Trends in hospital-physician integration in medical oncology.

OBJECTIVES: Hospitals have rapidly acquired medical oncology practices in recent years. Experts disagree as to whether these trends are related to oncology-specific market factors or reflect a general trend of hospital-physician integration. The objective of this study was to compare the prevalence, geographic variation, and trends in physicians billing from hospital outpatient departments in medical oncology with other specialties. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of Medicare claims data for 2012 and 2013. METHODS: We calculated the proportion of physicians and practitioners in the 15 highest-volume specialties who billed the majority of evaluation and management visits from hospital outpatient departments in each year, nationally and by state. RESULTS: We included 338,998 and 352,321 providers in 2012 and 2013, respectively, of whom 9715 and 9969 were medical oncologists. Among the 15 specialties examined, medical oncology had the highest proportion of hospital outpatient department billing in 2012 and 2013 (35.0% and 38.3%, respectively). Medical oncology also experienced the greatest absolute change (3.3%) between the years, followed by thoracic surgery (2.4%) and cardiology (2.0%). There was marked state-level variation, with the proportion of medical oncologists based in hospital outpatient departments ranging from 0% in Nevada to 100% in Idaho. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital-physician integration has been more pronounced in medical oncology than in other high-volume specialties and is increasing at a faster rate. Policy makers should take these findings into consideration, particularly with respect to recent proposals that may continue to fuel these trends.

Patterns of care for clinically distinct segments of high cost Medicare beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to improve the efficiency of care for the Medicare population commonly target high cost beneficiaries. We describe and evaluate a novel management approach, population segmentation, for identifying and managing high cost beneficiaries. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional analysis of 6,919,439 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in 2012. We defined and characterized eight distinct clinical population segments, and assessed heterogeneity in managing practitioners. RESULTS: The eight segments comprised 9.8% of the population and 47.6% of annual Medicare payments. The eight segments included 61% and 69% of the population in the top decile and top 5% of annual Medicare payments. The positive-predictive values within each segment for meeting thresholds of Medicare payments ranged from 72% to 100%, 30% to 83%, and 14% to 56% for the upper quartile, upper decile, and upper 5% of Medicare payments respectively. Sensitivity and positive-predictive values were substantially improved over predictive algorithms based on historical utilization patterns and comorbidities. The mean [95% confidence interval] number of unique practitioners and practices delivering E&M services ranged from 1.82 [1.79-1.84] to 6.94 [6.91-6.98] and 1.48 [1.46-1.50] to 4.98 [4.95-5.00] respectively. The percentage of cognitive services delivered by primary care practitioners ranged from 23.8% to 67.9% across segments, with significant variability among specialty types. CONCLUSIONS: Most high cost Medicare beneficiaries can be identified based on a single clinical reason and are managed by different practitioners. IMPLICATIONS: Population segmentation holds potential to improve efficiency in the Medicare population by identifying opportunities to improve care for specific populations and managing clinicians, and forecasting and evaluating the impact of specific interventions.

Association of Practice-Level Hospital Use With End-of-Life Outcomes, Readmission, and Weekend Hospitalization Among Medicare Beneficiaries With Cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine the relationships between hospital use of treating oncology practices and patient outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 397,646 Medicare beneficiaries who received anticancer therapy in 2012. Each beneficiary was associated with a practice; practices were ranked on the basis of risk-adjusted hospital use, that is, inpatient intensity. Outcomes included 30-day readmission, weekend admissions, intensive care unit stays in the last month of life, and hospice stay of ≥ 7 days. Outcomes were measured for each quartile of practice-level inpatient intensity. We fit multivariable logistic regression models to calculate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for each outcome for each quartile of inpatient intensity. RESULTS: Total 30-day readmissions were 22.8% and 31.9% (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.39 to 1.50) for patients in practices with the lowest versus highest quartiles of inpatient intensity, respectively; unplanned readmissions were 19.8% and 27.1% (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.31 to 1.41), respectively. The proportion of admissions that occurred on weekends was similar across quartiles. Patients of practices in the highest quartiles of inpatient intensity had higher rates of death in an ICU stay in the last month of life (25.5% versus 18.0%; OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.19 to 1.49) and a lower rate of hospice stay of at least 7 days (50.9% to 42.5%; OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.86). CONCLUSION: Medical oncology practices that seek to reduce hospitalizations should consider focusing initially on processes related to end-of-life care and care transitions.

Variation in Specialty Outpatient Care Patterns in the Medicare Population.

BACKGROUND: Multiple payment reform efforts are under way to improve the value of care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries, yet few directly address the interface between primary and specialty care. OBJECTIVE: To describe regional variation in outpatient visits for individual specialties and the association between specialty physician-specific payments and patient-reported satisfaction with care and health status. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. PATIENTS: A 20 % random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in 2012. MAIN MEASURES: Regions were grouped into quartiles of specialist index, defined as the observed/expected regional likelihood of having an outpatient visit to a specialist, for ten common specialties, adjusting for age, sex, and race. Outcomes were per capita specialty-specific physician payments and Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey responses. KEY RESULTS: The proportion of beneficiaries seeing a specialist varied the most for endocrinology and gastroenterology (3.7- and 3.9-fold difference between the highest and lowest quartiles, respectively) and least for orthopedics and urology (1.5- and 1.7-fold difference, respectively). Multiple analyses suggested that this variation was not explained by prevalence of disease. Average specialty-specific payments were strongly associated with the likelihood of visiting a specialist. Differences in per capita payments from lowest (Q1) to highest quartiles (Q4) were greatest for cardiology ($89, $135, $172, $251) and dermatology ($46, $64, $82, $124). Satisfaction with overall care (median [interquartile range] across specialties: Q1, 93.3 % [92.6-93.7 %]; Q4, 93.1 % [92.9-93.2 %]) and self-reported health status (Q1, 37.1 % [36.9-37.7 %]; Q4, 38.2 % [37.2-38.4 %]) was similar across quartiles. Satisfaction with access to specialty care was consistently lower in the lowest quartile of specialty index (Q1, 89.7 % [89.2-91.1 %]; Q4, 94.5 % [94.4-94.8 %]). CONCLUSIONS: Substantial regional variability in outpatient specialist visits is associated with greater payments with limited benefits in terms of patient-reported satisfaction with care or reported health status. Reducing outpatient physician visits may represent an important opportunity to improve the efficiency of care.

Practice-Level Variation in Outpatient Cardiac Care and Association With Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Utilization of cardiac services varies across regions and hospitals, yet little is known regarding variation in the intensity of outpatient cardiac care across cardiology physician practices or the association with clinical endpoints, an area of potential importance to promote efficient care. METHODS AND RESULTS: We included 7 160 732 Medicare beneficiaries who received services from 5635 cardiology practices in 2012. Beneficiaries were assigned to practices providing the plurality of office visits, and practices were ranked and assigned to quartiles using the ratio of observed to predicted annual payments per beneficiary for common cardiac services (outpatient intensity index). The median (interquartile range) outpatient intensity index was 1.00 (0.81-1.24). Mean payments for beneficiaries attributed to practices in the highest (Q4) and lowest (Q1) quartile of outpatient intensity were: all cardiac payments (Q4 $1272 vs Q1 $581; ratio, 2.2); cardiac catheterization (Q4 $215 vs Q1 $64; ratio, 3.4); myocardial perfusion imaging (Q4 $253 vs Q1 $83; ratio, 3.0); and electrophysiology device procedures (Q4 $353 vs Q1 $142; ratio, 2.5). The adjusted odds ratios (95% CI) for 1 incremental quartile of outpatient intensity for each outcome was: cardiac surgical/procedural hospitalization (1.09 [1.09, 1.10]); cardiac medical hospitalization (1.00 [0.99, 1.00]); noncardiac hospitalization (0.99 [0.99, 0.99]); and death at 1 year (1.00 [0.99, 1.00]). CONCLUSION: Substantial variation in the intensity of outpatient care exists at the cardiology practice level, and higher intensity is not associated with reduced mortality or hospitalizations. Outpatient cardiac care is a potentially important target for efforts to improve efficiency in the Medicare population.

Wide variation in payments for Medicare beneficiary oncology services suggests room for practice-level improvement.

In recent years many policy makers have recommended alternative payment models in medical oncology in order to reduce costs and improve patient outcomes. Yet information on how oncology practices differ in their use of key service categories is limited. We measured annual payments for key service categories delivered to fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries receiving care from 1,534 medical oncology practices in 2011-12. In 2012, differences in payments per beneficiary at the seventy-fifth-percentile practice compared to the twenty-fifth-percentile practice were $3,866 for chemotherapy (including administration and supportive care drugs), $1,872 for acute medical hospitalizations, and $439 for advanced imaging. Supportive care drugs, bevacizumab, and positron-emission tomography accounted for the greatest percentage of variation. Average practice payments for service categories were highly correlated across years but not correlated with each other, which suggests that service categories may be affected by different physician practice characteristics. These differences, even when clinical guidelines exist, demonstrate the potential for quality improvement that could be accelerated through alternative payment models.