A Framework for Integrating Telehealth Equitably across the cancer care continuum.

The COVID-19 pandemic placed a spotlight on the potential to dramatically increase the use of telehealth across the cancer care continuum, but whether and how telehealth can be implemented in practice in ways that reduce, rather than exacerbate, inequities are largely unknown. To help fill this critical gap in research and practice, we developed the Framework for Integrating Telehealth Equitably (FITE), a process and evaluation model designed to help guide equitable integration of telehealth into practice. In this manuscript, we present FITE and showcase how investigators across the National Cancer Institute's Telehealth Research Centers of Excellence are applying the framework in different ways to advance digital and health equity. By highlighting multilevel determinants of digital equity that span further than access alone, FITE highlights the complex and differential ways structural determinants restrict or enable digital equity at the individual and community level. As such, achieving digital equity will require strategies designed to not only support individual behavior but also change the broader context to ensure all patients and communities have the choice, opportunity, and resources to use telehealth across the cancer care continuum.

Cancer Treatment Before and After Physician-Pharmacy Integration.

Importance: Integration of pharmacies with physician practices, also known as medically integrated dispensing, is increasing in oncology. However, little is known about how this integration affects drug use, expenditures, medication adherence, or time to treatment initiation. Objective: To examine the association of physician-pharmacy integration with oral oncology drug expenditures, use, and patient-centered measures. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used claims data from a large commercial insurer in the US to analyze changes in outcome measures among patients treated by pharmacy-integrating vs nonintegrating community oncologists in 14 states between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2019. Commercially insured patients were aged 18 to 64 years with 1 of the following advanced-stage diagnoses: breast cancer, colorectal cancer, kidney cancer, lung cancer, melanoma, or prostate cancer. Data analysis was conducted from May 2023 to March 2024. Exposure: Treatment by a pharmacy-integrating oncologist, ascertained by the presence of an on-site pharmacy or nonpharmacy dispensing site. Main Outcomes and Measures: Oral, intravenous (IV), total, and out-of-pocket drug expenditures for a 6-month episode of care; share of patients prescribed oral drugs; days' supply of oral drugs; medication adherence measured by proportion of days covered; and time to treatment initiation. The association between an oncologist's pharmacy integration and each outcome of interest was estimated using the difference-in-differences estimator. Results: Between 2012 and 2019, 3159 oncologists (745 females [27.1%], 2002 males [72.9%]) treated 23 968 patients (66.4% female; 53.4% aged 55-64 years). Of the 3159 oncologists, 578 (18.3%) worked in practices that integrated with pharmacies (with a low rate in 2011 of 0% and a high rate in 2019 of 31.5%). In the full sample (including all cancer sites), after physician-pharmacy integration, no significant changes were found in oral drug expenditures, IV drug expenditures, or total drug expenditures. There was, however, an increase in days' supply of oral drugs (5.96 days; 95% CI, 0.64-11.28 days; P = .001). There were no significant changes in out-of-pocket expenditures, medication adherence, or time to treatment initiation of oral drugs. In the breast cancer sample, there was an increase in oral drug expenditures ($244; 95% CI, $41-$446; P = .02) and a decrease in IV drug expenditures (-$4187; 95% CI, -$8293 to -$80; P = .05). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cohort study indicated that the integration of oncology practices with pharmacies was not associated with significant changes in expenditures or clear patient-centered benefits.

Trends in low-value cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and change in low-value cancer services. STUDY DESIGN: In this retrospective cohort study, we used administrative claims from the HealthCore Integrated Research Environment, a repository of medical and pharmacy data from US health plans representing more than 80 million members, between January 1, 2016, and March 31, 2021. METHODS: We used linear probability models to investigate the relation between the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and 4 guideline-based metrics of low-value cancer care: (1) conventional fractionation radiotherapy instead of hypofractionated radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer; (2) non-guideline-based antiemetic use for minimal-, low-, or moderate- to high-risk chemotherapies; (3) off-pathway systemic therapy; and (4) aggressive end-of-life care. We identified patients with new diagnoses of breast, colorectal, and/or lung cancer. We excluded members who did not have at least 6 months of continuous insurance coverage and members with prevalent cancers. RESULTS: Among 117,116 members (median [IQR] age, 60 [53-69] years; 72.4% women), 59,729 (51.0%) had breast cancer, 25,751 (22.0%) had colorectal cancer, and 31,862 (27.2%) had lung cancer. The payer mix was 18.7% Medicare Advantage or Medicare supplemental and 81.2% commercial non-Medicare. Rates of low-value cancer services exhibited minimal changes during the pandemic, as adjusted percentage-point differences were 3.93 (95% CI, 1.50-6.36) for conventional radiotherapy, 0.82 (95% CI, -0.62 to 2.25) for off-pathway systemic therapy, -3.62 (95% CI, -4.97 to -2.27) for non-guideline-based antiemetics, and 2.71 (95% CI, -0.59 to 6.02) for aggressive end-of-life care. CONCLUSIONS: Low-value cancer care remained prevalent throughout the pandemic. Policy makers should consider changes to payment and incentive design to turn the tide against low-value cancer care.

Protocol for a pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomized clinical trial testing behavioral economic implementation strategies to increase supplemental breast MRI screening among patients with extremely dense breasts.

BACKGROUND: Increased breast density augments breast cancer risk and reduces mammography sensitivity. Supplemental breast MRI screening can significantly increase cancer detection among women with dense breasts. However, few women undergo this exam, and screening is consistently lower among racially minoritized populations. Implementation strategies informed by behavioral economics ("nudges") can promote evidence-based practices by improving clinician decision-making under conditions of uncertainty. Nudges directed toward clinicians and patients may facilitate the implementation of supplemental breast MRI. METHODS: Approximately 1600 patients identified as having extremely dense breasts after non-actionable mammograms, along with about 1100 clinicians involved with their care at 32 primary care or OB/GYN clinics across a racially diverse academically based health system, will be enrolled. A 2 × 2 randomized pragmatic trial will test nudges to patients, clinicians, both, or neither to promote supplemental breast MRI screening. Before implementation, rapid cycle approaches informed by clinician and patient experiences and behavioral economics and health equity frameworks guided nudge design. Clinicians will be clustered into clinic groups based on existing administrative departments and care patterns, and these clinic groups will be randomized to have the nudge activated at different times per a stepped wedge design. Clinicians will receive nudges integrated into the routine mammographic report or sent through electronic health record (EHR) in-basket messaging once their clinic group (i.e., wedge) is randomized to receive the intervention. Independently, patients will be randomized to receive text message nudges or not. The primary outcome will be defined as ordering or scheduling supplemental breast MRI. Secondary outcomes include MRI completion, cancer detection rates, and false-positive rates. Patient sociodemographic information and clinic-level variables will be examined as moderators of nudge effectiveness. Qualitative interviews conducted at the trial's conclusion will examine barriers and facilitators to implementation. DISCUSSION: This study will add to the growing literature on the effectiveness of behavioral economics-informed implementation strategies to promote evidence-based interventions. The design will facilitate testing the relative effects of nudges to patients and clinicians and the effects of moderators of nudge effectiveness, including key indicators of health disparities. The results may inform the introduction of low-cost, scalable implementation strategies to promote early breast cancer detection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05787249. Registered on March 28, 2023.

Comparing Risk for Second Primary Cancers After Intensity-Modulated vs 3-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer, 2002-2015.

Importance: Compared with 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) can spare nearby tissue but may result in increased scatter radiation to distant normal tissue, including red bone marrow. It is unclear whether second primary cancer risk varies by radiotherapy type. Objective: To evaluate whether radiotherapy type (IMRT vs 3DCRT) is associated with second primary cancer risk among older men treated for prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this retrospective cohort study of a linked database of Medicare claims and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program population-based cancer registries (2002-2015), male patients aged 66 to 84 diagnosed with a first primary nonmetastatic prostate cancer from 2002 to 2013, as reported to SEER, and who received radiotherapy (IMRT and/or 3DCRT without proton therapy) within the first year following prostate cancer were identified. The data were analyzed from January 2022 through June 2022. Exposure: Receipt of IMRT and 3DCRT, based on Medicare claims. Main Outcomes and Measures: The association between radiotherapy type and development of a subsequent hematologic cancer at least 2 years after prostate cancer diagnosis or a subsequent solid cancer at least 5 years after prostate cancer diagnosis. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were estimated using multivariable Cox proportional regression. Results: The study included 65 235 2-year first primary prostate cancer survivors (median [range] age, 72 [66-82] years; 82.2% White patients) and 45 811 5-year survivors with similar demographic characteristics (median [range] age, 72 [66-79] years; 82.4% White patients). Among 2-year prostate cancer survivors (median [range] follow-up, 4.6 [0.003-12.0] years), 1107 second hematologic cancers were diagnosed (IMRT, 603; 3DCRT, 504). Radiotherapy type was not associated with second hematologic cancers overall or any specific types evaluated. Among 5-year survivors (median [range] follow-up, 3.1 [0.003-9.0] years), 2688 men were diagnosed with a second primary solid cancer (IMRT, 1306; 3DCRT, 1382). The overall HR for IMRT vs 3DCRT was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.83-0.99). This inverse association was restricted to the earlier calendar year period of prostate cancer diagnosis (HR2002-2005 = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.94; HR2006-2010 = 1.14; 95% CI, 0.96-1.36), with a similar pattern observed for colon cancer (HR2002-2005 = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.46-0.94; HR2006-2010 = 1.06; 95% CI, 0.59-1.88). Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this large, population-based cohort study suggest that IMRT for prostate cancer is not associated with an increased risk of second primary cancers, either solid or hematologic, and any inverse associations may be associated with calendar year of treatment.

Insurance and racial disparities in prior authorization in gynecologic oncology.

While prior authorization aims to reduce unnecessary care, it may limit or delay medically necessary care. Delays in cancer care can impact survival and are more common in historically-marginalized populations. Our objective was to examine to what extent disparities occurred in prior authorizations for gynecologic oncology. Using electronic medical records, we performed a retrospective review of prior authorization occurrence during gynecologic oncology care and analyzed the association with patient race and insurance in a multivariate regression model. In this cohort of 1,406 patients treated at an academic gynecologic oncology practice, patients with Medicare Advantage and patients of Asian descent were more likely to experience prior authorization. Addressing insurance-mediate disparities, such as in the occurrence of prior authorization, may help reduce disparities in gynecologic cancer care.

Behavioural economic interventions to embed palliative care in community oncology (BE-EPIC): study protocol for the BE-EPIC randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Palliative care (PC) is a medical specialty focusing on providing relief from the symptoms and stress of serious illnesses such as cancer. Early outpatient specialty PC concurrent with cancer-directed treatment improves quality of life and symptom burden, decreases aggressive end-of-life care and is an evidence-based practice endorsed by national guidelines. However, nearly half of patients with advanced cancer do not receive specialty PC prior to dying. The objective of this study is to test the impact of an oncologist-directed default PC referral orders on rates of PC utilisation and patient quality of life. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This single-centre two-arm pragmatic randomised trial randomises four clinician-led pods, caring for approximately 250 patients who meet guideline-based criteria for PC referral, in a 1:1 fashion into a control or intervention arm. Intervention oncologists receive a nudge consisting of an electronic health record message indicating a patient has a default pended order for PC. Intervention oncologists are given an opportunity to opt out of referral to PC. Oncologists in pods randomised to the control arm will receive no intervention beyond usual practice. The primary outcome is completed PC visits within 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes are change in quality of life and absolute quality of life scores between the two arms. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Pennsylvania. Study results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences using methods that describe the results in ways that key stakeholders can best understand and implement. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05365997.

Prior authorization in gynecologic oncology: An analysis of clinical impact.

BACKGROUND: Prior authorization was designed to minimize unnecessary care and reduce spending but has been associated with delays in necessary care. Our objective was to estimate the occurrence of prior authorization, and impact on cancer care, in gynecologic oncology. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cross-sectional study of patients seen in University of Pennsylvania gynecologic oncology practices (January-March 2021). Using electronic medical records, we measured the incidence of prior authorization during the 3-month period and prior experience of prior authorization for cancer care overall and by type of order (chemotherapy, imaging, surgery, prescription drugs). We assessed the impact of prior authorization occurrence on clinical outcomes (time to service, changes in care). RESULTS: Of the 2112 clinic visits of 1406 unique patients, 5% experienced prior authorization during the 3-month study period. An additional 20% faced prior authorization requests earlier in cancer care. Of the 83 prior authorization requests, imaging accounted for the majority (54%) followed by supportive medications (29%) and chemotherapy (17%). After appeal, 79% of cases were approved. For patients whose prior authorizations were approved, there was a mean of 16 days from order placement to care delivery (95% CI 11-20, range 0-98 days). Of the 17 denials, 3 (18%) led to a substantial change in care (i.e., not receiving planned treatment). CONCLUSION: 25% of gynecologic oncology patients experienced prior authorization during their cancer care. While 80% of claims were ultimately approved, patients experienced over a 2-week delay in care when prior authorization occurred. Reform is needed to reduce the burden of prior authorization in oncology.

Association of Oncologist Participation in Medicare's Oncology Care Model With Patient Receipt of Novel Cancer Therapies.

Importance: Medicare's Oncology Care Model (OCM) was an alternative payment model that tied performance-based payments to cost and quality goals for participating oncology practices. A major concern about the OCM regarded inclusion of high-cost cancer therapies, which could potentially disincentivize oncologists from prescribing novel therapies. Objective: To examine whether oncologist participation in the OCM changed the likelihood that patients received novel therapies vs alternative treatments. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program data and Medicare claims compared patient receipt of novel therapies for patients treated by oncologists participating vs not participating in the OCM in the period before (January 2015-June 2016) and after (July 2016-December 2018) OCM initiation. Participants included Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in SEER registries who were eligible to receive 1 of 10 novel cancer therapies that received US Food and Drug Administration approval in the 18 months before implementation of the OCM. The study excluded the Hawaii registry because complete data were not available at the time of the data request. Patients in the OCM vs non-OCM groups were matched on novel therapy cohort, outcome time period, and oncologist specialist status. Analysis was conducted between July 2021 and April 2022. Exposures: Oncologist participation in the OCM. Main Outcomes and Measures: Preplanned analyses evaluated patient receipt of 1 of 10 novel therapies vs alternative therapies specific to the patient's cancer for the overall study sample and for racial subgroups. Results: The study included 2839 matched patients (760 in the OCM group and 2079 in the non-OCM group; median [IQR] age, 72.7 [68.3-77.6] years; 1591 women [56.0%]). Among patients in the non-OCM group, 33.2% received novel therapies before and 40.1% received novel therapies after the start of the OCM vs 39.9% and 50.3% of patients in the OCM group (adjusted difference-in-differences, 3.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.7 to 10.7 percentage points; P = .34). In subgroup analyses, second-line immunotherapy use in lung cancer was greater among patients in the OCM group vs non-OCM group (adjusted difference-in-differences, 17.4 percentage points; 95% CI, 4.8-30.0 percentage points; P = .007), but no differences were seen in other subgroups. Over the entire study period, patients with oncologists participating in the OCM were more likely to receive novel therapies than those with oncologists who were not participating (odds ratio, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.09-1.97; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that participation in the OCM was not associated with oncologists' prescribing novel therapies to Medicare beneficiaries with cancer. These findings suggest that OCM financial incentives did not decrease patient access to novel therapies.

Assessment of Guideline-Nonconcordant Radiotherapy in Medicare Beneficiaries With Metastatic Cancer Near the End of Life, 2015-2017.

This cross-sectional study uses data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to assess the use of professional society guideline-nonconcordant radiotherapy in patients at the end of life.

Association of gynecologic oncology versus medical oncology specialty with survival, utilization, and spending for treatment of gynecologic cancers.

BACKGROUND: We examined the association of gynecologic oncology (GYO) versus medical oncology (MEDONC) based care with survival, health care utilization and spending outcomes in women undergoing chemotherapy for advanced gynecologic cancers. METHODS: Women with newly diagnosed stage III-IV uterine, ovarian, and cervical cancers from 2000 to 2015 were identified in SEER-Medicare. We assessed the association of provider specialty with overall survival, emergency department utilization, admissions, and spending. Outcomes were assessed using unadjusted and Inverse Treatment Probability Weighted propensity-score applied, multi-variable cox modeling, Poisson regression, and generalized models of log-transformed data. RESULTS: We identified 7930 gynecologic cancer patients (4360 ovarian, 2934 uterine, 643 cervix). 37% were treated by GYO and 63% by MEDONC. For ovarian patients, GYO care was associated with improved OS (median OS 3.3 v. 2.9 years; HR 0.85, 95%CI 0.80, 0.91, p < .0001) and similar mean spending per month ($4015 v. $4316, mean ratio 0.97 (95% CI 0.93, 1.02), p = .19), compared to MEDONC in adjusted analyses. For uterine patients, GYO care was associated with similar OS, but decreased spending ($3573 v. $4081, mean ratio 0.87 (95% CI.81, 0.93), p < .0001), and decreased ED utilization (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.69, 0.85, p < .0001). For cervical patients, GYO care was associated with similar OS, and similar spending. Admissions were more likely in ovarian (RR 1.23, 95%CI 1.11, 1.37, p = .0001) and cervical patients (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.05, 1.51, p = .015) treated by GYO, in adjusted analyses. CONCLUSIONS: GYO based care was associated with improved OS and equal spending for patients with advanced stage ovarian cancer. Uterine and cervix patients had similar OS, and less or equal spending respectively, when treated by GYO compared to MEDONC.

Differences in Cancer Care Expenditures and Utilization for Surgery by Hospital Type Among Patients With Private Insurance.

Importance: With rising expenditures on cancer care outpacing other sectors of the US health system, national attention has focused on insurer spending, particularly for patients with private insurance, for whom price transparency has historically been lacking. The type of hospital at which cancer care is delivered may be an important factor associated with insurer spending for patients with private insurance. Objective: To examine differences in spending and utilization for patients with private insurance undergoing common cancer surgery at National Cancer Institute (NCI) centers vs community hospitals. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cross-sectional study included adult patients with an incident diagnosis of breast, colon, or lung cancer who underwent cancer-directed surgery from 2011 to 2014. Mean risk-adjusted spending and utilization outcomes were examined for each hospital type using multilevel generalized linear mixed-effects models, adjusting for patient, hospital, and region characteristics. Data were collected from the Health Care Cost Institute's national multipayer commercial claims data set, which encompasses claims paid by 3 of the 5 largest commercial health insurers in the United States (ie, Aetna, Humana, and UnitedHealthcare). Data analyses were conducted from February 2018 to February 2019. Exposures: Hospital type at which cancer surgery was performed: NCI, non-NCI academic, or community. Main Outcomes and Measures: Spending outcomes were surgery-specific insurer prices paid and 90-day postdischarge payments. Utilization outcomes were length of stay (LOS), emergency department (ED) use, and hospital readmission within 90 days of discharge. Results: The study included 66 878 patients (51 569 [77.1%] women; 31 585 [47.2%] aged ≥65 years) with incident breast (35 788 [53.5%]), colon (21 378 [32.0%]), or lung (9712 [14.5%]) cancer undergoing cancer surgery at 2995 hospitals (5522 [8.3%] at NCI centers; 10 917 [16.3%] at non-NCI academic hospitals; 50 439 [75.4%] at community hospitals). Treatment at NCI centers was associated with higher surgery-specific insurer prices paid compared with community hospitals ($18 526 [95% CI, $16 650-$20 403] vs $14 772 [95% CI, $14 339-$15 204]; difference, $3755 [95% CI, $1661-$5849]; P < .001) and 90-day postdischarge payments ($47 035 [95% CI, $43 289-$50 781] vs $41 291 [95% CI, $40 350-$42 231]; difference, $5744 [95% CI, $1659-9829]; P = .006). There were no significant differences in LOS, ED use, or hospital readmission within 90 days of discharge. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, surgery at NCI centers vs community hospitals was associated with higher insurer spending for a surgical episode without differences in care utilization among patients with private insurance undergoing cancer surgery. A better understanding of the factors associated with prices and spending at NCI cancer centers is needed.

An increase in multi-site practices: The shifting paradigm for gynecologic cancer care delivery.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the number of practice sites per gynecologic oncologist (GO) and geographic access to GOs has changed over time. METHODS: This is a retrospective repeated cross-sectional study using the 2015-2019 Physician Compare National File. All GOs in the 50 United States and Washington, DC, who had completed at least one year of practice were included in the study. All practice sites with complete addresses were included. Linear regression analyses estimated trends in GOs' number of practice sites and geographic dispersion of practice sites. Secondary analyses assessed temporal trends in the number of geographic areas served by at least one GO. RESULTS: Although there was no significant change in the number of GOs from 2015 to 2019 (n = 1328), there was a significant increase in the number of practice sites (881 to 1416, p = 0.03), zip codes (642 to 984, p = 0.03), HSAs (404 to 536, p = 0.04), and HRRs (218 to 230, p = 0.03) containing a GO practice. The mean number of practice sites (1.64 versus 2.13, p < 0.001) and dispersion of practice sites (0.03 versus 0.43 miles, p = 0.049) per GO increased significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Between 2015 and 2019, an increasing number of GOs have multi-site practices, and more geographic regions contain a GO practice. Improvements in geographic access to GOs may represent improved access to care for many women in the US, but its effect on patients, physicians, and geographic disparities is unknown.

Association Between a National Insurer's Pay-for-Performance Program for Oncology and Changes in Prescribing of Evidence-Based Cancer Drugs and Spending.

PURPOSE: Cancer drug prescribing by medical oncologists accounts for the greatest variation in practice and the largest portion of spending on cancer care. We evaluated the association between a national commercial insurer's ongoing pay-for-performance (P4P) program for oncology and changes in the prescribing of evidence-based cancer drugs and spending. METHODS: We conducted an observational difference-in-differences study using administrative claims data covering 6.7% of US adults. We leveraged the geographically staggered, time-varying rollout of the P4P program to simulate a stepped-wedge study design. We included patients age 18 years or older with breast, colon, or lung cancer who were prescribed cancer drug regimens by 1,867 participating oncologists between 2013 and 2017. The exposure was a time-varying dichotomous variable equal to 1 for patients who were prescribed a cancer drug regimen after the P4P program was offered. The primary outcome was whether a patient's drug regimen was a program-endorsed, evidence-based regimen. We also evaluated spending over a 6-month episode period. RESULTS: The P4P program was associated with an increase in evidence-based regimen prescribing from 57.1% of patients in the preintervention period to 62.2% in the intervention period, for a difference of +5.1 percentage point (95% CI, 3.0 percentage points to 7.2 percentage points; P < .001). The P4P program was also associated with a differential $3,339 (95% CI, $1,121 to $5,557; P = .003) increase in cancer drug spending and a differential $253 (95% CI, $100 to $406; P = .001) increase in patient out-of-pocket spending, but no significant changes in total health care spending ($2,772; 95% CI, -$181 to $5,725; P = .07) over the 6-month episode period. CONCLUSION: P4P programs may be effective in increasing evidence-based cancer drug prescribing, but may not yield cost savings.

Association of Utilization Management Policy With Uptake of Hypofractionated Radiotherapy Among Patients With Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

Importance: Breast cancer accounts for the largest portion of cancer-related spending in the United States. Although hypofractionated radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery is a cost-effective and convenient treatment strategy for patients with early-stage breast cancer, less than 40% of eligible women received hypofractionated radiotherapy in 2013. Objective: To assess the association of a large commercial payer's utilization management policy with the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy among women with early-stage breast cancer and its associated cost. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective, adjusted difference-in-differences economic analysis was conducted using administrative claims data from January 1, 2012, to June 1, 2018, of women 18 years or older with early-stage breast cancer who were eligible for hypofractionated radiotherapy according to 2011 guidelines from the American Society for Radiation Oncology and were continuously enrolled in 14 geographically diverse commercial health plans covering 6.9% of US adult women. Women who received mastectomy, brachytherapy, or less than 11 or more than 40 external beam fractions of radiotherapy were excluded. A utilization management policy was used to encourage the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy among women in fully insured and Medicare Advantage (fully insured) plans. Under the new policy, claims for extended-course radiotherapy were not reimbursed for fully insured women who were eligible for hypofractionated radiotherapy. This policy did not apply to women in self-insured or Medicare supplemental insurance (self-insured) plans, allowing these groups to serve as a comparison group. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was use of hypofractionated radiotherapy, and the secondary outcome was the cost of this type of radiotherapy. Results: Of 10 540 eligible women, 3619 (34.3%) were in fully insured plans and thus subject to the policy. There were no meaningful differences between the fully insured and self-insured groups in mean (SD) age at the start of radiotherapy (63.8 [8.6] vs 65.0 [8.9] years), mean (SD) Charlson Comorbidity Index score (3.0 [1.5] vs 3.2 [1.6]), or practice setting (outpatient hospital setting, 2982 of 3619 [82.4%] vs 5600 of 6921 [80.9%]). The policy was associated with an increase in use of hypofractionated radiotherapy among fully insured patients subject to the policy (adjusted percentage point difference-in-difference, 4.2%; 95% CI, 0.0%-8.4%; P = .05) and a nonsignificant decrease in radiotherapy-associated expenditures (-$2275 relative to self-insured patients; P = .09). Spillover analyses revealed a significantly higher uptake of hypofractionated radiotherapy among self-insured patients who were indirectly exposed to the policy (adjusted percentage point difference-in-difference, 8.5%; 95% CI, 3.6%-13.5%; P < .001) compared with those who were not exposed. Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that a payer's utilization management policy was associated with direct and spillover increases in the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy, even after accounting for a long-term secular trend in the uptake of hypofractionated radiotherapy in the control groups. Utilization management may promote evidence-based cancer care.