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.

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.

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.

Association between urology practice use of multiparametric MRI and genomic testing and treatment of men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Biomarkers for prostate cancer, such as multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and tissue-based genomics, are increasingly used for treatment decision-making. Using biomarkers indiscriminately and thus ignoring competing risks of mortality may lead to treatment in some men who derive little clinical benefit. We assessed the relationship between urology practice use of biomarkers and subsequent treatment in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. METHODS: We used a 20% random sample of national Medicare data to perform a retrospective cohort study of men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer diagnosed from 2015 through 2019. Urology practice-level use of biomarkers was characterized based on urology practice propensity to use either biomarker after diagnosis (never, below median, above the median). Noncancer mortality risk within 10 years of diagnosis was calculated for all men. Multilevel models were used to assess the relationship between practice-level biomarker use and treatment by noncancer mortality risk. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2019, 1,764 (65%) urology practices used mpMRI and 897 (33%) used genomic testing for prostate cancer. Compared with urology practices never using each biomarker, those using mpMRI above the median (56% vs. 47%, P = 0.003) and tissue-based genomics below the median (56% vs. 50%, P = 0.03) were more likely to treat men with >75% risk of noncancer mortality. Additionally, compared with urology practices never using either biomarker, use of mpMRI (72% vs. 69%, P = 0.07) or tissue-based genomics (71% vs. 70%, P = 0.65) did not impact treatment in the healthiest group (i.e., those with <25% risk of noncancer mortality). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to practices that do not use each biomarker in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, urology practices using mpMRI, and tissue-based genomics to a lesser extent, are more likely to treat men at very high risk of dying from competing risks of mortality within 10 years of prostate cancer diagnosis.

Banking on Fertility Preservation: Financial Concern for Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Patients Considering Oncofertility Services.

Purpose: Financial concern is a major issue for adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer patients. Furthermore, unaddressed oncofertility challenges (e.g., infertility) are linked to psychological distress and decreased overall quality of life. Little is known about how financial concern in terms of oncofertility (i.e., concern regarding affording fertility preservation [FP] services) impacts AYAs' decision making and experiences. Methods: AYA cancer patients (n = 27) aged 12-25 years whose cancer treatment conferred risk of infertility were recruited through electronic health record query. Participants completed semi-structured interviews, which were recorded, transcribed, and deductively coded for themes related to information needs, knowledge of treatment effects on fertility, and reproductive concerns after cancer. Emergent, inductive themes related to financial concern were identified. The Institutional Review Board at the University of Michigan approved this study (HUM#00157267). Results: Financial concern was a dominant theme across the qualitative data. Emergent themes included (1) varied access to health insurance, (2) presence of parental/guardian support, (3) reliance upon financial aid, (4) negotiating infertility risk, and (5) lack of preparation for long-term costs. AYAs relied heavily upon parents for out-of-pocket and insurance coverage support. Some participants sought financial aid when guided by providers. Several participants indicated that no financial support existed for their circumstance. Conclusions: Financial consequences in terms of oncofertility are a major issue affecting AYA cancer patients. The incidence and gravity of financial concern surrounding affording oncofertility services merits attention in future research (measuring financial resources of AYAs' parental/support networks), clinical practice (strategically addressing short- and long-term costs; tailored psychosocial support), and health care policy (promoting legislation to mandate pre- and post-treatment FP coverage).

Association of Medicare Beneficiary and Hospital Accountable Care Organization Alignment With Surgical Cost Savings.

Importance: Although Medicare accountable care organizations (ACOs) account for half of program expenditures, whether ACOs are associated with surgical spending warrants further study. Objective: To assess whether greater beneficiary-hospital ACO alignment was associated with lower surgical episode costs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was conducted between 2020 and 2022 using US Medicare data from a 20% random sample of beneficiaries. Individuals 18 years of age and older and without kidney failure who had a surgical admission between 2008 and 2015 were included. For each study year, distinction was made between beneficiaries assigned to an ACO and those who were not, as well as between admissions to ACO-participating and nonparticipating hospitals. Exposures: Time-varying binary indicators for beneficiary ACO assignment and hospital ACO participation and an interaction between them. Main Outcomes and Measures: Ninety-day, price-standardized total episode payments. Multivariable 2-way fixed-effects models were estimated. Results: During the study period, 2 797 337 surgical admissions (6% of which involved ACO-assigned beneficiaries) occurred at 3427 hospitals (17% ACO participating). Total Medicare payments for 90-day surgical episodes were lowest when ACO-assigned beneficiaries underwent surgery at a hospital participating in the same ACO as the beneficiary ($26 635 [95% CI, $26 426-$26 844]). The highest payments were for unassigned beneficiaries treated at participating hospitals ($27 373 [95% CI, $27 232-$27 514]) or nonparticipating hospitals ($27 303 [95% CI, $27 291-$27 314]). Assigned beneficiaries treated at hospitals participating in a different ACO and assigned beneficiaries treated at nonparticipating hospitals had similar payments (for participating hospitals, $27 003 [95% CI, $26 739-$27 267] and for nonparticipating hospitals, $26 928 [95% CI, $26 796-$27 059]). A notable factor in the observed differences in surgical episode costs was lower spending on postacute care services. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study evaluating hospital and beneficiary ACO alignment and surgical spending, savings were noted for beneficiaries treated at hospitals in the same ACO. Allowing ACOs to encourage or require surgical procedures in their own hospitals could lower Medicare spending on surgery.

Association Between Organizational Quality and Out-of-Network Primary Care Among Accountable Care Organizations That Care for High vs Low Proportions of Patients of Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups.

Importance: Medicare accountable care organizations (ACOs) that disproportionately care for patients of racial and ethnic minority groups deliver lower quality care than those that do not, potentially owing to differences in out-of-network primary care among them. Objective: To examine how organizational quality is associated with out-of-network primary care among ACOs that care for high vs low proportions of patients of racial and ethnic minority groups. Design Setting and Participants: A retrospective cohort study was conducted between March 2019 and October 2021 using claims data (2013 to 2016) from a national sample of Medicare beneficiaries. Among beneficiaries who were assigned to 1 of 528 Medicare ACOs, a distinction was made between those treated by organizations that cared for high (vs low) proportions of patients of racial and ethnic minority groups. For each ACO, the amount of out-of-network primary care that it delivered annually was determined. Multivariable models were fit to evaluate how the quality of care that beneficiaries received varied by the proportion of care provided to patients of racial and ethnic minority groups by the ACO and its amount of out-of-network primary care. Exposures: The degree of care provided to patients of racial and ethnic minority groups by the ACO and its amount of out-of-network primary care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The ACO quality assessed with 5 preventive care services and 4 utilization metrics. Results: Among 3 955 951 beneficiary-years (2 320 429 [58.7%] women; 71 218 [1.8%] Asian, 267 684 [6.8%] Black, 44 059 [1.1%] Hispanic, 4922 [0.1%] North American Native, and 3 468 987 [87.7%] White individuals and 56 157 [1.4%] of Other race and ethnicity), those assigned to ACOs serving many patients of racial and ethnic minority groups at the mean level of out-of-network primary care were less likely than those assigned to ACOs serving fewer patients of racial and ethnic minority groups to receive diabetic retinal examinations (predicted probability, 49.4% [95%CI, 49.0%-49.7%] vs 51.6% [95% CI, 51.5%-51.8%]), glycated hemoglobin testing (predicted probability, 58.5% [95% CI, 58.2%-58.5%] vs 60.4% [95% CI, 60.3%-60.6%]), or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol testing (predicted probability, 85.2% [95% CI, 85.0%-85.5%] vs 86.0% [95% CI, 85.9%-86.1%]). They were also more likely to experience all-cause 30-day readmissions (predicted probability, 16.4% [95% CI, 16.1%-16.7%] vs 15.7% [95% CI, 15.6%-15.8%]). However, as the level of out-of-network primary care decreased, these gaps closed substantially, such that beneficiaries at ACOs that served many and fewer patients of racial and ethnic minority groups in the lowest percentile of out-of-network primary care received care of comparable quality. Conclusions and Relevance: This large cohort study found that quality performance among ACOs serving many patients of racial and ethnic minority groups was negatively associated with their level of out-of-network primary care.

Promotional Payments to Medical Oncologists and Urologists and Prescriptions for Abiraterone and Enzalutamide.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the influence of drug manufacturers on the prescribing patterns of medical oncologists and urologists, we examined the relationship between promotional payments from the manufacturers of abiraterone and enzalutamide and prescriptions for either drug by medical oncologists and urologists. METHODS: Promotional payments for abiraterone or enzalutamide made to medical oncologists and urologists between January 2014 and December 2017 reported through the Open Payments Program were categorized as $0, $1$999, and $1000 or more. Prescriptions filled between January 2013 and December 2017 were identified in the Medicare Part D File. Associations between promotional payments and prescribing were assessed using generalized linear models. RESULTS: From 2013 through 2017, the number of medical oncologists and urologists prescribing abiraterone or enzalutamide increased by 38% - 298%, respectively. The odds of prescribing among medical oncologists receiving $1--$999 and those receiving $1,000 or more were 1.69 (95%CI:1.59--1.79) and 2.61 (95% CI: 2.14--3.18) times that of medical oncologists receiving no payments. Among urologists receiving $1--$999 and those receiving $1,000 or more, the odds of prescribing were 4.04 (95%CI: 3.59--4.54) and 13.57 (95%CI: 9.69--19.0) times that of urologists receiving no payments. CONCLUSION: Increasing promotional payments were associated with prescribing among medical oncologists and urologists, with a stronger relationship evident for urologists. Prescribing patterns for abiraterone and enzalutamide, particularly among urologists, may be influenced by payments from drug manufacturers.

Intensity of end-of-life care for dual-eligible beneficiaries with cancer and the impact of delivery system affiliation.

BACKGROUND: Dual-eligible beneficiaries, who qualify for Medicare and Medicaid, are a vulnerable population with much to gain from efforts to improve quality. Integrated delivery networks and cancer centers, with their emphasis on care coordination and communication, may improve quality of care for dual-eligible patients with cancer at the end of life. METHODS: This study used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry data linked with Medicare claims to evaluate quality for beneficiaries who died of cancer and were diagnosed from 2009 to 2014. High-intensity care was evaluated with 7 end-of-life quality measures according to dual-eligible status with multivariable logistic regression models. Regression-based techniques were used to assess the effect of delivery system affiliation (ie, cancer center or integrated delivery network vs no affiliation). RESULTS: Among 100,549 beneficiaries who died during the study interval, 22% were dually eligible. Inferior outcomes were identified for dual-eligible beneficiaries in comparison with nondual beneficiaries across nearly every quality measure assessed, including >1 hospitalization in the last 30 days (12.6% vs 11.3%; P < .001) and a greater proportion of deaths occurring in a hospital setting (30.2% vs 26.2%; P < .001). Receipt of care in an affiliated delivery system was associated with reduced deaths in a hospital setting and increased hospice utilization for dual-eligible beneficiaries. CONCLUSIONS: Dual-eligible status is associated with higher intensity care at the end of life. Delivery system affiliation has a modest impact on quality at the end of life, and this suggests that targeted efforts may be needed to optimize quality for this group of vulnerable patients.

Adherence and out-of-pocket costs among Medicare beneficiaries who are prescribed oral targeted therapies for advanced prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone and enzalutamide are high-cost oral therapies that increasingly are used to treat patients with advanced prostate cancer; these agents carry the potential for significant financial consequences to patients. In the current study, the authors investigated coping and material measures of the financial hardship of these therapies among patients with Medicare Part D coverage. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective cohort study on a 20% sample of Medicare Part D enrollees who underwent treatment with abiraterone or enzalutamide between July 2013 and June 2015. The authors described the variability in adherence rates and out-of-pocket payments among hospital referral regions in the first 6 months of therapy and determined whether adherence and out-of-pocket payments were associated with patient factors and the socioeconomic characteristics of where a patient was treated. RESULTS: There were 4153 patients who filled abiraterone or enzalutamide prescriptions through Medicare Part D in 228 hospital referral regions. The mean adherence rate was 75%. The median monthly out-of-pocket payment for abiraterone and enzalutamide was $706 (range, $0-$3505). After multilevel, multivariable adjustment for patient and regional factors, adherence was found to be lower in patients who were older (69% for patients aged ≥85 years vs 76% for patients aged <70 years; P < .01) and in those with low-income subsidies (69% in those with a subsidy vs 76% in those without a subsidy; P < .01). Both Hispanic ethnicity and living in a hospital referral region with a higher percentage of Hispanic beneficiaries were found to be independently associated with higher out-of-pocket payments for abiraterone and enzalutamide. CONCLUSIONS: There were substantial variations in the adherence rate and out-of-pocket payments among Medicare Part D beneficiaries who were prescribed abiraterone and enzalutamide. Sociodemographic patient and regional factors were found to be associated with both adherence and out-of-pocket payments.

Association Between Delivery System Structure and Intensity of End-of-Life Cancer Care.

PURPOSE: To determine whether the type of delivery system is associated with intensity of care at the end of life for Medicare beneficiaries with cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used SEER registry data linked with Medicare claims to evaluate intensity of end-of-life care for patients who died of one of ten common cancers diagnosed from 2009 through 2014. Patients were categorized as receiving the majority of their care in an integrated delivery system, designated cancer center, health system that was both integrated and a certified cancer center, or health system that was neither. We evaluated adherence to seven nationally endorsed end-of-life quality measures using generalized linear models across four delivery system types. RESULTS: Among 100,549 beneficiaries who died of cancer during the study interval, we identified only modest differences in intensity of end-of-life care across delivery system structures. Health systems with no cancer center or integrated affiliation demonstrated higher proportions of patients with multiple hospitalizations in the last 30 days of life (11.3%), death in an acute care setting (25.9%), and lack of hospice use in the last year of life (31.6%; all P < .001). Patients enrolled in hospice had lower intensity care across multiple end-of-life quality measures. CONCLUSION: Intensity of care at the end of life for patients with cancer was higher at delivery systems with no integration or cancer focus. Maximal supportive care delivered through hospice may be one avenue to reduce high-intensity care at the end of life and may impact quality of care for patients dying from cancer.

Active Surveillance vs Immediate Treatment-Which Has a Greater Financial Incentive for Urologists?

INTRODUCTION: We compared cumulative reimbursement to urologists following implementation of surveillance vs immediate treatment. Active surveillance for prostate cancer is widely considered beneficial and cost-effective for low risk patients, although many still receive immediate therapy. It is unknown whether reduced reimbursement may be a barrier to urologists recommending surveillance. METHODS: We used Medicare claims and a validated natural history model for low risk prostate cancer to simulate annual reimbursements associated with active surveillance and immediate treatments, including surgery and radiation therapy. The model accounts for misclassification due to biopsy under sampling, grade progression and discontinuation of surveillance due to patient preferences. RESULTS: Active surveillance provided approximately $907 to $2,041 less in the net present value of expected cumulative reimbursements for urologists over 10 years ($1,711.80 to $2,740.40 less over 5 years) compared to initial treatment. Sensitivity analysis showed that use of magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion based biopsy and frequency of biopsies and clinic visits under surveillance are major sources of uncertainty regarding reimbursement. CONCLUSIONS: Urologists have little financial incentive to implement active surveillance. New payment models may be needed to bring financial incentives in line with the recommended treatment for patients with low risk prostate cancer.

Understanding the Costs Associated With Surgical Care Delivery in the Medicare Population.

BACKGROUND: Surgical care has been largely untargeted by Medicare payment reforms because episode costs associated with its delivery are not currently well understood. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the costs of inpatient and outpatient surgery in the Medicare population. METHODS: We analyzed claims data from a 20% national sample of Medicare beneficiaries (2008-2014). For a given study year, we identified all inpatient and outpatient procedures and constructed claims windows around them to define surgical episodes. After summing payments for services rendered during each episode, we totaled all inpatient and outpatient episode payments by surgical specialty. For inpatient episodes, we determined component payments related to the index hospitalization, readmissions, physician services, and postacute care. For outpatient episodes, we differentiated by the site of care (hospital outpatient department versus physician office versus ambulatory surgery center). We used linear regression to evaluate temporal trends in inpatient and outpatient surgical spending. Finally, we estimated the contribution of surgical care to overall Medicare expenditures. RESULTS: Total Medicare payments for surgical care are substantial, representing 51% of Program spending in 2014. They declined modestly over the study period, from $133.1 billion in 2008 to $124.9 billion in 2014 (-6.2%, P = 0.085 for the temporal trend). While spending on inpatient surgery contributed the most to total surgical payments (69.4% in 2014), it declined over the study period, driven by decreases in index hospitalization (-16.7%, P = 0.002) and readmissions payments (-27.0%, P = 0.003). In contrast, spending on outpatient surgery increased by $8.5 billion (28.7%, P < 0.001). This increase was realized across all sites of care (hospital outpatient department: 36.6%, P < 0.001; physician office: 22.1%, P < 0.001; ambulatory surgery center: 36.6%, P < 0.001). Ophthalmology and hand surgery witnessed the greatest growth in surgical spending over the study period. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Surgical care accounts for half of all Medicare spending. Our findings not only highlight the magnitude of spending on surgery, but also the areas of greatest growth, which could be targeted by future payment reforms.

Urologist Practice Structure and Spending for Prostate Cancer Care.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of urologist practice structure on health care spending for men with prostate cancer. We hypothesize that 3 elements of urologist practice structure may influence spending for prostate cancer care: urologist participation within a multispecialty group (MSG), practice size among single specialty urology groups, and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) ownership. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a 20% sample of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries to identify men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2011 and 2014. We identified each man's urologist and used data from the Healthcare Relational Spheres provider files to identify practice type, size, and IMRT ownership for each urologist. We then fit generalized linear mixed models to estimate the association between these practice features and Medicare payments in the year after diagnosis. All models were adjusted for patient and healthcare market characteristics. RESULTS: We identified 35,929 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer who were treated by 6381 urologists. Medicare payments for men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer were significantly lower in MSGs ($19,181 v. $22,366 large single specialty group, P < 0.001) and significantly higher among practices with IMRT ownership ($23,801 v. $20,162 for non-owners, P < 0.001). These differences persisted in sensitivity analyses including only men treated with radiotherapy and examining only prostate cancer-related claims. CONCLUSION: Urologist practice structure is associated with payments for prostate cancer care. MSGs had the lowest Medicare payments per episode of prostate cancer care while groups with IMRT ownership had the highest.

Variation in Physician-Specific Episode Payments for Major Cancer Surgery and Implications for the Merit-Based Incentive Program.

BACKGROUND: Nearly 1.5 million clinicians in the United States will be affected by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) new payment program, the Merit-based Incentive Program (MIPS), where clinicians will be penalized or rewarded based on the health care expenditures of their patients. We therefore examined expenditures for major cancer surgery to understand physician-specific variation in episode payments. METHODS: We used Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare data to identify patients aged 66-99 y who underwent a prostatectomy, nephrectomy, lung, or colorectal resection for cancer from 2008 to 2012. We calculated 90-d episode payments, attributed each episode to a physician, and evaluated physician-level payment variation. Next, we determined which component (index admission, readmission, physician services, postacute care, hospice) drove differences in payments. Finally, we evaluated payments by geographic region, number of comorbidities, and cancer stage. RESULTS: We identified 39,109 patients who underwent surgery by 1 of 7182 providers. There was wide variation in payments for each procedure (prostatectomy: $7046-$40,687; nephrectomy: $8855-$82,489; lung resection: $11,167-$223,467; colorectal resection: $9711-$199,480). The largest component difference in episode payments varied by condition: physician payments for prostatectomy (29%), postacute care for nephrectomy (38%) and colorectal resections (38%), and index hospital admission for lung resections (43%) but were fairly stable across region, comorbidity number, and cancer stage. CONCLUSIONS: For patients undergoing major cancer surgery, 90-d episode payments vary widely across surgeons. The components driving such variation differ by condition but remain stable across region, number of comorbidities, and cancer stage. These data suggest that programs to reduce specific component payments may have advantages over those targeting individual physicians for decreasing health care expenditures.

Association Between Hospital Participation in Medicare Shared Savings Program Accountable Care Organizations and Readmission Following Major Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of Medicare Shared Savings Program accountable care organizations (ACOs) on hospital readmission after common surgical procedures. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Hospital readmissions following surgery lead to worse patient outcomes and wasteful spending. ACOs, and their associated hospitals, have strong incentives to reduce readmissions from 2 distinct Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services policies. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using a 20% national Medicare sample to identify beneficiaries undergoing 1 of 7 common surgical procedures-abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, colectomy, cystectomy, prostatectomy, lung resection, total knee arthroplasty, and total hip arthroplasty-between 2010 and 2014. The primary outcome was 30-day risk-adjusted readmission rate. We performed difference-in-differences analyses using multilevel logistic regression models to quantify the effect of hospital ACO affiliation on readmissions following these procedures. RESULTS: Patients underwent a procedure at one of 2974 hospitals, of which 389 were ACO affiliated. The 30-day risk-adjusted readmission rate decreased from 8.4% (95% CI, 8.1-8.7%) to 7.0% (95% CI, 6.7-7.3%) for ACO affiliated hospitals (P < 0.001) and from 7.9% (95% CI, 7.8-8.0%) to 7.1% (95% CI, 6.9-7.2%) for non-ACO hospitals (P < 0.001). The difference-in-differences of the 2 trends demonstrated an additional 0.52% (95% CI, 0.97-0.078%) absolute reduction in readmissions at ACO hospitals (P = 0.021), which would translate to 4410 hospitalizations avoided. CONCLUSION: Readmissions following common procedures decreased significantly from 2010 to 2014. Hospital affiliation with Shared Savings ACOs was associated with significant additional reductions in readmissions. This emphasis on readmission reduction is 1 mechanism through which ACOs improve value in a surgical population.

The Stability of Physician-Specific Episode Costs for Urologic Cancer Surgery: Implications for Urologists Under the Merit-Based Incentive Program.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the stability of physician-specific episode payments for prostatectomy, nephrectomy, and cystectomy in the context of value-based purchasing programs, such as the merit-based incentive payment system. METHODS: We utilized Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare data to identify patients aged 66-99 who underwent a prostatectomy, nephrectomy, or cystectomy from 2008 to 2012. We calculated each surgeon's average 90-day episode payment by procedure. Next, we examined payment differences between the most and least expensive quartile providers. For the most expensive quartile of physicians in 2010, we examined their spending quartile in 2011. Finally, we evaluated the correlation in spending over time and across procedures. RESULTS: We identified 14,585 patients who underwent surgery by one of 1895 unique clinicians. Differences in payments between the highest and lowest quartiles were $5881, $17,714, and $40,288 for prostatectomy, nephrectomy, and cystectomy, respectively. Only 39%, 16%, and 13% of physicians that were in the highest spending quartile for prostatectomy, nephrectomy, and cystectomy in 2010 were also in the most expensive quartile in 2011. Although we observed weak correlation in year-to-year spending for prostatectomy (0.108, P = .033 to .270, P < .001), annual payments for nephrectomy and cystectomy were not significantly correlated. Finally, there was minimal correlation in surgeon spending across procedures. CONCLUSION: There is wide variation in physician-specific episode payments for prostatectomy, nephrectomy, and cystectomy. However, physician spending patterns are not stable over time or across procedures, raising concerns about the ability of the cost-based measures in merit-based incentive payment system to change physician behavior and reliably distinguish those providing less efficient or lower quality care.

Impact of Accountable Care Organizations on Diagnostic Testing for Prostate Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) have the potential to accelerate the impact of prostate cancer screening recommendations. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using Medicare data evaluating the rates of PSA testing and prostate biopsy among men without prostate cancer between 2011 and 2014. We assessed PSA testing and biopsy rates before and after policy implementation among patients of ACO and non-ACO-aligned physicians. To control for secular trends, difference-in-differences methods were used to determine the effects of ACO implementation. RESULTS: We identified 1.1 million eligible men without prostate cancer. From 2011 to 2014, the rates of PSA testing and biopsy declined by 22.3% and 7.0%, respectively. PSA testing declined similarly regardless of ACO participation-from 618 to 530 tests per 1000 beneficiaries among ACO-aligned physicians and from 607 to 516 tests per 1000 beneficiaries among non-ACO-aligned physicians (difference-in-differences P = .11). Whereas rates of prostate biopsy remained constant for patients of non-ACO-aligned physicians at 12 biopsies per 1000 beneficiaries, these rates increased from 11.6 to 12.5 biopsies per 1000 beneficiaries of patients of ACO-aligned physicians (difference-in-differences P = .03). CONCLUSION: PSA testing and prostate biopsy rates decreased significantly between 2011 and 2014. The rate of PSA testing was not differentially affected by ACO participation. Conversely, there was an increase in the rate of prostate biopsy among patients of ACO-aligned physicians. ACOs did not accelerate deimplementation of PSA testing for eligible Medicare beneficiaries without prostate cancer.