 COM-B domains (Opportunity-Social, Motivation-Reflective) significantly associated with a lower likelihood of stopping ADT overuse. Our DCE demonstrated in-person communication, multidisciplinary review, and medical record documentation may be effective in reducing ADT overuse. CONCLUSIONS: Our study used a behavioral theory-informed survey, including a DCE, to identify behaviors and context underpinning ADT overuse. Specifying behaviors supporting and gathering provider preferences in addressing ADT overuse requires a stepwise, stakeholder-engaged approach to support evidence-based cancer care. From this work, we are pursuing targeted improvement strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03579680.

Factors affecting Accountable Care Organizations' decisions to remain in or exit the Medicare Shared Savings Program following Pathways to Success.

The Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) is an alternative payment model launched in 2012, creating Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) to improve quality and lower costs for Traditional Medicare patients. Most MSSP participants were expected to shift from bearing no financial risk to a 2-sided risk model (ie, bonus if spending reduced below historical benchmarks, penalty if not), yet fewer than 20% did. Therefore, in 2019, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services launched the Pathways to Success program, which required shifting to a 2-sided model within 12 months. For the first time, more ACOs exited than entered the MSSP. To understand these participation decisions, we conducted qualitative interviews with ACO leaders. Pathways caused ACOs to reassess their potential shared savings vs losses, particularly in light of benchmarking methodology changes; reconsider perceived nonrevenue benefits; and reassess participation in the MSSP vs other programs. As ACOs, particularly those assuming downside risk, have contained costs and enhanced care quality, policymakers should strive to improve MSSP enrollment rates in downside-risk models through strategies that allow ACOs to achieve shared savings and deliver accountable care.

The 340B Program and oral specialty drugs for advanced prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Expensive oral specialty drugs for advanced prostate cancer can be associated with treatment disparities. The 340B program allows hospitals to purchase medications at discounts, generating savings that can improve care of the socioeconomically disadvantaged. This study assessed the effect of hospital 340B participation on advanced prostate cancer. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries with advanced prostate cancer from 2012 to 2019. The primary outcome was use of an oral specialty drug. Secondary outcomes included monthly out-of-pocket costs and treatment adherence. We evaluated the effects of 1) hospital 340B participation, 2) a regional measure vulnerability, the social vulnerability index (SVI), and 3) the interaction between hospital 340B participation and SVI on outcomes. RESULTS: There were 2237 and 1100 men who received care at 340B and non-340B hospitals. There was no difference in specialty drug use between 340B and non-340B hospitals, whereas specialty drug use decreased with increased SVI (odds ratio, 0.95, p = .038). However, the interaction between hospital 340B participation and SVI on specialty drug use was not significant. Neither 340B participation, SVI, or their interaction were associated with out-of-pocket costs. Although hospital 340B participation and SVI were not associated with treatment adherence, their interaction was significant (p = .020). This demonstrated that 340B was associated with better adherence among socially vulnerable men. CONCLUSIONS: The 340B program was not associated with specialty drug use in men with advanced prostate cancer. However, among those who were started on therapy, 340B was associated with increased treatment adherence in more socially vulnerable men.

National Trends in Management of Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Deciding whether to treat or conservatively manage patients with prostate cancer is challenging. Recent changes in guidelines, advances in treatment technologies, and policy can influence decision making surrounding management, particularly for those for whom the decision to treat is discretionary. Contemporary trends in management of newly diagnosed prostate cancer are unclear. METHODS: Using national Medicare data, men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer were identified between 2014 and 2019. Patients were classified by 5- and 10-year noncancer mortality risk. Multinomial logistic regression models were fit to assess adjusted trends in management over time. The primary outcome was management of prostate cancer: local treatment (inclusive of surgery, radiation, brachytherapy, or cryotherapy), hormone therapy, or observation. RESULTS: Local treatment was the most common form of management and stable across years (68%). Use of observation increased (21%-23%, P < .001) and use of hormone therapy decreased (11%-8%, P < 0.001). After stratifying by 10-year non-cancer mortality risk, observation increased among men with low (22.3%-26.1%, P < .001) and moderate (19.9%-23.5%, P < .001) mortality risk. Conversely, use of treatment increased among those with high (62.8%-68.0%, P = .004) and very high (45.5%-54.1%, P < .001) risk of noncancer mortality. These trends were similar across groups when stratified by 5-year noncancer mortality risk. CONCLUSION: Nationally, use of local treatment remains common and was stable throughout the study period. However, while local treatment declined among men with a lower risk of noncancer mortality, it increased among men with a higher risk of non-cancer mortality.

Association Between Urologist Merit-Based Incentive Payment System Performance and Quality of Prostate Cancer Care.

INTRODUCTION: We performed a study to evaluate the association between urologist performance in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), and quality and spending for prostate cancer care. METHODS: Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer diagnosed between 2017 and 2019 were assigned to their primary urologist. Associated MIPS scores were identified and categorized based on thresholds for payment adjustment as low (worst), moderate, and high (best). Multivariable mixed effects models were used to measure the association between MIPS performance and adherence to quality measures and price standardized spending for prostate cancer. RESULTS: Adherence to quality measures did not vary across MIPS performance groups for pretreatment counselling by both a urologist and radiation oncologist (low-76%, [95% CI 73%-80%], moderate-77% [95% CI 74%-79%], and high-75% [95% CI 74%-76%]) and avoiding treatment in men with a high risk of noncancer mortality within 10 years of diagnosis (low-40% [95% CI 35%-45%], moderate-39% [95% CI 36%-43%], high-38% [95% CI 36%-39%]). Men on active surveillance managed by high performers more likely received a confirmatory test (44% [95% CI 43%-46%]) compared to those managed by moderate (38% [95% CI 33%-42%]) performers, but not low performers (36% [95% CI 29%-44%]). There was no difference in adjusted spending across MIPS performance groups. CONCLUSIONS: Better performance in MIPS is associated with a higher rate of confirmatory testing in men initiating active surveillance for prostate cancer. However, performance was not associated with other dimensions of quality nor spending.

National Long-term Survival Estimates After Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To examine survival and disease control outcomes, including metastasis-related survival outcomes, in a large contemporary cohort of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of men with localized prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy from 2005 to 2015 with follow-up through 2019 in the Veterans Health Administration. We defined biochemical recurrence (BCR) as a prostate-specific antigen ≥0.2 ng/mL. We used a validated natural language processing encoded dataset to identify incident metastatic prostate cancer. We estimated overall survival from time of surgery, time of BCR, and time of first metastasis using the Kaplan-Meier method. We then estimated time from surgery to BCR, BCR to metastatic disease, and prostate-cancer-specific survival from various time points using cumulative incidence considering competing risk of death. RESULTS: Of 21,992 men undergoing radical prostatectomy, we identified 5951 (27%) who developed BCR. Of men with BCR, 677 (11%) developed metastases. We estimated the 10-year cumulative incidence of BCR and metastases after BCR were 28% and 20%, respectively. Median overall survival after BCR was 14years, with 10-year survival of 70%. From the time of metastasis, median overall survival approached 7years, with 10-year overall survival of 34%. Prostate cancer-specific survival for the entire cohort at 10years was 94%. CONCLUSION: In this large contemporary national cohort, survival for men with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer is longer than historical cohorts. When counseling patients and designing clinical studies, these updated estimates may serve as more reliable reflections of current outcomes.

Hospital-physician integration and clinical volume in traditional Medicare.

OBJECTIVE: To test the effect of hospital-physician integration on primary care physicians' (PCP) clinical volume in traditional Medicare. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: Nationwide retrospective longitudinal study using Medicare claims and other data sources from 2010 to 2016. STUDY DESIGN: We identified 70,000 PCPs, some of whom remained non-integrated and some who became hospital-integrated during this study period. We used an event study design to identify the effect of integration on key measures of physicians' clinical volume, including the number of claims, work-relative value units (RVUs), professional revenue generated, number of patients treated, and facility fee revenue generated. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Per-physician clinical volume declined by statistically and economically significant margins. Relative to the comparison group who remained non-integrated, work RVUs fell by 7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -8.6% to -5.5%); the number of patients treated fell by 4% (95% CI: -5.8% to -2.6%); and claims volume among PCPs who became hospital-integrated fell by over 15% (95% CI: -16.8% to -13.5%). Though professional revenue declined by $29,165 (95% CI: -$32,286 to -$26,044), this loss was almost entirely offset by increased facility fee revenue of $28,556 (95% CI: 26,909 to 30,203). CONCLUSIONS: Hospital-physician integration may affect the quantity of clinical services delivered by PCPs to traditional Medicare beneficiaries. Reductions in clinical volume associated with integration may have long-term consequences for the supply of physician services and patient access to primary care. Future research on physician time use and patient access following hospital integration would further add to the evidence base.

Urologist practice divestment from radiation vault ownership and treatment patterns for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Urologists practicing in single-specialty groups with ownership in radiation vaults are more likely to treat men with prostate cancer. The effect of divestment of vault ownership on treatment patterns is unclear. METHODS: A 20% sample of national Medicare claims was used to perform a retrospective cohort study of men with prostate cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2019. Urology practices were categorized by radiation vault ownership as nonowners, continuous owners, and divested owners. The primary outcome was use of local treatment, and the secondary outcome was use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). A difference-in-differences framework was used to measure the effect of divestment on outcomes compared to continuous owners. Subgroup analyses assessed outcomes by noncancer mortality risk (high [>50%] vs. low [≤50%]). RESULTS: Among 72 urology practices that owned radiation vaults, six divested during the study. Divestment led to a decrease in treatment compared with those managed at continuously owning practices (difference-in-differences estimate, -13%; p = .03). The use of IMRT decreased, but this was not statistically significant (difference-in-differences estimate, -10%; p = .13). In men with a high noncancer mortality risk, treatment (difference-in-differences estimate, -28%; p < .001) and use of IMRT (difference-in-differences estimate, -27%; p < .001) decreased after divestment. CONCLUSIONS: Urology group divestment from radiation vault ownership led to a decrease in prostate cancer treatment. This decrease was most pronounced in men who had a high noncancer mortality risk. This has important implications for health care reform by suggesting that payment programs that encourage constraints on utilization, when appropriate, may be effective in reducing overtreatment.

Value-based payment models and management of newly diagnosed prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of urologist participation in value-based payment models on the initial management of men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. METHODS: Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer diagnosed between 2017 and 2019, with 1 year of follow-up, were assigned to their primary urologist, each of whom was then aligned to a value-based payment model (the merit-based incentive payment system [MIPS], accountable care organization [ACO] without financial risk, and ACO with risk). Multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression was used to measure the association between payment model participation and treatment of prostate cancer. Additional models estimated the effects of payment model participation on use of treatment in men with very high risk (i.e., >75%) of non-cancer mortality within 10 years of diagnosis (i.e., a group of men for whom treatment is generally not recommended) and price-standardized prostate cancer spending in the 12 months after diagnosis. RESULTS: Treatment did not vary by payment model, both overall (MIPS-67% [95% CI 66%-68%], ACOs without risk-66% [95% CI 66%-68%], ACOs with risk-66% [95% CI 64%-68%]). Similarly, treatment did not vary among men with very high risk of non-cancer mortality by payment model (MIPS-52% [95% CI 50%-55%], ACOs without risk-52% [95% CI 50%-55%], ACOs with risk-51% [95% CI 45%-56%]). Adjusted spending was similar across payment models (MIPS-$16,501 [95% CI $16,222-$16,780], ACOs without risk-$16,140 [95% CI $15,852-$16,429], ACOs with risk-$16,117 [95% CI $15,585-$16,649]). CONCLUSIONS: How urologists participate in value-based payment models is not associated with treatment, potential overtreatment, and prostate cancer spending in men with newly diagnosed disease.

The immediate effects of private equity acquisition of urology practices on the management of newly diagnosed prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Some worry that physician practices acquired by private equity may increase the use of services to maximize revenue. We assessed the effects of private equity acquisition on spending, use of treatment, and diagnostic testing in men with prostate cancer. METHODS: We used a 20% sample of national Medicare claims to perform a retrospective cohort study of men with prostate cancer diagnosed from 2014 through 2019. The primary outcome was prostate cancer spending in the first 12 months after diagnosis. Secondary outcomes included the use of treatment and a composite measure of diagnostic testing (e.g., imaging, genomics) in the first 12 months after diagnosis. Multilevel modeling was used to adjust for differences in patient and market characteristics. The effect of practice acquisition on each outcome was assessed using a difference-in-differences design. RESULTS: There were 409 and 4021 men with prostate cancer managed by urologists in acquired and nonacquired practices, respectively. After acquisition, prostate cancer spending was comparable between acquired and nonacquired practices (difference-in-differences estimate $1182, p = 0.36). Acquisition did not affect the use of treatment (difference-in-differences estimate 3.7%, p = 0.30) or the use of diagnostic testing in men who were treated (difference-in-differences -5.5%, p = 0.12) and those managed conservatively (difference-in-differences -2.0%, p = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS: In the year following acquisition of urology practices, private equity did not increase prostate cancer spending, the use of treatment or diagnostic testing in men with prostate cancer. Future work should evaluate the effects of private equity acquisition on practice patterns and quality over a longer time horizon.

Acquisition of Urology Practices by Private Equity Firms and Performance in the Merit-based Incentive Payment System.

INTRODUCTION: Private equity is increasingly engaged in the acquisition of urology practices. The implications of strategies to enhance practice value deployed by these firms for patients are unclear. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of urologist performance in the MIPS (Merit-based Incentive Payment System) program for 2017 to 2020 using national Medicare data from the Quality Payment Program file. The primary outcome was the overall MIPS score. Secondary outcomes included MIPS component scores (ie, quality, interoperability, improvement activities, cost) and the percentage of urologists receiving a bonus payment. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate the relationship between private equity acquisition and outcomes using a difference-in-differences framework. RESULTS: Between 2017 and 2020, 181 urologists were in a urology practice acquired by private equity with MIPS data available the year before and after acquisition. Compared to urologists in practices not acquired by private equity, those in acquired practices had worse overall MIPS performance after acquisition (difference-in-differences estimate, -14 points, P = .04). The decrease in the overall score was driven by worse performance in the quality score (difference-in-differences estimate, -28 points, P < .001). Finally, acquisition resulted in a decrease in the percentage of urologists receiving bonus payments (difference-in-differences estimate, -43%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Private equity acquisition of urology practices was associated with significantly lower MIPS performance. As private equity acquisition of urology practices becomes more prevalent, key stakeholders should ensure that the quality of patient care is maintained and that the involvement of for-profit entities in health care is being made transparent to patients.

In-office dispensing of oral targeted agents by urology practices in men with advanced prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Management of men with advanced prostate cancer has evolved to include urologists, made possible by oral targeted agents (eg, abiraterone or enzalutamide) that can be dispensed directly to patients in the office. We sought to investigate whether this increasingly common model improves access to these agents, especially for Black men who are historically undertreated. METHODS: We used 20% national Medicare data to perform a retrospective cohort study of men with advanced prostate cancer from 2011 through 2019, managed by urology practices with and without in-office dispensing. Using a difference-in-difference framework, generalized estimating equations were used to measure the effect of in-office dispensing on prescriptions for abiraterone and/or enzalutamide, adjusting for differences between patients, including race. RESULTS: New prescription fills for oral targeted agents increased after the adoption of in-office dispensing (+4.4%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.4% to 5.4%) relative to that for men managed by practices without dispensing (+2.4%, 95% CI = 1.4% to 3.4%). The increase in the postintervention period (difference-in-difference estimate) was 2% higher (95% CI = 0.6% to 3.4%) for men managed by practices adopting dispensing relative to men managed by practices without dispensing. The effect was strongest for practices adopting dispensing in 2015 (difference-in-difference estimate: +4.2%, 95% CI = 2.3% to 6.2%). The effect of dispensing adoption did not differ by race. CONCLUSION: Adoption of in-office dispensing by urology practices increased prescription fills for oral targeted agents in men with advanced prostate cancer. This model of delivery may improve access to this important class of medications.

Comparing Patient-reported Functional Outcomes After Radical Prostatectomy in Historical and Contemporary Practice.

PURPOSE: Modifications to surgical technique, particularly the widespread adoption of robotic surgery, have been proposed to improve functional recovery after prostate cancer surgery. However, rigorous comparison of men in historical vs contemporary practice to evaluate the cumulative effect of these changes on urinary and sexual function after radical prostatectomy is lacking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared prospectively collected patient-reported urinary and sexual function from historical (PROSTQA [Prostate Cancer Outcomes and Satisfaction With Treatment Quality Assessment study], n=235) and contemporary (MUSIC-PRO [Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative Patient Reported Outcome] registry, n=1,215) cohorts at the University of Michigan to understand whether modern techniques have resulted in functional improvements for men undergoing prostate cancer surgery. RESULTS: We found significant differences in baseline function, with better urinary (median [IQR]; 100 [93.8-100] vs 93.8 [85.5-100], P < .001) and sexual scores (median [IQR]; 83.3 [66.7-100] vs 74.4 [44.2-87.5], P < .001) prior to treatment in PROSTQA compared to MUSIC-PRO patients, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the pattern of urinary incontinence recovery after surgery from 6-24 months between groups (P = .14). However, men in the contemporary MUSIC-PRO group did have significantly better recovery of sexual function compared to men in the historical PROSTQA group (P < .0001). Further, we found that contemporary practice consists of men with more unfavorable demographic and clinical characteristics compared to historical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that the widespread alterations in prostate cancer surgery over the past 2 decades have yielded improvements in sexual, but not urinary, function recovery.