An assessment of the association between patient characteristics and timely lung cancer treatment.

PURPOSE: Prior data have demonstrated relationships between patient characteristics, the use of surgery to treat lung cancer, and the timeliness of treatment. Our study examines whether these relationships were observable in 2019 in patients with Medicare Advantage health plans being treated for lung cancer. METHODS: Claims data pertaining to patients with Medicare Advantage health plans who had received radiation therapy (RT) or surgery to treat lung cancer within 90 days of diagnostic imaging were extracted. Other databases were used to determine patients' demographics, comorbidities, the urbanicity of their ZIP code, the median income of their ZIP code, and whether their treatment was ordered by a physician at a hospital. Multivariable logistic and Cox Proportional Hazards models were used to assess the association between patient characteristics, receipt of surgery, and time to non-systemic treatment (surgery or RT), respectively. RESULTS: A total of 2,682 patients were included in the analysis. In an adjusted analysis, patients were significantly less likely to receive surgery if their first ordering physician was based in a hospital, if they were older, if they had a history of congestive heart failure (CHF), if they had a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or if they had stage III lung cancer. Likewise, having stage III cancer was associated with significantly shorter time to treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Within a Medicare Advantage population, patient demographics were found to be significantly associated with the decision to pursue surgery, but factors other than stage were not significantly associated with time to non-systemic treatment.

An assessment of the association between patient race and prior authorization program determinations in the context of radiation therapy.

BACKGROUND: When a physician determines that a patient needs radiation therapy (RT), they submit an RT order to a prior authorization program which assesses guideline-concordance. A rule-based clinical decision support system (CDSS) evaluates whether the order is appropriate or potentially non-indicated. If potentially non-indicated, a board-certified oncologist discusses the order with the ordering physician. After discussion, the order is authorized, modified, withdrawn, or recommended for denial. Although patient race is not captured during ordering, bias prior to and during ordering, or during the discussion, may influence outcomes. This study evaluated if associations existed between race and order determinations by the CDSS and by the overall prior authorization program. METHODS: RT orders placed in 2019, pertaining to patients with Medicare Advantage health plans from one national organization, were analyzed. The association between race and prior authorization outcomes was examined for RT orders for all cancers, and then separately for breast, lung, and prostate cancers. Analyses controlled for the patient's age, urbanicity, and the median income in the patient's ZIP code. Adjusted analyses were conducted on unmatched and racially-matched samples. RESULTS: Of the 10,145 patients included in the sample, 8,061 (79.5%) were White and 2,084 (20.5%) were Black. Race was not found to have a significant association with CDSS or prior authorization outcomes in any of the analyses. CONCLUSIONS: CDSS and prior authorization outcomes suggested similar rates of clinical appropriateness of orders for patients, regardless of race. IMPLICATIONS: Prior authorization utilizing rule-based CDSS was capable of enforcing guidelines without introducing racial bias.

Presentation at computed tomography (CT) scan of the thorax and first year diagnostic and treatment utilization among patients diagnosed with lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: As Medicare expands the use of computed tomography (CT) for diagnosing lung cancer, there is increased opportunity to diagnose lung cancer in asymptomatic patients. This descriptive study characterizes the disease-specific diagnostic and treatment services that patients with a positive diagnosis following CT received, stratified by presentation at CT. METHODS: Patients who were diagnosed with lung cancer following CT in 2013, had no history of lung cancer, survived at least 1 year, were aged 55-80 years, and had Medicare Advantage insurance were included. Patients were grouped based upon presentation at CT: morbidities unrelated to lung cancer, classic lung cancer symptoms, and cancer syndromes. Patients with none of these factors were categorized into a no diagnoses/symptoms group. The type and intensity of services used in the year following the CT was reported for each group. RESULTS: 1,261 patients were included. Early treatment services were most common in the group with morbidities unrelated to lung cancer (13.7%) and least common in the cancer syndromes group (6.6%). Advanced treatment services were used by 47.3% of the cancer syndromes group versus 23.5% of the no diagnoses/symptoms group. CONCLUSIONS: The intensity of disease-specific diagnostic and treatment services varied by presentation at CT. Patients with no symptoms or morbidities at the time of CT less frequently received advanced interventions. Learning about the utilization patterns of others with a similar presentation at CT may help patients with positive lung cancer diagnoses engage in shared decision making and in norming their experiences against those of other similarly-situated patients.

Do Case Rates Affect Physicians' Clinical Practice in Radiation Oncology?: An Observational Study.

Case rate payments combined with utilization monitoring may have the potential to improve the quality of care by reducing over and under-treatment. Thus, a national managed care organization introduced case rate payments at one multi-site radiation oncology provider while maintaining only fee-for-service payments at others. This study examined whether the introduction of the payment method had an effect on radiation fractions administered when compared to clinical guidelines. The number of fractions of radiation therapy delivered to patients with bone metastases, breast, lung, prostate, and skin cancer was assessed for concordance with clinical guidelines. The proportion of guideline-based care ascertained from the payer's claims database was compared before (2011) and after (2013) the payment method introduction using relative risks (RR). After the introduction of case rates, there were no significant changes in guideline-based care in breast, lung, and skin cancer; however, patients with bone metastases and prostate cancer were significantly more likely to have received guideline-based care (RR = 2.0 and 1.1, respectively, p<0.05). For the aggregate of all cancers, the under-treatment rate significantly declined (p = 0.008) from 4% to 0% after the introduction of case rate payments, while the over-treatment rate remained steady at 9%, with no significant change (p = 0.20). These findings suggest that the introduction of case rate payments did not adversely affect the rate of guideline-based care at the provider examined. Additional research is needed to isolate the effect of the payment model and assess implications in other populations.